UKC

As per the title really. I'm sure there is some skill in being a good jockey, but surely the horse does the lion's share of the work.

It seems a bit similar to saying that the 'wife' deserves all the credit in a wife carrying contest 

Try riding a horse. It's not a passive activity.

Like I said, I'm sure there's some skill in it, probably more than I have, but the horse is doing all the running.

i think jockeys are generally fairly fit people. I don't know much about riding but I can see that whatever the duration of the race they are not actually sitting in the saddle so their legs must be taking the strain.

I've seen some pictures of the lovely Bryony Frost lifting weights which a lot of people involved in peripheral athletic sports would run away from and that includes a lot of climbers I know/ have known.

I suppose an analogy might be a pole vaulter. Few would deny that the pole does the bigger part of the lifting and yet not many would deny a vaulter his athlete status.

Or in winter sports, where in a great number of disciplines it is gravity which is doing the lion's share of the work.

Everyone doing physical activity of any sort  is an athlete these days.

Yes.

Riding a horse on an English saddle is difficult as hell, even if the horse is just walking, you need to squeeze your legs, engage your core maintain balance and control the horse with the reins.

Moving up through the gears getting in to trot, for example rising trot where the rider has to rise of of the seat every second beat (hard work!) the difficulty ramps up.

Galloping, god knows but it's not just a case of standing up and letting the horse go... The jockey will often have to work the horse very hard (that doesn't mean hitting it), essentially the horse "come off the bridle" which means the jockey has to crouch low in their stirrups and physically push the horse along.  Look at how hard the jockeys are working in the final couple of furlongs of a close race and you'll see what I mean.  It's hard, hard work.

Then there's the injuries - check out Tony McCoys injuries on the graphic here https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/24/tony-mccoy-broke-bones-heart-... pretty remarkable, especially since he was champion jockey for 20 years, right throughout sustaining these injuries and on top of all that, could barely eat or drink a thing as he wouldn't make the weight.

I think to view them as anything less than remarkable athletes is doing them a massive disservice. 

When are the Scottish Smoke Alarm Fitting Championships? Everyman and his dug seem to be training for that one…

It’s a good point. Perhaps to test this we should also consider the reverse. Are horses athletes if they are riding a jockey?

Yes they really are!! As Captain paranoia says....try riding a horse!! Flat or jump jockeys are very very fit....train hard and very carefully manage a restrictive diet to make the weight...!

Definitely an endurance event!

Even that could be a bit misleading. I can ride a bit but wouldn't want to get on one of the Derby runners. A bit like I can drive a car but wouldn't want to embarrass myself trying to drive an F1 car around the track. As for racing either...... 

jockeying comes under the same basic category as other sports like, bike road-racing, skimo racing, and also ski-jumping (wherever being skinny and light is an advantage) - it's competitive dieting with some rudimentary other skill thrown

or competitive BDSM? Whipping an animal for the pleasure of others?

Ummmm no. It’s isn’t just a case of being light so that the horse goes faster!

In handicap horse racing the weight that the horse bears is pre-determined by the handicappers. That weight, usually somewhere up to around 12 stone, is made up of the rider, the saddle and tack and (if those don’t meet the required weight) so extra lead weights that are put in pockets in the cloth under the saddle. That’s why immediately after the race the jockey removes the saddle and takes it to the weigh-in, this ensures the horse got round with the required weight so being lighter would bring no advantage at all.

in actual fact some see it as a disadvantage as this means more weight has to be added in the form of lead weights which doesn’t move and help propel the horse along (hence “dead weight).

Being skinny and light is a necessity as you need to meet the weight requirements, but it’s not where the race is won or lost…

Absolutely, most people couldn't keep a decent half-seat for 5 minutes, but look at how jockeys ride a race their feet are so high their elbows are lower than their knees, now that's serious glute and quad strength!

I wouldn't call them athletes any more than I would an F1 driver or a Moto GP rider. And those two examples aren't on a sentient form of transport. Definitely sportspeople partaking in a physically active pursuit (especially in comparison to e.g. dressage) but athletes, no not in my eyes.

Or even anything any not particularly physical activity; the word has become pretty meaningless.

Which group would you put elite footballers or climbers into? 

Footballers are sportspeople, elite climbers are neither (except maybe competition climbers who are doing climbing as a sport and are therefore sportspeople).

Not as much as Darts Players

(well, it's a sport, innit?)

I agree if someone is competing at an elite in a sport they can be classed as a sportsperson.

So who would you refer to as an Athlete? 

yes, it's that first bit that tends to cause problems. eating disorders are common in a sport where there's a sauna facility provided in the changing room. (are saunas permanently out now?)

Athletes do track and field, cross country or marathons; all others are sportspeople. They may be exceptionally athletic. 

There’s also a lunch and breakfast hot buffet, snacks, sarnies and just about anything else a hockey could ever wish to eat or drink all laid on for free in there…

Not that many of them get to eat much of it!

You do make a good point though, eating disorders are common in many sports, including climbing…

So fell and trail runners aren't athletes? If that is the case, I agree the jockeys certainly aren't athletes and many outdoor companies need to rename their representatives. 

People who do athletics.

I'm talking about physical activity, requiring fitness. Not just skill.

It's not just sitting on your arse, letting the horse do the work.

Winter sports, like skiing, are quite similar, involving a lot of work with the legs, mopping up bumps in the same way you mop up the movement of the horse under you.

Wiki has a broader definition than the dogmatists would like:

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlete

I did look at that, but wasn't sure it would convince many on here😊.

Perhaps the initial question should have been are jockeys athletic?

This is UKC. No-one has ever been convinced of anything by anybody else...

No one would admit to it, but some of the threads are quite informative, probably more so for those not contributing to them.

I wasn't planning to get and EV for 4/5 years but have been convinced to do it much sooner 

Elite footballers- athletes.

Climbers is a hard one as it very much depends on which branch of climbing, but you can certainly have an athletic climber.

Why, because some play for Wigan? 

OK, if you narrow it down to those competing at the Olympics, are they athletes? 

I'd say an athletic sport was one in which physical prowess - in terms of strength and/or endurance - is a principal success factor, as opposed to a necessary requirement for participation. Rather than just needing to be fit to do the sport, people win or lose, succeed or fail, depending on the degree of physical performance they are able to demonstrate. The winners in non-athletic sports, while often still requiring a high level of fitness or strength from participants, will be determined more by skill level or tactics. As such, football would fall into the skill-based group rather than the athletic group.

High standard climbing (including competition climbing) is, for the most part, an athletic sport. When people fail/fall, it's often due to running out of steam or not having the strength to do the next move. It isn't clear cut though, since failure in other cases can be due to technical or tactical error, so it's certainly less of a purely athletic sport than some things such as running, swimming or weightlifting.

Yes, but just because a sport is athletic doesn't mean that those doing it are athletes (no more than people who do a balletic sport are ballet dancers).

What's a "balletic sport"? and why would any sportsperson be described as a dancer? Unless you're talking the likes of Ice Dance or Rhythmic Gymnastics which, being generous, are on the outer margins of what may be considered true sporting activities, as opposed to competitive entertainment.

I certainly agree on your take that all sports are a mixture of physical ability, technical skill and tactics and the relative importance varies depending on the sport.

Playing devil's advocate on your assessment to climbing v football. If the physical is more important in climbing why are there virtually no elite footballers over 40. At a punter level plenty of people are climbing as well/better than ever in their 50's and 60's. 

One requiring poise and balance, precise movement. Competitive bouldering perhaps, the ones you mentioned, synchronised swimming etc.

You've answered your own question by comparing "elite footballers" to "punter level" climbers.

Plenty of ‘older’ climbers at or near the cutting edge. The age of elite climbers, and the length of time taken to reach that standard, is very high compared to most sports. This points toward climbing being predominantly a skill based sport, rather than a strength or endurance sport. Climbing is more comparable to golf than football in this sense. 

I’m not convinced that’s true

There was a TV programme in the 70's, can't remember what it was called, that took sportspeople from various disciplines and had them compete at various athletic events.

As i remember the car driver did really well, winning the whole thing.

Superstars? But that was more early 80s, I think. 

Op, athletics derives from the greek athos, a contest. So you can run 100m or play darts, you're an athlete! 

Didn't Brian Jacks the judo guy always win it?

Kevin Keegan fell off his bike and was a bit mardy as I recall.

Sorry I didn't mean to do that. Just to clarify I meant to say you get elite climbers aged 40 and even 50+ but not footballers. Seeing climbers in their 70's make 7+ sport routes look easy is not uncommon. A 70 year old playing for the local pub on a Sunday morning would struggle against uncoordinated twentysomethings. 

The word athlete is overused these days, so no, they’re not athletes they are jockeys. But being a jockey is very physical (and dangerous). 

Lee Mack mentioned this on tv last week. The late great Jockey Wilson [a lovely guy but no stranger to a fish supper] was pictured with a cigarette in one hand and a pint in the other. Sid Waddell commentated, "What an athlete!"

Yeah, bit of a demon on the dips, press ups etc..

Didn't Al Evans take part one year ?

well, he was probably quite well rested. :-/

If that is the case won't it eventually change its meaning

but by CP's dictionary definition, from 1960, Athlete originally had more to with the sport being competitive rather than the type of sport. On that basis a jockey, or a fisherman, can be called an Athlete but a sponsored climber who doesn't enter comps. probably shouldn't.

Just to do some good competitive pedantry, athlete, αθλητής, is someone who partakes in an άθλημα, which is the Greek word for sport. Very little to do with athletics semantically.

No, in one year it was won by F1 driver Jody Schechter. When I mentioned this a few weeks ago his victory was immediately dismissed contemptuously because he did well in the "playboy" disciplines like tennis and swimming. I thought that was a bit unfair. 

But he did bend the rules a bit by applying oil to the soles of his trainers so that he could beat the others in the squat thrusts section.

does it make a difference whether or not they are riding on a conveyor belt?

Not sure  but Lynn Hill used to wipe the floor with it in the US ladies version 

I'd love to see you in a physical trial with an F1 driver or a MotoGP rider......they are insanely fit. There was a program on the tellybox a few years ago in which various athlete / sports types had a go at the Royal Marines Entry assault course. The bike racer (think it was Neil Hodgson or James Toseland, but anyone with a better memory / google skills feel free to correct me) achieved the qualifying standard for the marines first go. Their flash attempt, if you like. Not many of the marine recruits manage that.......

I remember him being close to a 3 hour marathon, impressive, but every school I've worked in had at least one member of staff who could.

Wrong thread but it reminded me of the ex-Tory MP Matthew Parris who had a claimed best of about 2:30, but his attempt to live on benefits for a week in the '80's came to an embarrassing end.

And Jenson Button was (still is?) a pretty decent standard triathlete.

Ah but doesn't a non-comp pro climber still essentially compete with all the other climbers in the world along with themselves (or maybe all the climbers...). The constant pushing of the limits, the grading and regrading etc kind of creates an open-ended competition doesn't it? 

Although the competitive element seems to define an athlete. In my mind, the word describes someone who has taken a sport way beyond a casual hobby and is committed to improving their abilities through various types of training which may not be directly linked to the sport. But then I guess that would make a lot of us athletes then with our modern training culture in climbing and focus on progression. I'm sure many of us still consider all indoor climbing as "training". 

I was a Track athlete - also ran road, cross country and fell ! - but there is no way that I could agree with such a narrow definition that you are making.

"Athletic" means so many things, indeed, as an example Tug-of-War is a sport that formerly ran under AAA rules, and medals awarded noted as such. I may even still have the odd rulebook at home which lists the rules of competition for such.

As for F1 and MotoGP (etc.) - I think these athletes are being maligned, as the amount of energy expended in races is quite something, considering an engine is doing the hard work of propelling their vehicle.

So does the standard of performance matter? When I played football, I did the utmost to make the most of my limited abilities, but I played with and against plenty who didn't, even though they were good enough to be paid. As an extreme example, during most of his career at the highest level, Paul McGrath didn't train due to dodgy knees and had problems with alcohol. 

I think you missed the point where I said they're still partaking in a physically active pursuit?

I said they're not athletes, I didn't say they weren't fit.

Yes, this is where the disagreement is. Some people think that being an athlete is to do with physical prowess, while others think that it is to do with what sport a person does irrespective of their physical prowess (indeed how athletic they are).

And I'd disagree; I'd class anyone at the peak of a physically active pursuit as an athlete in the broader sense of the word; I used to be a decent competition swimmer and sprinter / jumper. But just because I competed in track and field athletics doesn't make me any more of an athlete than Max Verstappen or Marc Marquez given the amount of training they put in.

haha...I'm reminded of the Not The Nine O Clock news sketch:

youtube.com/watch?v=QdGlaXOzUIo&

"it's a good start....double vodka!

So are you saying that somebody competing in athletics is not necessarily an athlete?

I though Al held the record for the Krypton Factor assault course. He was a cameraman for Granada. Who made Superstars?

Holds hand up!

I suspect I was mixing up the two events, don't think I've seen either on the TV but remember Al posting about taking part/trying out the course for one of them.

Don't know about the rest of the world but the US call it Track and Field; athletics isn't a thing there as far as I'm aware.

It might be just aUK notion that running and jumping are referred to as athletics?

Yes, having looked a couple of dictionary definitions this seems to be the case.  The American definition seems to be more closely aligned with anyone who takes part in competitive sport whereas some (and I emphasise some!) U.K. definitions define Athletics (or track and field).

If we go with the strict U.K. Athletes are only those that do athletics (track and field sports - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_of_athletics#:~:text=Athletics%20is%20a....) then of course Jockeys wouldn't be included (there wouldn't need to be a thread!).  But then neither would swimmers, cyclists, footballers and rugby players.

If we actually redefine the question - are jockeys doing any of the work or is it all about the horse?  Then clearly, as I mentioned upthread, it's really, really difficult and physically demanding to be a jockey and a good level of fitness is required to excel at the sport.

I mention Rugby quite deliberately.  Some of those guys (and American football players) are pretty big, and by big I mean carry a lot of fat .  If they were just an ordinary man on the street who visited a doctor they be told they are morbidly obese....

But they're actually athletes.

Or are they?

I think this is consistent with referring to anyone doing virtually anything vaguely physical as an athlete being an Americanism which, like many others, has been imported here and become normal over the last couple of decades or so.

The French word 'Athlétisme' has a pretty similar meaning to Atheletics in the British sense - see eg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athl%C3%A9tisme . No idea about other European languages

"Athletics is a group of sporting events that involves competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking.[1] The most common types of athletics competitions are track and field, road running, cross country running, and racewalking."

That is exactly what I have always thought of as the events done by athletes: track  and field athletics plus other running events.

International Amateur Athletics Federation administer the sport globally.

Yeah I get you, and you're not wrong. 

But I think we're losing the point of the thread here, and we've got in to that old UKC classic of arguing about the definition of a word. 

Given that many words have more than one definition, and the use and meaning of words changes over time, and can be context dependent it's a bit of a fruitless endeavour!

Anyway, I'm not the arbiter of what we should and shouldn't be discussing here...  I'd just rather discuss horse racing than sematics!

Question - is someone who is athletic actually an athlete?

Because to me it seems like there's not an automatic linkage, a lot of the sportspeople being talked about are athletic, but are not actually athletes.

Arguing about the definition of the word "athlete" is precisely the point of the thread (unfortunately), it's almost a digression to talk about horse racing more generally.

FWIW, the first definition given in the OED pretty much sums up the thread:

"In early use: a competitor in public games, participating in any of various individual sporting events, such as running, jumping, boxing, and wrestling (chiefly historical, esp. with reference to the games held in ancient Greece and Rome). In later use more generally: a competitor in any sporting event that requires physical skill, strength, endurance, etc.; spec. (in English-speaking areas outside North America) one who competes in track and field events"

Stop hijacking my thread! 😂

The concensus seems to be that jockeys are athletic, or very fit and strong or whichever description works for you. I won't argue with that. 

I suppose I maybe asked the wrong question. Perhaps the question should have been 'Are jockeys more athletic (or whatever descriptor) than the horses?' Do they deserve more credit for the performance?

Wow. Imagine reading a book that records the meaning of words as they are used...

And racewalking. 

When does walking become racewalking?

The answer isn't as simple as "when it's in a race".

Well, since betting is based on the names of the horses, and results are given using the names of the horses, and 'form' studies the performance of the horses, and breeding is based on the reputation of the horses, I think we can say that the horses probably get the recognition they deserve.

They just don't get interviewed after the races.

The Godolphian Arabian, Red Rum, Shergar. Fairly well known horses. Who were their jockeys?

More's the pity! 

youtube.com/watch?v=O_C6N6A0up0&

What were the names of all the horses Frankie Dettorri (sp?) won his big races on?

That's excellent.

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. What i am saying is that they are no more or less an athlete than motogp riders, comp climbers tdf bike riders or ice dancers. All athletes, just in different sporting arena's. I had enough arguments with the BMC comp comm when chair of that getting people to accept Shauna C was an athlete who climbed rather than a climber who did comps, and that the support she (and others) received should reflect that.

This is rapidly heading towards the "Marco Stole the phrase sport climbing......" style of debate.......

Except the IAAF formed in 1912, actually they call themselves World Athletics these days, but you get the idea.

So you accept that a fat useless amateur shot-puuter is an athlete?

What's the problem with her being just an exceptionally good competition climber? Why the need to lump her in with the golfers and pistol shooters and so under the increasingly meaningless "athlete" umbrella?

Why should support depend on branding someone an "athlete"?

Hmmm........world climbing.........has a certain ring to it.

And by extension......British climbing. Why has nobody suggested this before?

'Climb Britain' is much better 🤣🙃😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

Absolutely. Do you work in branding / marketing? You may have found your vocation.....

That's an easy one to answer.  Sometimes the horse and the jockey part ways during a race, and after that happens it's not uncommon for the riderless horse to complete the race and even sometimes 'win'.  Have you ever heard of a jockey carrying on to cross the finish line first without the horse?

Of course it is! 

Competitive pedestrianism - 150 odd years ago it was the most popular spectator sport in the world:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210723-the-strange-19th-century-sport-...

Is there something called a Modern Pentathlete?

I think this is a really good question.  You get up close to a racehorse and you can see what impressive beasts they are.  Selectively bred through multiple generations (for flat racing, generally involving Northern Dancer, Najinsky, Galileo and Sadler's Wells) to produce offspring with an absolutely ideal mixture of pace and stamina for the distance they race.  Then trained by experts to be able to cover their chosen distance in the fastest possible time...

And that training is intense, ride outs every morning, work riding 2-3 times a week, time in the walker etc... Those horses are in great shape!

I don't think there's a human on earth who reaches anywhere near the fitness levels of those horses - and even if they did, we don't tend to selectively breed humans so we're at a bit of a disadvantage.

However to produce a great result in a big race a whole heap of people deserve credit - the breeder, the trainer, the owner (for picking the right trainer!), the jockey, the work rider, the daily rider, the stable hands... All of it has to be perfect.

Obesity is a strange thing as it's generally defined using BMI. Anyone who is massively muscular like a rugby player or bodybuilder is quite likely to be overweight or obese because they're 'too heavy for their height'. Jonah Lomu was technically obese on the NHS BMI calculator (1.96m tall, 120kg) but could run 100m in 10.8seconds.

Can be; there are those that simply say they are runners; no interest in throwing things or jumping. Also you can compete at anything for fun; doesn't make you an athlete or athletic just because you do something. You could have answered this yourself by reading my posts above without having to ask me what i am or am not saying.

Where the hell did I say any such thing? I'm sure there are fat useless shot putters as well as fat useless runners; just because I might do a 5k parkrun i'm not necessarily an athlete. Shot putters may only do it as a sideline; many of them are powerlifters as well; do they stop being an athlete because they are in a bench press competition? I'll leave it to you to discuss the fat and useless points directly with shot putters. They may not appreciate the sentiment; do let me know how you get  on..... 

Because to be successful these days at the very top level in pretty well any competitive sport, there are certain things you have to do and which apply to almost every sport; base fitness, diet, attitude, professionalism for example.

It doesn't. But if you continue with the mindset that someone is a climber and not an athlete, they won receive the all round support the NGB is supposed to give. Hence the tie up with the EIS, which helps athletes from many sports.

Oh for sure.  BMI is a blunt instrument that really doesn't really work for certain sports people, and it really doesn't give any indication of the fat to muscle ratio.  That really needs to be done by a professional using calipers and other means...  It's really just a guide for "normal" people to get a steer on where they are.

That said, a lot of pro Rugby and NFL players carry a lot of fat as well as muscle (though this is becoming less common in Rugby now) but this isn't a hinderance to their performance...

Jockeys are part of every athletic clothing range

You clearly implied it. See the start of my last post.

Yes, of course, but why does that mean we have to call them athletes?

So it doesn't but it does? Which do you mean?

I read that as "competitive pedantism".

If that were a sport I think we'd have some world class athletes on UKC! 

I think you probably mean "competitive pedantry".

This is an odd thread. Athletes take part in athletics. That's a fairly simple and straightforward definition. As others have pointed out.

Climbing is not athletics, climbers can be athletic. 

Are wrestlers athletes? Was Big Daddy an athlete?

Ha!  Very good.

Pro Wrestling isn't a sport.

I'm still intrigue given the simplicity of the above, why most outdoor companies use Sponsored Athlete rather than say Sponsored Climber. Does this mean Sponsored Athletes are not real Athletes. 

I always got the impression that (like the dilution of the word "athlete" in general) it was an American import). Anyway, it is certainly the most irksome use of the word; I really would be surprised if it is good marketing in this country. I almost prefer "ambassador"!

I think it is a hindrance, but if everyone else in that milieu is the same then they won't notice it. Imagine if all the teams but one were a bit lardy and that remaining team went all out to be leaner and fitter. How long do you think it would be before all the other teams were having to take a similar approach to be able to keep up.

I think they are (deep breath) ambassadors now.

Sorry no, ambassador when use in sport/business terms has got to be the most irritating title ever. I'll take 1000 questionable athletes over 1 brand ambassador any day.

I'm quite happy to accept calling anyone who is noticeably skilled at a physical sport (strength/speed/endurance related) an athlete. I don't need to jealously reserve this for the elite of the elite professional sportsman or be pedantic and only call those who do athletics athletes. I think trying to put a lid on the more general usage and only use it in the British sense really is a futile endeavour.

I agree "ambassador" is awful, but I think it is so bad that it transcends its awfulness to become comical and therefore, for me, strangely actually less irritating than the ubiquitous use of "athlete'.

I agree it is futile. If its use was genuinely restricted to truly athletic activities then it would be ok, but now that it has become synonymous with "sportsperson" it has lost its independent meaning and something has been lost. All very well to call top climbers athletes to try to reflect their physical prowess but if we also call darts players athletes then it is all but meaningless.

Hmmm this may be true in Rugby, where all of the players are expected to be mobile and move around the field to a certain degree...  And I understand truly fat Rugby players are becoming less commonplace...

However in NFL, absolutely not.  Because of the way they have huge squads with rolling subs there are guys on the team who only play defensively.  They're not expected to run or touch the ball at all - in some plays their job is simply to refuse to be moved by the opposition.  15 stone of muscle and 5 of fat is even harder to move than someone who is 15 stone of lean muscle.

You've jockeyed to top spot!

Ronnie O'Sullivan (the snooker WC) is a good athlete.

He's a skilled competitor, he isn't an athlete. 

Sub 35 min 10km is pretty athletic in my book

Forgive me, I was unaware of his lesser known running prowess.

In general you could call him an athlete. To call him one in the context of snooker though wouldn't be right IMO. If Eliud Kipchoge took up darts, and the commentators/pundits starting praising him for his athleticism in a darts match that would be a nonsense.

Michael Jordan playing tiddlywinks, again inappropriate use of athlete/athletic in that context but true in general. But him moving from basketball to baseball and being called athlete in the baseball context seems totally reasonable.

I would suggest the moniker 'athlete' refers to a high degree of base, transferrable fitness that is directly applicable to an given, actual, sport. A footballer that took up long distance running would continue to be called an athlete, a boxer taking up skateboarding probably would not. I would not really consider Tyson Fury an athlete in the specific context of the X-games.

I care not whether jockeys are athletes or not. I do care that they are indulging in a cruel sport in which a sentient animal is subjected to treatment about which it has no choice.

Ok, so if we’re gonna go down that road, let’s start with the meat industry, leather trade, intensive farming practices and work back from there…

There’s a lot worse going on before we get anywhere near horse racing… 

Something doesn't need to not be/can't not be talked about,, because there are worse things.

The racing industry arguably is inhumane, even if the meat industry is worse, and what are people going to do on forums, only allow people who are vegans and veggies talk about horse racing?

If it's about the pollution caused by cars, only allow people who never fly to comment about that?

There's a term in philosophy for suggesting something can't be examined because of worse things, but I forget what it is...

"and what are people going to do on forums, "

Sticking to the topic would be a good start ( though I'm as guilty as any of derailing a discussion.....       )

Indeed. So jockeys it is. 

Nicely nudged, albeit inadvertently.

Speaking about 'the wife', Mrs Num Num occasionally goes top jockey. But she's definitely no athlete 

Yes, jockeys are athletes.

Yes, the horse does most of the work.

There's no contradiction between these statements. The horse and the jockey are a team and the horse is the more important part of the team.

Agree with the above except I'd say "physical work".

Disagree with the last bit, both need to be present and appropriately connected (😁 i.e. in the saddle) at the finish. Asking which is more important is IMO an invalid question.

I don't think you can say that any member (or part) of a team (or object) is more important if all are necessary unless there is some definitive "importance" measure to rank the members (parts).

So saying the horse is more important than the jockey - invalid, saying the horse is more physically important than the jockey - valid but not really very meaningful.

More meaningful to consider the following:

• Unfit horse, fit jockey - no chance of winning
• Fit horse, unfit jockey - still has a chance of winning
• Fit horse, fit jockey - best chance of winning

But as a corollary:

• Horse has race knowledge, jockey has no race knowledge - very little chance of winning
• Horse has no race knowledge, jockey has race knowledge - some chance of winning
• Both horse and jockey have race knowledge - best chance of winning

Jockey Wilson - probably not an athlete.

When it comes to running and jumping, most horses are better athletes than humans. That's the way they are designed, before you get to selective breeding and training to run faster or jump higher.  It was impressive when my youngster cleared a four-foot fence from a standstill (another horse chased her), and she's not remotely from jumping lines.

But you have to be pretty fit to stay on board while they are doing those things. Try riding a horse at a slow canter if you're not in shape for it, and you'll be knackered after one lap of the arena.

Yeah I take your point, and you are right that issues that exist shouldn’t be off limits simply as there are worse issues… 

However I think there are a couple of issues that make this case a little different.

Firstly people who make complaints about Horse racing and other equestrian sports being inhumane are, for the vast majority, people who have absolutely no experience or knowledge about caring for horses nor equestrian sports.

Most of us don’t know a great deal about horses, whereas most of us do occasionally take flights or eat meat (as it happens, I don’t) so I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison…

Secondly those people who are involved with horse racing are people who love horses and are deeply for their welfare, not sure the same can be said for abattoir workers and their love of animals, nor airline pilots and their commitment to reducing emissions.

I’ve probably not explained this very well, but the TLDR would be, people think horse racing is inhumane as they don’t know anything about it, and at the same time indulge in and turn blind eye to activities that are far far worse for animal welfare.  That’s a level of hypocrisy that I’m not willing or able to ignore.

Put it this way, if Putin criticised the UK for occupying the Falklands, whilst also invading Ukraine, would you think we ought to take his concerns on board?

I reckon even if somebody does eat meat, if what they say about horse racing is factually correct, then even with any hypocrisy, they're still valid in anything they say if it happens to be true. I think similar applies to morality and 'being good', or countries pulling one another up on things, no country or person is perfect, but we might all improve through mutual-pestering.

It seems to be that the racing itself raises the risks of injuries, and being put down, so the high welfare is only one part of racing, they're well treated until they're injured doing what they've been bred for, a fall and a broken leg or neck could seem to be pretty traumatic and painful. I don't how far it might compare to being channeled into a slaughter house and the process itself, but it can't be pleasant.

Obviously, not all race horses end their lives like this, but I think it comes down to how truthful and accurate people are being in what they say, for myself at least. Possibly, on certain levels particular to ourselves, we're all hypocrites... 

That's more a technicality under the rules than a physical limitation though.  It's not at all unheard of for a riderless horse to "win" the race (ie: cross the finishing line ahead of all the other horses), it's just that they get disqualified for having carelessly lost their jockey along the way.

You post got me thinking about a slightly new angle on the semantic wrangling over the precise meaning of the word 'athlete'..

How about a rowing coxwain - athlete, or not? 
(It struck me that their job is a bit like the job of a jockey - steer the boat, know the race, get the best performance out of the rowers, ideally be quite small and light, don't fall out of the boat.)

Sure, if you want to eat meat and say something that is factually correct about horse racing then you are perfectly at liberty to do so.  But saying that it is "arguably inhumane" is not a fact, it's an opinion.

You then dedicate a paragraph to the dispatching of racehorses after they have sustained an unrecoverable injury.  In flat races this happens in just 0.06% of starts, and over jumps it's significantly higher at 0.44% (these figs from 2019).  So in both cases extremely rare so to say "not all race horses end their lives like this" is somewhat of an understatement.

How did 100% of the meat at the butchers die?  Or how about the thousands upon thousands of bullocks, male chicks, lambs or other animals that are dispatched immediately after birth as they were unfortunate enough to be the wrong sex? 

I would suggest they led a far less fulfilling lives than the less than 0.5% of racehorses that have to be put down, and they met their end in a much less humane manner too.

By all means state facts, but you haven't stated any yet, and the fact that they are facts will not protect you from allegations of hypocrisy from me. 

Does the same apply to badger baiting or cock fighting?  Are you allowed an opinion on whether or not cock fighting is inhumane if you have no direct personal experience of being involved in a knife fight to the death with a chicken?

That's a bit of a non-sequitur.  Just because as statement is hypocritical doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.  Imagine Harold Shipman wrote you a letter from his prison cell to tell you it would be immoral to murder your granny for the inheritance: he'd be a hypocrite but you couldn't fault him on the facts.

Edit to add:
Oops.  I see you've just responded to the exact same stuff I posted there.  Also I wasn't being entirely serious, so you probably may as well ignore the above.

Ha, no worries!

I replied then deleted.  

I think essentially we're both saying the same thing, in that it's perfectly possible to be both a hypocrite whilst making a valid/true point.  

Chill dude, it's just an online discussion.

How do you know if I eat meat? As it happens, I don't.

https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-are-the-animal-welfare-issues-w...

Interesting to see that racehorses can still end up in slaughter houses after their careers, and that there's thought to be an over supply of potential race horses, with a question mark over what happens to some of those which don't end up racing.

Hopefully, you'll be up for discussing this without seemingly like becoming personal?

I am chilled, this is not me angry

Great that you don't eat meat. 

I've no issue with you, or even people who eat meat, or really anyone who is involved with the industries we've mentioned it's just that it gets my goat that many people's criticism of horse racing is based on misconceptions (did you have any idea the amount of horses put down was that low, for example) and yet they seem bury their heads in the sand regarding other animal welfare issues.

Like I say, that's not a criticism of you, but of the wider population. 

Yes, I'm aware of this.  Didn't some Horses end up in frozen Lasagne a few years back? 

Like I said above before I saw this post, I've no issue with people eating meat.  And frankly, I don't see what the difference is between eating a cow, a horse or even a dog so if horse have ended their usefulness I can't see why they shouldn't be slaughtered.

It's not an industry or a practice I choose to support, and I do have some issues with industry practices not being correctly followed in abattoirs, but in general people ought to be able to eat meat.

If it is easier to find a jockey who can win given the best horse than to find a horse that can win given the best jockey then the horse is more important.

I imagine the economics of the sport will reflect whether the horse or the jockey is more important. How much do jockeys make compared to the value of a champion racehorse? Don't owners sometimes use different jockeys for different races?

Other than the chosen few who are on retainers from big owners, Jockeys make a surprisingly meagre living.  £120 per flat race, £160 for jumps.

Compare that to the value of a top racehorse and there's no comparison, but then that's often due to the stud fees a top race horse can command.

Take Frankel, the best racehorse of all time, he won every race he ever raced in, and now he's out to stud, his fee for covering a mare is £175,000 per time.  And he can cover several in a day.

Now perhaps if Jockeys enjoyed a similar retirement after racing...

Not necessarily that simple. To throw a slight spanner in the works, a human can beat a horse in a marathon - a horse can’t regulate it’s body temperature as well as a human so is more prone to overheating on long distances. The fact that we sweat gives us an advantage in this regard compared to most mammals, even if they have a higher top speed. 

Yeah, but will a boy ever be born who can swim faster than a shark?

I think the big advantage we have is not having to carry another mammal. The man v horse "marathon" suggests the horses, even with this handicap almost always win. The course record is 1h 20, I don't think a human has got within 50 minutes.

Putting the two together doesn't seem to help as the marathon record for a pantomime horse is about 5 hours. 

You mean you reserve the right to call out hypocrisy when you're fine with people eating meat?

I think the argument room is down the corridor...

I agree that the above is one valid way to measure importance.

I’m fine with people doing all sorts of things that have no appeal to me! 
 

Not sure that makes me a hypocrite. A liberal maybe. An argumentative little sh!t certainly

Fair enough.

I plan to switch to wild Muntjac meat, seems like the best compromise, environmentally and in terms of welfare, it strikes me that it could be a greener source of certain nutrients than from mono culture crops, but it's not an option which would work across the population.

I guess most jockeys are horse lovers, but that's taking it just a bit too far...

Horses sweat, trust me! I looked up 'man v. horse' and it looks as if horses win more often than not. We are not better 'adapted' to long distance running than species like equids and canids. Not being furry or big, we sweat more than horses, so our performance does not decrease as much in extreme heat as theirs, but their performance is still generally better. Certainly an averagely fit horse would be able to beat most humans, even many elite ultra marathon runners, and without a doubt, the rest of us schlubs. The ultra marathon runner is the only one who has a chance. I go "running" with my OH -- where I am riding my Highland pony at a trot, and he's jogging alongside. My horse can go much further and faster at that speed. However, humans are smarter (well, sometimes I question that), so when pre-industrial humans were hunting big game in the Kalahari or the Midwest plains, they could strategise the hunt in a way that most animals could not and capitalize on their slight advantage in extreme heat.

In the horse v. human endurance races, the human runners aren't carrying a backpack that's 15-20% of their body weight. It would be a fairer competition if they were.

Here's some science: https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/EP088502

And the science distilled into more accessible English: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/humans-vs-horses-...