There are no rules in Eclipse voting. In fact it is often very subjective. Singspiel is but one example.
It sometimes just depends on the competition. As good as Proud Spell and Music Note are, I would venture a guess that the "best" 3yo filly to race in the US this year was Goldikova. She crushed older males and her dominating performance over Classic runner up Henrythenavigator and 3x G1 winner Darjina (in the G1 Prix du Moulin) and 2 length loss to the Arc winner mark as her superior. In a year when there were no outstanding 3yo fillies she could be a solid candidate. This year we have Indian Blessing, Proud Spell and Music Note so we don't "need" to look outside the box.

The male sprinters this year are a mess. Since Street Boss has a true campaign, not one big race and one debacle, I'd lean toward him.

As much as I like Intangroo, the one time she and Indian Blessing met, IB handled her solidly. IB gets the nod.

I'm not opposed to counting foreign races for US based runners (Curlin, BTB) but less convinced about counting non US races for non US based runners. US horses deserve credit for good showing overseas. I'm sure that foreign voters give points to horses that ship to the US and win or run well in awarding whatever awards they may have. I tend to think that to earn an award, a horse should have a campaign and that it should be US based.

I pretty much agree. I want to reward those that had a "season" and accomplished something special within the sport. Its not weighting like some places do rating the best effort in a race.

You completely avoid the question. The question was WHY DID SINGSPIEL WIN IT? Not whether you thought he should or whether you agree with them counting foreign records. And the only answer is because they DO consider foreign records. You can argue forever about whether or not they should consider them but how can you debate the fact that they do?

If you give the nod to IB because of the head to head, why not Ventura, who handled IB easily and also had another grade two win in an open company sprint earlier in the year?

I'm curious KG, and forgive me if you have already answered this as I don't have the patience to read this entire thread, if you knew before this weekend that Zenyatta was returning next year, would you ( personally ) have been more forgiving towards the connections for running in the Distaff?

There is a fine line that's in play here. On one hand, I absolutely wanted to see her in the Classic this year. I thought she fit and that she deserved a shot at history. But at the same time, while I may call her connections chickens, I could understand the how they were feeling. Shirreffs obviously spends more time with her than I do and knows her better and if he didn't feel like she was up to it, you have to defer to that even though it's disappointing to you as a fan. Maybe he felt mentally she wasn't up to it or maybe it was physically. That part, I could understand. But the problem that I have is when you decide that you aren't going to take that road and then campaign in the media about what how your horse deserves to be recognized. I say take your Distaff trophy and check and be satisfied with that. That's the path you chose. Don't say that the reward is not worth the risk......and then campaign for the reward after not taking the risk. And maybe it wasn't his intention but to bring up Eight Belles and suggest that had a part in why he didn't want to run the risk? I personally feel that was an attempt to get a few people that would hold it against him for not running in the Classic to say "yeah, I can understand where he's coming from" and not hold it against him. There are too many countless example of females that run successfully against the boys and don't die for him to use that example as justification for not trying it.

I've said a lot but to answer your question, no, I would not have been more forgiving. You know as well as anyone with these animals that tomorrow is not promised. Sometimes, there is a limited window of opportunity there to take shots at history. Azeri is a very recent and similar example to Zenyatta. Her best shot would have been 2002 when she was at her best. Zenyatta may never be better than she is now and the opportunity may never be as good as it was Saturday. It's like those trainers that skip the BC Juvenile with a horse that's ready to win now because they are trying to save something for the Derby. Skipping today for a race six months down the line has never been something I would subscribe too. I've always believed in strike while the iron is hot.

How did he campaign through the media? Someone asked him a question...what is he supposed to say...." she doesn't deserve to be considered for HOY? "

They raced Zenyatta frequently this year. They shipped her to Arkansas. They ran her in a race for $2 Million where she was 3:5. I have a hard time seeing how they didn't make the right choice for themselves, the horse, and, quite frankly, for the fans.

If we are talking sprint campaigns, I only count Ventura's 2 sprints. To me her turf routes though good, are meaningless, That means she had a 2 race "campaign" in sprints where IB had a fuller season of sprints. Honestly, if Ventura did win, I wouldn't be outraged as she's clearly a very good sprinting filly and beat IB fair and square.


As for the original point of the thread, I agree with BTW. Sherriffs is supporting his filly for HOY. If bozo's who couldn't tell Zenyatta from Curlin can rant all week on the relative merits of each, why shouldn't the trainer of Zenyatta take he position that she's a HOY candidate?

Didnt Midnight Lute win the sprint championship with only 2 solid sprint races last year. He wasnt dominating all year long or even sprinting for that matter. I think mostly what they look at here is the BC to crown their champ.

I have no doubt it was the right choice for themselves. The horse though? I don't know about that. She's not some little filly that would get bounced around and intimidated by some bigger males. Hell, she's bigger than the boys are. She might have intimidated them. And I completely disagree with you that this was the right choice for the fans. I think by an overwhelming majority, the fans would have rather seen her in the Classic than in the Distaff.

Getting back to your earlier question, I don't just want to see her race any males. I wanted to see her take on the best. A lot of people make a big deal out of Personal Ensign beating the boys. I don't. I mean, it was Gulch and King's Swan. I respect Gulch but beating him at 9f at that stage of his career wasn't an overwhelming accomplishment. And it was a three horse field. If I could have known in advance that for sure they'd bring Zenyatta back next year and they'd try her against the males and the males are Mast Track and Two Step Salsa and some of those other second rate horses out here in Cali, don't bother.

Exactly. And this year, he might win it again with only one win.

Yes and nobody more than ESPN would have preferred this too.

Dont forget the owner had a horse who finished third in the dang race.

The network execs were happier with her running Friday. She was the key horse to their Ladies Day thing. The racing people at ESPN (Bailey, Moss, etc), they probably would have rather her be in the Classic.

I think that would be a shame.

So you think the horse is in her stall stomping around since she didn't get a shot at the Classic? She was absolutely placed in the race she belonged in the most. She beat Cocoa Beach by around a length. That seems to be forgotten around here.

I think you need to brush up on the merits of Gulch and King's Swan....and compare them to the mediocrities mascarading as Grade 1 horses these days. In any way comparing them to Two Step Salsa and Mast Track is grossly unfair.

Now, I'm going to get back to stomping around MY stall.

No I don't think she's stomping around in her stall angry at all. Not anymore than you think she's in her stall wiping sweat from her brow in relief of not having to face the boys in the Classic.

I wasn't comparing the merits of Gulch and King's Swan at all. I know what those horses did and what they were. What I was simply saying was that they weren't considered the upper echelon of the male runners in their year just like Two Step and Mast Track would be facing males but nowhere near the upper echelon's of the male horses.

Gulch was definitely considered in the upper echelon of male runners that year and King's Swan was close....and only considered below the top because we actually had good horses running then.

As one of the Rastas so eloquently put it, one cold winter day at Aqueduct, as King Swan was repulsing a challenge while carrying 130ish pounds....." and NOOOOOOOOBODY passes the Swan! "

wasn't gulch an eclipse award winner that year? to compare him to mast track is a bit much, isn't it?

Come on people. I'm not comparing them in ability. I'm comparing them in relation to the best runners of their year. That's not the same. In 1988, Gulch was the champion sprinter. He won the Met Mile too. But Personal Ensign beat him at 9f. That was beyond the distance that he was trained to specialize at that year. So don't tell me about how he won the Wood the year before. In 1988, Gulch's wins were the Sprint, Met Mile, Carter, and the Portero Grande. King's Swan was the epitome of a tough veteran the had to always be respected. In terms of ability, he and Gulch are like night and day compared to Two Step Salsa and Mast Track. Hell, in today's game, Gulch and King's Swan might be able to win Eclipse awards as champion older male and champion sprinter. That's not the comparison I was making though. As a router in 1988, Gulch was behind the likes of Alysheba, Bet Twice, Lost Code, Cryptoclearance, Cutlass Reality, Forty Niner, Waquoit, Ferdinand.....he was not a top level router.