You're wrong about Gulch. He was specifically trained to go long. He ran in every TC race ( he was third in the Belmont ). He didn't just win the Wood....he lost a photo to the mighty Java Gold in the Whitney. He also ran second in the Woodward to Polish Navy.

Perhaps he was ultimately better sprinting, or maybe the competition was just weaker ( and Afleet should have beaten him in both the Met and BC Sprint in 1988 ) but he was still one of the best horses in the country at 1 1/8, when there were extremely good horses running, as both a 3YO and 4YO. What he was was versatile.

It's not so clear Waquoit and Crypto were consistently better than Gulch at 1 1/8...and spare me Cutlass Reality. I knew Cutlass Reality before his miracle transformation in California....and he was no Gulch.

Those TC races were in 1987. That Wood was 1987. That Whitney was 1987. That Woodward was 1987. Maybe it's wrong to say he wasn't trained as a router in 1988 but he lost every single time they tried him in routes. Lost Code and Cryptoclearance beat him at Oaklawn. Alysheba and Bet Twice beat him in the Iselin. Cutlass Reality beat him in the Californian. Personal Ensign beat him in the Whitney. Now, the reality is that all of those were really good horse and you are probably right that he had more success sprinting because the competition was weaker. But while he was a very good horse and very versatile one and one of my favorite horses ever, I do not think he was one of the upper echelon of routers in the country that year. I don't think he was on the level of Alysheba, Forty Niner, Seeking the Gold, Waquiot, Cutlass Reality, Ferdinand, Bet Twice, Lost Code, and Cryptoclearance. Maybe it's a matter of how deep you are willing to go when classifying what's upper echelon to you. For me the top level was Alysheba. The next level was Bet Twice, Lost Code, Forty Niner, and Seeking the Gold. The next had Ferdinand, Waquoit, Cutlass Reality, and Ferdinand. Gulch would come in after that. Again, I think on ability, Gulch had the kind of talent that could have won him HOY this year. I was not comparing them in ability.

I love when you bring this up (this is at least the third time), because you always avoid the legitimate answer.

The Eclipse Awards are handed out to the best horses to race in North America.

See an atlas for further details.

I have never avoided that. I have stated that very clearly. I know where Canada is. And that doesn't change the point. With his win in Canada, Singspiel won ONE race in North America. He cemented the Eclipse with his win in the Japan Cup. Maybe you'll consult that atlas to see what Japan is.

I think it was Diplomatic Jet.. he had a pretty nice year in 96...

No, what you stated clearly was that Singspiel did not deserve the Turf eclipse because he never won in the US (nor did Pilsudski for that matter). However, unlike Pilsudski (whom Singspiel lit up in England earlier in the year), Singspiel could at least claim more than one start in North America (not to be confused with the Pacific Rim), with a record of one win, one second in two Grade 1 starts (one of which being the all-important BC Turf).

Not particularly a strong hand, but when you consider the closest US-based horse finish in that year's BC Turf was the older mare (and ex-Euro) Windsharp, and further still down to 6th to find a male (and ex-Euro) Talloires, it's not a stretch to see why voters were hesitant to give it to some underachieving patriot.

For those keeping score, the All-American Awad was next closest homer, finishing 9th. Diplomatic Jet beat two horses, one of whom was Rick's Natural Star.

Next.

Do you make this up? Where do you get that I've EVER said he didn't deserve it? I've never once said that. My only intention for ever bringing up this situation is when people suggest that foreign records do not count when it comes to balloting for the Eclipse awards. They act like only records compiled in the U.S count and I only point out that plenty of horses over the past have been awarded championships based on records in races won outside of this country, Singspiel being the best example. Personally, I am in favor of factoring in foreign records and if I had a vote in 1996, I would have voted for Singspiel also.

Connections don't manage horses for the fans. Period. Fans will continue to be disappointed if they hold owners and trainers to that standard. This filly was entered exactly where she should have been -- the best spot -- for themselves and for the filly. Nobody can debate they the connections don't have the filly's best interest in mind. That decision was based upon what the connections felt was best for her, and in reality nobody can dispute that as they don't "know" a fraction of what the trainer "knows" about this filly.

If there was some overt, constant, lobbying, etc. for her to be horse of the year and they were grandstanding about it, then you ask the question and critisize the decision that was made, and ultimately not give it to her because of the decision. That is not going on here. The trainer was asked a question -- a stereotypical, nonsensical question which means absolutely nothing -- and he answered it by complimenting his horse, and I think he did it humbly. He showed class -- which he always does. Maybe some people just don't recognize it.

Eric

I don't see how you can be so certain that the foreign records are weighted so heavily. I would even doubt that they are scrutinized with anything more than a passing glance.

Did Hatoof's Group 2 win France somehow tip the scales in her favor in '93? What about Miss Alleged's mighty Group 3 win back in '91?

Your tried and true fallback is Miesque who resoundingly destroyed the competition in the BC Mile, as did Arazi (and to a lesser extent, Johannesburg) in the Juvenile. It could be argued those dominating performances were enough to sway voters regardless of exploits overseas.

The one instance where you might have a point is BC dead-heater High Chapparal in '03, and even then, I'd guess that voters were more swayed by the fact that they gave him the Eclipse in '02, as opposed to anything specific he did in Britain in '03.

im not going to get in the way of your little debate here but i found the voting for turf eclipse in 2002 to be especially interesting. High Chaparral wins off of one victory. With anticipation is second with 11 votes. Third place? Rock of Gibraltar who didnt even win a race here.

Explain that please.

Dubai should not count. The horses that one eclipses in this country for one BC win won because of that win and a weak division over here. Thier Euro campaigns did not matter

well said, and for this we have a "I have lost all respect for John Shirreffs".

Explain what exactly? Rock Of Gibraltar didn't come close to winning the Eclipse, did he?

Apparently he was just some half-assed nominee to complete the ballot.

Who were the nominees alongside Favorite Trick or Storm Flag Flying or Halfbridled or Personal Ensign, etc.?

i guess it just means ROG got a vote from someone, which got him into the final three. the top three vote getters are those who are announced as being in the running in january, apparently some nimrod thought he deserved a vote.

The point is he was nominated. Based on what? Surely it wasnt his North American accomplishments because he never won a race here...unless im mistaken.

But it had to be more than just ONE "nimrod". No?

there aren't nominations. finalists are based on the top three vote getters in each category-and that is decided purely by those who get a ballot.

no

Okay...fine. He was a top three vote getter. Based on what?

The final voting was:

High Chapparal 30

With anticipation 11

Rock of Gibraltar 7

you would have to ask the guy who voted for him. it's writers who vote the awards, no telling why someone would vote for him...

edit~so make that seven who voted for him. the year that azeri got hoy, i don't think she was unanimous in the top mare category.

I know Andy Beyer was one " nimrod " that voted for Rock of Gibralter. I believe he wrote a column about it.

i said it didn't have to be more than one because a horse can be in the top three with only one vote-i didn't specifically know what rocks tally was, and it doesn't really matter.

i would imagine he got votes because, by running here he was eligible, and if memory serves he had one hell of a year.

And thats the point. If Rock of Gibraltar was a nominee and received 7 votes, you have to think that his performance overseas was taken into account because he never won a race over here.

And i dont think anything is wrong with that. That was the point KG was trying to make.

I think.

i would imagine it's taken into account. i'd also imagine most writers with a vote don't have a clue who really is in the running, as unlike beyer, they don't keep up with the sport on a regular basis. so, name recognition would be key. how else would a euro-based horse get recognition then if their season was taken as a whole?
a race here makes them eligible, but i don't think one performance here is enough to elevate a horse to an award.
personally, i thought with anticipation deserved the award, but since it's not solely a us based award or even a north american award, you can't really argue with the results, as high chaparral fulfilled all the needs for a vote.

and i can understand why he would vote for him, but i don't agree with it. but it's his choice, and at least he pays attention all year long, unlike a lot of other voters.

Hatoof won the title in 1994. In addition to her second in the BC Turf against males, she also won the Beverly D. Stakes here in the U.S.

Miss Alleged won the title in 1991. In addition to her win in the BC Turf against males, she also win the Hollywood Turf Cup against males.

I fail to see your point in those instances.

It has already been stated a couple of times in this thread that there are no rules.

and my point is they dont hold that consistent, if they did many european horses would have won eclipses over american horses.

Well, there is the one rule that says you have to have started at least one time here in NA. After that, it's all subjective. For some of the voters, European form is taken into account. For others, it's not. But to say that foreign form doesn't count is just incorrect because if foreign form wasn't taken into consideration in a lot of instances, I bet there would be a few different winners.

Thanks....I assumed that was implicit but I should have thrown that in.

It has to be a combination of both. A Euro with a good record that wins a BC race combined with a lack of an American standout in the division gives that Euro a good chance at winning. An American standout will usually get it. Take the case of 1995, for example. Possibly Perfect won the award for top grass female because she had won the Beverly D, Ramona, and Gamely, all grade ones along with the grade three Wilshire and a second in the grade one Beverly Hills. That was a strong enough record to beat out Ridgewood Pearl even though Ridgewood Pearl had an outstanding record in Europe. It's the same as with HOY. If there is an outstanding older male on dirt or an outstanding 3yo male on dirt, they will always have the advantage over a female, especially if that female doesn't beat the boys. If those divisions are weak, however, then the door is opened up to a female. To a lesser extent but it's still there, grass horses are at that same disadvantage. If Bertrando wins the BC Classic in 1993, I think he wins the award over Kotashaan. If Turkoman or Precisionist win the Classic in 1986, I think they beat out Lady's Secret. If War Emblem wins the 2002 Classic, I doubt Azeri wins her award.

The only one that I'm really at a loss to explain is how in the world Favorite Trick won the award in 1997.

I totally disagree!!!! Not with the above quote but with your "Hail To The Redskins" sig. Go Steelers! :)

Cool.

So now you admit that just two North American starts is enough to earn the Eclipse.

Let's add Singspiel to that list, too, please.

There is no consistancy because every season is different. Typically when Euro's come to the US and get an Eclipse, it's in a division where chaos dominated. Juvies are suseptible as there are few G1's and except the BC, the best rarely meet up. Thus Johannesbug. Obviously the turf division is another. We don't separate turf milers as they do in Europe. This year you could make a case that Goldikova is the best grass horse to run in the US, even though she didn't have an American campaign. You could also argue that Conduit was the best because (typically) the router on grass gets more credit than the miler. Who of the US horses could you consider? IF there was a strong grass horse (if Kip had won the Woodbine Mile maybe or Dancing Forever not tanked on soft going) I'd prefer to see one of them get it, but I cannot see it happeneing unless Shug sends DF out there to dominate the Hollywood Turf Cup. Even then, it's a crap shoot.

It might work for Mignight Lute even though one of the starts was a horrible loss.

Wilko didn't win the Eclipse. Declan's Moon did. Ultimately, Giacomo or Sun King would have been better champs if you take into account future performance.

By the way, up until his disastrous BC (and subsequent pack-mule punishment courtesy of Bob Baffert), Officer was far and away the dominant juvenile in the US, having shipped out to win the Champagne comfortably after terrorizing the competition at Del Mar. Johannesburg's cause was probably aided by those late season losses in the Cal Cup and Hollywood Futurity. Worthy of mention was Came Home, who was a very early season stakes winner in CA before lighting up the Hopeful at Saratoga.

I think one is enough. You don't need two. I would have voted Ghostzapper in 2005 off of one start.