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