Talk:Jockey

Compensation
How are jockeys paid? What do they get for winning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.244.173 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 May 2007

Why jockey is only one meening of this word in wikipedia? There are DJ, disc jockey too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.214.209 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 September 2007

Compensation. There are different forms of payment for jockeys, though recompense is probably a better description than compensation which usually refers to payment they get when injured. In a formal sense, a race riding fee is paid to the racing club at the same time a trainer pays a horse's starting fee, and the jockey collects the riding fee plus a percentage of any winning stake when they are finished riding for the day. Apprentice jockeys usually have these fees paid into a trust account administered by the club. Less formally, jockeys may be paid for riding trackwork, while apprentices do this for their master as part of their job. Trainers or owners may also give extra payment to jockeys or apprentices in the form of gifts in return for riding in races, in trackwork, or in assisting in training in different ways. Such gifts are called slings, and the most commonly spoken of are the gifts given for winning a race. What a jockey is going to get as a winning ride is often offered as an inducement when the connections discuss the race prospects prior to mounting up. The amounts involved in these gifts depends on the experience and standing of the jockey, as well as the generosity or tight-fistedness of the connections. A senior jockey offered the odds to a grand is supposed to have countered, "I'd ride a lot better for the odds to five." The amounts expected by winning riders can be considerable, and one trainer commented that the big advantage of robot jockeys is that you don't have to sling to them. ['Connections' include anyone with links to a particular horse from a particular stable. Popularly it refers to owners and their trainers, but can include all sorts of associates and punters and workers in the racing hierarchy. The term especially means people 'in the know' about a horse's prospects. Being offered 'the odds', is where a a promise is made to bet an amount for someone at the odds on offer by bookmakers.] R Game (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Somebody made Racing silks, which relates to jockeys. I can't see it going anywhere more than a stub, perhaps a merge is in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 October 2007
 * Done. --Kgaughan (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this merger – racing silks is a different subject to jockey and has the potential to make an interesting article. -- Zafonic (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Zafonic. The merge had been on the cards for over a year. The earlier, and slightly dubious, edit by R Game notwithstanding (which they'd also made to the Jockey article itself), it was a stub that hadn't been edited for quite some time. It may have the potential to be an interesting article, but right now, I think it's best as a section of the Jockey article that can be split out when it's fleshed out some more. When that's done, I'd support it being split out. --Kgaughan (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zafonic and Kgaughan -- I came into discussion of these topics without much thought to the form contributions might take over time. Do you have any further ideas about this? R Game (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing info
Two things I'd like to see covered here (that I don't know anything about, so can't write these myself):

1. There are now female jockeys. I gather that there didn't used to be. This should be discussed in the article.

2. The article's mention of being able to "claim" weight doesn't make any sense to someone who doesn't already know what it means. Those sentences should be clarified, explained, and/or expanded for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elysdir (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

3. What a jockey actually does. The "role of a jockey" section is ostensibly for this, but it only discusses the means in which one becomes a jockey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.97.136 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

4. Silks were made of silk. Obviously. But why was silk chosen, originally, for jockeys clothing? Is it because it is light, because it can be coloured easily with bright colours, because it is cool to wear, or for some other reason? 122.148.138.107 (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

POV tag
I have added a POV tag due to the gross overemphasis on women jockeys. This article as it currently stands is designed primarily to serve the needs to women's studies students, rather than people who want balanced and objective information about horse racing, which should be its purpose. Wimstead (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reorganised the existing material as a first step towards tackling the problem, but only the addition of several thousand extra words could make the amount of material about female jockeys proportionate. Wimstead (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Over emphasis because smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.89.81 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

how much influence on the result?
is it all the horse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.43.222 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"ema Fraber"?
I was struck by these random words in the "Physical Characteristics" section. What in the world do they mean? A cursory Google search turns up only this article and pages which are clearly mirroring or quoting the same material. That's really bizarre! Is this just a note an editor made to him- or herself and forgot to take out? Was it meant to be a citation (though I can't imagine why, considering it's solely after one word: "Jockeys"). Seems like it's just a mistake, but in case there's some equestrian term I'm not aware of, I'll leave it to someone else to take out. 67.81.189.234 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Relocation request
The article is "jockey" yet is purely about one type of jockey and hence I believe the article should be re-filed under horse racing to allow 'this' 'jockey' location to cover other uses of the word.

I not the disambiguation link but where else should "jockey" be found other than at this location ?

(Or this article should cover all uses of the word 'jockey'.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.47.203 (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Female jockeys in the US and Canadian Triple Crowns
I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from (and I certainly could be wrong) but these are the totals I have. Please check them against yours: WOMEN and the CANADIAN TRIPLE CROWN
 * 1973 Breeders Stakes • Joan Phipps • Singing Spirit (11th)
 * 1988 Queen's Plate • Julie Krone • No Malice (5th)
 * 1991 Queen's Plate • Francine Villeneuve • Wilderness Song (2nd)
 * 1991 Prince of Wales • Francine Villeneuve • Wilderness Song (5th)
 * 1991 Breeders' Stakes • Francine Villeneuve • Speak No Evil (10th)
 * 1992 Queen's Plate • Francine Villeneuve • Ragnorok (12th)
 * 1999 Breeders' Stakes • Laurie Gulas • Free Vacation (1st)
 * 1999 Breeders' Stakes • Patricia Tremble • Widow Spider (11th)
 * 2002 Queen's Plate • Chantal Sutherland • Streakin Rob (14th)
 * 2003 Queen's Plate • Chantal Sutherland • Button Wood (10th)
 * 2003 Prince of Wales • Cory Clark • Sonofawac (6th)
 * 2005 Prince of Wales • Francine Villeneuve • Autumn Snow (2nd)
 * 2006 Queen's Plate • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Bridgecut (12th)
 * 2007 Queen's Plate • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Mike Fox (1st)
 * 2007 Prince of Wales • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Mike Fox (4th)
 * 2007 Prince of Wales • Chantal Sutherland • Poachers Moon (6th)
 * 2007 Breeders' Stakes • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Mike Fox (5th)
 * 2008 Queen's Plate • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Shadowless (11th)
 * 2008 Queen's Plate • Chantal Sutherland • Dylan's Choice (13th)
 * 2008 Breeders' Stakes • Chantal Sutherland • Sligovitz (2nd)
 * 2009 Queen's Plate • Emma-Jayne Wilson • El Brujo (13th)
 * 2009 Breeders' Stakes • Chantal Sutherland • Parabola (7th)
 * 2009 Breeders' Stakes • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Flip For The Coin (10th)
 * 2010 Queen's Plate • Chantal Sutherland • Smart Sky (7th)
 * 2010 Queen's Plate • Emma-Jayne Wilson • D's Wando (13)
 * 2010 Breeders' Stakes • Chantal Sutherland • Smart Sky (6th)
 * 2010 Breeders' Stakes • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Empire Rising (12th)
 * 2011 Queen's Plate • Chantal Sutherland • Pender Harbor (3rd)
 * 2011 Queen's Plate • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Oh Canada (13th)
 * 2011 Prince of Wales • Krista Carignan • Oh Canada (3rd)
 * 2012 Queen's Plate • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Macho Whiskey (12th)
 * 2012 Prince of Wales • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Dead On (5th)
 * 2012 Breeders' Stakes • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Quaesitor (3rd)
 * 2013 Breeders' Stakes • Emma-Jayne Wilson • Scipio (8th)

WOMEN and the US TRIPLE CROWN
 * 1970 Kentucky Derby • Diane Crump (15th)
 * 1984 Kentucky Derby • Patti Cooksey (11th)
 * 1985 Preakness Stakes • Patti Cooksey (6th)
 * 1991 Kentucky Derby 1991 • Andrea Seefeldt (16th)
 * 1991 Belmont Stakes • Julie Krone (9th)
 * 1992 Kentucky Derby • Julie Krone (14th)
 * 1992 Belmont Stakes • Julie Krone (6th)
 * 1993 Belmont Stakes • Julie Krone • Colonial Affair (1st)
 * 1994 Preakness Stakes • Andrea Seefeldt (7th)
 * 1995 Kentucky Derby • Julie Krone (11th)
 * 1995 Belmont Stakes • Julie Krone • Star Standard (2nd)
 * 1996 Belmont Stakes • Julie Krone (13th)
 * 2003 Kentucky Derby • Rosemary Homeister, Jr. (13th)
 * 2011 Kentucky Derby • Rosie Napravnik (9th)
 * 2012 Belmont Stakes • Rosie Napravnik (5th)
 * 2013 Kentucky Derby • Rosie Napravnik (5th)
 * 2013 Preakness Stakes • Rosie Napravnik • Mylute (3rd)
 * 2013 Belmont Stakes • Rosie Napravnik (6th)

which should add up to:
 * Queen's Plate: 4 different women, 15 times -Krone, Villeneuve (2), Sutherland (5), Wilson (7)
 * Prince of Wales: 5 different women, 7 times -Villeneuve (2), Clark, Sutherland, Wilson (2), Carignan
 * Breeders Stakes: 6 different women, 12 times -Phipps, Villeneuve, Gulas, Trimble, Sutherland (3), Wilson (5)

versus
 * Kentucky Derby: 6 different women, 8 times -Crump, Cooksey, Seefeldt, Krone (2), Homeister, Jr., and Nepravnik (2)
 * Preakness Stakes: 3 different women, 3 times -Cooksey, Seefeldt and Nepravnik
 * Belmont Stakes: 2 different women, 7 times -Krone (5), Nepravnik (2)

but since you don't "double-count" jockeys, it would indicate that:
 * Since 1973 nine different women (Phipps, Krone, Villeneuve, Gulas, Trimble, Sutherland, Clark, Wilson and Carignan) have competed in 27 races, 34 times with a combined 2 wins, 3 places, 3 shows in the CTC. Since 1970 six different women (Crump, Cooksey, Seefeldt, Krone, Homeister, Jr. and Nepravnik) have competed in 18 races, 18 times with a combined 1 win, 1 place, 1 show in the USTC.


 * ...it appears you might be unintentionally "double counting" Krone, Nepravnik, Seefeldt and Cooksey to reach your totals, which given the way it's stated in the wikipage would be misleading.

Please check your numbers against these, as I'm curious to know where my mistakes may be.


 * Beyond that, please review the following notion: Villeneuve (1992, 2005), Sutherland (2008, 2010) and Wilson (2007, 2012) all have multiple CTC shows. Only Julie Krone (1993, 1995) has multiple USTC shows. Villeneuve, Sutherland and Wilson (twice) have raced in all three CTC races, while only Nepravnik has competed in all three USTC races. By my count 7 different CTC races have had more than 1 woman riding in them. No USTC race has EVER featured more than one woman jockey. 12 of the past 15 years have seen a woman jockey riding in the CTC. By comparison only 4 of the past 15 years have seen a woman jockey riding in the USTC. That's the recent history. Given that there are so many more tracks in the US, so many more 1,000 win women in the US, and so many more opportunities in general in the US, I find it amazing that anyone could consider Canada's edge over the US in Triple Crown opportunities for women "slight" as you have chosen to rephrase it. Just some food for thought.

In conclusion, I do not engage in edit-wars, so don't feel the need to "watch over" your changes to the jockey page. I would only encourage you to review your data for errors, make sure that your wording is an accurate reflection of that data, and make changes if (and as) you see fit. All the best and happy new year! -Creativewill (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * All of the above is tl;dr. I took USA totals accumulated by others, per WP:SYNTH, see the sources cited.  I may have rephrased the Canadian section, but didn't change the numbers.  Anything else is old stuff that predated my recent edit.  I don't give a hoot about the Canadian records, so if they are wrong and you want to fix those, go for it, I have no dog in that fight nor the time to deal with it myself. I can reassess the USA ones if your tl;dr above actually contains something that's an error in US statistics, but as I said, I took stats accumulated by others, because technically, WP:SYNTH discourages us from crunching the data ouselves (though we can to double-check source material, obviously)  Montanabw (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You were the one that changed the US numbers from 6 to 11 different women and from 18 to 22 races. You also have a new combined record of 1 win, 1 place, 2 shows in USTCs. To be blunt, I think they're wrong. Are you just taking the source at their word, or does the source list all of these women (and more)? Specifically, I'm curious to know who (other than Krone in '93 and '95 and Nepravnik in 2013) was the other woman to show in the history of the USTC and what year did she do it? It seems to me that if you are truly concerned with the accuracy in wikipedia, you'd consider checking when someone raises a question. If you need me to state it outright, I will. I'm calling into question the specific accuracy your USTC figures as they pertain to woman jockeys. The stas in your reference material don't add up. In fact, they appear to match the USTC numbers I posted above. Please double-check them. And if yours prove to be inaccurate, the corrected numbers might also have a bearing on the use of the wording "slight edge" as was referenced earlier. Creativewill (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I put in footnotes for what I added, then did the obvious math. If you've got the list that says otherwise, go read the sources yourself, if you have time to generate the list, you also have time to read materials by respected racing reporters.  I don't have the time to go through these statistics with a fine-toothed comb. The sources are clear as to 6 women in the Derby, 3 in the Preakness, 2 in the Belmont.  That makes 11 women, and the 22 races (not my original stat, I just added stuff up) seems to cover the doubled up ones.  The Zieralski pieces have links to yet more, he seems to have done his homework, and notes who rode twice or three times, etc. here and [here So if it's wrong, fix it.  But add the footnotes so others can continue to improve upon things.  I haven't the energy or interest to focus on this statistical stuff, so if you care more, then I'm not stopping you.  I watchlist almost 4000 articles, so go for it.  [[User:Montanabw| Montanabw ]](talk) 23:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The re-count: I've read and reread the sources used several times over. Since you are too busy to double-check your numbers, please allow me to break it down using ONLY the cited sources that you say gave a total of 11 different women riding in 22 USTC races.

1a. ''May 2013 – Rosie Napravnik scores best finish ever for a woman rider in the Kentucky Derby with a fifth-place finish on Mylute, beating her previous best of ninth in 2011 on Pants On Fire. She is just the sixth woman jockey to ever ride in the Derby. Two weeks later she finished third on Mylute in the Preakness. It’s the best finish ever for a woman rider in the race. She was just the third woman to ride in it.''
 * That means 6 women have ridden in the Derby (Napravnik twice) Three women have ridden in the Preakness including Napravnik, but you don't count her as two different women when going from Derby to Preakness. So far that's at least 6 different women (possibly 8) and 10 total USTC rides. It also tells us that no women has ever finished higher than 5th in the Derby and none higher than 3rd in the Preakness.

1b. ''May 1995 – Julie Krone becomes the first woman to compete in the Kentucky Derby more than once, finishing 11th on Suave Prospect. She was 14th in the ’92 Derby aboard Ecstatic Ride.''
 * That merely brings the total Derby rides to 8 and the total USTC rides to 11. Since the previous part of the story said Napravnik was the 6th ever women in the Derby, Krone has already been counted as one of the 6 women in the Derby. Again Krone in the Belmont is the same person as Krone in the Derby so she wouldn't be recounted as a jockey there either.

1c. May 1994 – Andrea Seefeldt becomes the second woman to ride in the Preakness and Kentucky Derby (1991)
 * That does not change the total number of women as she was one of the previously mentioned 6 Derby jocks and one of the 3 previously mentioned Preakness jocks. It does however lower the over all possibility of different women to 7 total, since like Napravnik & Krone you wouldn't count her as two different women.

1d. ''June 1993 – Julie Krone becomes the first woman rider to win a Triple Crown race, taking the Belmont Stakes aboard Colonial Affair. ''
 * What this information gives us is that women have won a USTC race 1 time so far. Coupled with section 1, that gives a total of women one 1st and one 3rd in the USTC's history.

1e. ''May 1984 – Patricia “P.J.” Cooksey rides So Vague to an 11th-place finish in the Derby. She’s the second woman to ride in the Derby.''
 * This changes nothing in the totals. It merely names her as a previously unnamed Derby rider.

1f. ''May 1985 – Patricia Cooksey is the first woman jockey to ride in the Preakness Stakes, finishing sixth on Tajawa. ''
 * This confirms that all 3 Preakness riders have also ridden in the Kentucky Derby. That means that total number of DIFFERENT women in the USTC would remain at 6 and that the 3 Preakness riders only effect the USTC grand total number of rides.

1g. ''May 1970 – Diane Crump becomes the first woman to ride in the Kentucky Derby, finishing 15th in the 17-horse field. ''
 * This does nothing but confirm the name of yet another of the 6 Derby jockeys. The KD and USTC totals hold at 6 women [Crump, Cooksey, Seefeldt, Krone, Napravnik, and an as-of-yet unnamed women.

2a. This comes from the second source which was obviously published before the 2012 Belmont. ''Krone is the only woman to ever ride in the Belmont. She rode four other Belmonts: Subordinated Debt was ninth in 1991; Colony Light was sixth in 1992; Star Standard was second in 1995; and South Salem was eased in 1996.''
 * This outdated story adds 4 races to the total (but we don't recount Krone because her Belmont win and Derby participation were already counted). That means the total number of DIFFERENT women continues to hold at 6. The total number of races with women moves up to 16 (8 KDs, 3 PSs, 5 BSs). Her 2nd place in the 1995 Belmont, Coupled with sections 1a and 1d, gives women one 1st, one 2nd and one 3rd in the USTC.

3a. Moving on to the 3rd reference: ''This is the equibase.com finishing order of the 2012 Belmont. It is a pdf from equibase that lists Five Sixteen (Napravnik, Rosie) as the 5th place horse in the 2012 Belmont.''
 * That means the total number of DIFFERENT women still holds at 6 (you don't recount her). The total number of races moves up to 17 (8 KDs, 3 PSs, 6 BSs). And the success rate of women in the USTC remains one 1st (1993), one 2nd (1995) and one 3rd (2013).

4. The final woman in a USTC race (I suspect you already know) was Rosie Napravnik at the 2013 Belmont Stakes. Though it is not cited in the article it can easily be independently confirmed by this link among others: - http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/horse-racing/bs-sp-belmont-napravnik-0605-20130604,0,7189268.story
 * Once again the total number of DIFFERENT women to race in a USTC race holds at a final total of 6 (you still don't double-count her or anyone else), but the total number of races involving women jockeys moves up to a final total of 18 (8 KDs -by 6 women, 3 PSs -by 3 women who also rode in the KD, 6 BSs -by 2 women who also rode in the KD). The success rate of women in the USTC still remains at: one 1st, one 2nd and one 3rd.

There you have it. It really comes down to the double-counting people like Krone and Napravnik as to the location of the discrepancy. I've tried to spell this out as logically as possible and I see no other footnotes that would add additional jockeys or races to the totals. I don't mind fixing the page if you are truly as busy as you say. As I indicated earlier, I'd much prefer a calm and logical discussion like this than one of those juvenile edit wars I sometimes see occurring among editors. If you prefer to make the adjustment yourself, that's fine too. To me it just makes the wiki-world a better place when editors treat one another with mutual respect, like we have. Sincerely -Creativewill (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As a side note, and not that it matters but Rosemary Homeister, Jr. in 2003 was the unnamed Kentucky Derby rider in the source materials. This was her only USTC appearance. A quick glance at either the youtube video of the race or any full recap will bear this fact out. I do not mean any disrespect to her, but her name is really of no actual consequence to the wikipage in question.

You are saying 6 women and 18 TC races? Napravnik, Crump, Homeister, Krone, Cooksey, Seefeldt. Rosie has 2 Derbies and 2 Belmonts, Krone had 2 Derbies and 5 Belmonts, and they are the only ones who repeated? OK, do it. Double counting happens. Montanabw (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey. Just curious, the same reference that cites Krone as winning the Belmont in 1993 also lists her 4 other Belmont finishes, including a 2nd in 1995. Does that 2nd place finish really need its owns separate citation, given that it is literally the next two words of the article after the citation for the win? I figured it could/would cover both given their proximity in the story and that it was the same jockey. Thanks in advance. -Creativewill (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, but maybe to be on the safe side, make a hidden text note that says the source covers the win and the place.  Montanabw (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaelic Etymology
User:Mahagaja (diff) removed edits from the etymology (diff, diff). The elefant in the room argues WP:NOTBLUE, calling "nonsense". Indeed, the footnote pointing to a translation dictionary is only able to translate the etymon, which is mildly frustrating. The original editor in turn may argue WP:BLUE. The IP of the earlier edit locates to Brittany, likely belonging to a speaker of Breton, which is a sister branch of Irish, so to them the sky is clear as day. A look at Ulster Irish (Middle Irish is being less helpful) confirms that Irish initial mutations may affect ea: "/e/ → /nʲe/", as in each "horse", eachaidhe "horseman". This could become an jockey in English, the Loch-consonant in particular, whereas Scouse probably maintained it. The semantic match is impecible. Remaining uncertainty is par for course with the leading theory (genericized personal name Scottish English Jock, from Jack, from … that's actually difficult). These hypotheses aren't mutually exclusive—Phono-semantic matching is a real process in Loanword formation. Thus I concede that WP:BLUE holds, and removal is "pedantic", because WP:CALC applies analogically, since I hardly know any Irish and I am able to follow the argument. The major methodologic problem beside imprecise dating absent written evidence is that the hypotheses do not rule out a third origin per se (cp. OE eoh, with breaking in ON jór; West-Frisian each) because it is usually impossible to prove a negative unless the historical framework permits, which I have not found in this article. Calling "nonsense original research", @Mahagaja, implies that I am commiting a grave mistake; a calculated risk I am willing to take because etmonline/jockey differs from "nonsense original research" only because it is not original research. The irony being when it relies on sources which their sources, first of all the OED, do however not indicate, it very much invokes WP:CALC! Besides, jockey does a good job of reduplicating the information, where the rules of WP:NOR do not strictly apply. Rhyminreason (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)