Quote:
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.


And where do you get that from? I think you're projecting your on prejudice on me, because I'm sure as hell I've never said such thing.

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


No, in order to breed a decent working horse you have to be aware that there are more attributes than looks and if the horse looks good but can't work is completely worthless but if the horse can work but is not good looking it'll be still useful. It's quite simple and logical actually


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


Again, you got it backwards, if you get an outstanding performer you can't just dismiss it because it's not pretty, the horse is supposed to be a performer first.


Quote:
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.


I think I've figured out what's wrong with your way of thinking. You emphasize looks so much you assume that if a top performer doesn't have all the qualities mentioned above that's exactly the reason for it's success, it won because it has bad conformation. You don't realize that a horse can have other qualities that make it overcome its own flaws.

Quote:
Exceptions to a rule aren't going to carry the entire breed or change much of anything.


Except for the Impressive bred ones, huh? those exceptions make the rule...