The general consensus seems to be the better looking the horse, the less desirable it is for a working horse. If the horse is nice looking, it simply must have a terrible mind, totally incapable of being an athlete trained to work.

So, in order to breed a decent working horse (cowhorses, specifically), we must sacrifice conformation, substance, and eye appeal?

Why can't a horse have conformation, substance, eye appeal AND athletic ability? Why must something be sacrificed for the other?

I can answer that. For a horse to be at the top in any one of the specialized disciplines today, something has to be extreme in their phenotype - size, bone, conformation - conformation that deviates from correct, which allows them to compete and win. If you pay close attention to the conformation and type of the horses that are at the top of their respective disciplines, you will find horses whose conformation has deviated from the ideal. Cutters, WP, halter horses, HUS horses, etc. All of them have been taken to an extreme for the win.

A horse that is very correct, balanced, and has eye appeal cannot be competitive in today's specialized events. That horse is just an all-around type that can't win in any one event. Whether breeders are aware of it or not, if they're breeding for one specific discipline, they are breeding away from the ideal. I don't want to hear about exceptions, because we all know they exist. Exceptions to a rule aren't going to carry the entire breed or change much of anything. Ropers and barrel racers might be the closest type of horses to the ideal because their breeders are utilizing the type of blood that has been proven to uphold the integrity of the breed.