[King Glorious]

I don't know why I'm going to try this but here goes. I don't think that First Defence is a better horse than Commentator is. Not even close. Just like I don't think Lamar Odom is a better basketball player than Kevin Garnett is. Again, not close. What Commentator and Garnett have in common is what they are good at, they are GREAT at. Commentator, when allowed to run alone and control a pace, is as brilliant as we've seen in a while. Garnett, when allowed to be a complimentary player, is outstanding too. But when either it taken out of their element and asked to do something different, both of them lose a little something and lesser horses or players can sometimes make up the difference. I think this is what he was trying to get at when he said that First Defence is a better horse; because he's a little more versatile. I remember having a converasation about Candy Ride a couple of years ago along these same lines. I had told someone that singularly, Candy Ride didn't have the resume to be voted as the champion horse on the dirt or on the turf but when combined, maybe he did have the resume to be voted HOY. Or Lava Man. He may not have been the best dirt horse in 2006 and he may not have been the best grass horse either but maybe he was the best overall horse. Maybe none of this makes sense but I think that's what he was trying to get at, that's he'd take a horse that can do more things above average than one that can do only one thing, even if he's brilliant at that one thing. Think of it another way. Would you rather have one player that can get you 45 points if his jumper is falling but he can't ever put the ball on the floor and get to the basket and he can't play any defense and he doesn't rebound well or pass well..........or would you rather have a guy that may only get you 20 points but he can create his own shot, get you 6-8 rebounds, get you 4-6 assists, and also play some defense?