The Eclipse Awards, was once hailed as the definitive annual recognition of excellence in North American horse racing, have long held a coveted place in the sport. Named in honor of the 18th-century British racehorse Eclipse, whose progeny included some of the greatest horses in history, these awards were once seen as a powerful arbiter of a horse’s legacy—and critically, their subsequent breeding value. Yet, a growing sentiment among industry veterans suggests that the Eclipse Awards are losing their luster, devolving into something akin to a “participation trophy” system that prioritizes simple metrics over true, nuanced excellence.
The Erosion of Breeding Value Enhancement
Traditionally, earning an Eclipse Award in a specific division—especially those for older males or females—could provide a substantial boost to a horse’s stud fee or a mare’s value at auction. The title served as a reliable mark of superior performance and durability, attributes highly desired in bloodlines.
Today, that direct correlation appears weaker. While a Horse of the Year title remains impactful, a division award often seems to merely validate the status quo rather than elevate an unforeseen or underappreciated champion. The market for elite bloodstock is now dominated by quantifiable, publicly visible data—Grade 1 wins, earnings, and pedigree—that often already dictate a horse’s value before the Eclipse votes are even tallied. The award risks becoming a redundant footnote instead of a value-adding stamp of approval.
The Problem with the Electorate
The most significant criticism leveled at the Eclipse Awards is the composition and methodology of the voting body. The electorate, comprised of members from the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA), Daily Racing Form (DRF), and National Turf Writers and Broadcasters (NTWAB), is intended to represent informed opinion. However, critics argue that the body increasingly acts as a “click”—a homogenous group influenced more by media narratives and recency bias than by deep, historical knowledge and a thorough understanding of the sport’s subtle nuances.
- Reliance on Basic Statistics: Votes often appear heavily weighted toward the horse with the most wins, the highest earnings, or the most Grade 1 victories, regardless of factors like strength of competition, performance consistency across different tracks/distances, or overcoming adversity. This quantitative focus discourages “outside-the-box” thinking.
- Abstention vs. Privilege: A related point of contention is the practice of some voters abstaining from categories where they feel they lack sufficient knowledge. While restraint might seem responsible, the core argument is that voting in the Eclipse Awards is a privilege that demands the voter act as a student of the entire game, taking the necessary time to research and evaluate all categories. Abstaining can skew results, effectively handing the decision to the more easily swayed segment of the electorate.
The California Chrome Turf Horse Fiasco
The perceived silliness and decline in standards were perhaps most vividly illustrated by the 2016 vote where California Chrome received a vote for Champion Turf Male.
- California Chrome’s brilliance was undeniable, and he was justly named Horse of the Year.
- However, his sole race on the grass that year was the Hollywood Turf Cup, in which he finished first beating a filly, Lexie Lou.
- To give him a vote in a division he ran in only once despite a win against a filly—over horses who campaigned successfully on turf all year—is viewed by many as an intellectual failure of the voting process. It suggests a voter prioritized a favorite horse or a big name over the actual competitive requirements of the category. This singular anecdote has become a stark symbol of how, in some cases, the vote prioritizes popularity over performance criteria.
A Racing Institution Gone?
The Eclipse Awards are not yet irrelevant, but their stature is undoubtedly diminished. They remain a major publicity event, securing headlines and providing content for racing media. However, if they continue to award excellence based primarily on surface-level statistics and voter convenience, they risk losing their historical weight and prestige entirely. To reclaim their role as a truly meaningful measure of a horse’s greatness and a meaningful tool for enhancing bloodstock value, the Eclipse Awards need a voting electorate that demonstrates a deeper commitment to the privilege of the vote and a willingness to look beyond the leaderboards to find the true champions of the year.
