[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Saint Liam was beaten by Rock Hard Ten in his backyard. Rock Hard Ten was completely useless outside of California and that is a huge mark against him with me. The SA Handicap was clearly the only real blemish on Saint Liam's record as his only other loss during the entire campaign was to Commentator in the race of that horse's life. He was there when it counted and he performed at a high level.

Rock Hard Ten was overrated from the time he broke his maiden. Everyone latched onto him on the Derby Trail and the DQ in the SA Derby added to his appeal because it led to his exclusion at CD. As a 4YO he was good, sure, but he also hardly ran. The SA Handicap was a solid race but His Goodwood was the ultimate unimpressive race to me as he and Roman Ruler had cupcake trips and he capitalized.

When Saint Liam ran in the SA Handicap he was coming off a very handy win in the Donn where he BURIED the Dubai World Cup winner.

So, yes, RHT might have won the only head to head matchup but I still think Saint Liam was better. RHT, like Candy Ride but to a greater extent, is held in high regard because of potential more so than substance IMO.

NT

I get that and don't disagree with a lot of it. I actually wasn't all that taken with RHT myself. But I was even less taken with SL. I never thought either of them was that much of a horse. Everyone made a huge deal of St. Liam because of how well he ran against Ghostzapper in the Woodward. Nobody gives any credit to Peace Rules though and PR handled him twice earlier in the year. For me, it was a close decision on which one of them deserved to be the top older male and in a tight vote, I'd give the advantage to the one that beat the other. I've never understood the argument that a horse didn't run enough. Good is good, whether it's three races or 30. If a horse wins the Kentucky Derby, Woodward, and BC Classic in his only three races of the year, is he only held in high regard because of his potential? Hell no. That's a good horse.