and actually I'm not sure I do agree with it only being
Sprinter Sacre and
Buveur D'air.
My Tent Or Yours, if good enough to come 2nd in 3 CH's with a year break, should have been beating a stayer in Champagne Fever, who couldn't even beat Western Warhorse the year after
Santini - is almost certainly going to prove he was better after his novice season, yet to actually do it, but there is no way he's not a better horse than Kilbricken Storm, after just 6 months and a fence...under achieved (and he was quite open about that being 'the plan' and him being minded for fences, which is all well and good, but for actual talent and running around a field at 3 miles, he's just a better horse than he showed.)
Darlan - would it be hugely unfair to say he should have won the Supreme? He was that short for a CH and so well fancied. Unable to ever be proven but you can't say he 'over achieved' as a novice when he was expected to do so well in the CH. I think he under achieved with him on the face of it.
Simonsig -Doesn't prove that he was better as a novice. His Arkle win was brilliant as well... at best he did the same.
Bobs Worth - Tough horse, obviously did well in the Albert Bartlett, but again I'd disagree, it's harder to win a Gold Cup than an Albert Bartlett, so Bobs Worth was a better horse too after his novice campaign.
So, have any of those horses you've named actually been BETTER as a novice hurdler? I don't think we can say that at all