Would you choose Looks over Talent with a Horse ...

O

opinionuk

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 August 2009
Messages
594
Visit site
Following on from the 'Are you a Horse Snob' thread that I just read, something slightly different here..

If you had the choice of two horses which were priced equally which would you choose -

1.The talented Horse that was 'not fancy' just a standard horse that people would prob class as 'rough looking' (no such thing as an ugly horse i know before somebody shouts at me lol)

2. or the stunning horse that would catch peoples eye but wasn't half as talented but you know you would look good on.

Which one would you choose..
 
1!!



i do however have acracking looking filly who people always comment on how pretty/well marked she is... she has fab paces too so rather hoping shes abit of both :D
 
Unfortunately I'd be shallow and choose number 2, then hope they would improve in time, also depends on the sex, if number 2 was a Mare and Number 1 was a Gelding I'd go with number 1 everytime! lol
 
I'd choose talent, I'd rather people say "oh it looks like a camel but it's amazing!" Than "it's stunning but my god it's crap!" Lol!
 
If it did the job I wanted wouldn't worry bout looks - unless obviouslyfor showing
so 1.

My daughters a horsey snob so 2 for her ' doesn't do ugly' Says if going to be c*** may as well look good doing it! lol Her present horse is talented and good lookin BUT horses brain gets in the way!
Thing is she's not a c*** rider so easy to say!
 
in fairness i do look at some horses and think (wtf?)!.... but i do see pas tthat to see if they offer more.


my horse of a lifetime fwiw was a bog standard bay mare.... who i didnt thnk was very pretty for about 12 months!!.... she was incredible... a lovely person and tried her heart out for me...i lost her last year.

i now have a red and white show stock/bred filly (i dont even do showing i do dressage lol)... totally different as i couldnt bare to lay eyes on a "bog standard bay mare" anymore...
 
No2 as long as it wasn't a mare! I don't do mares (& there are such things in my books as an ugly horse, just as there are ugly dogs, cats etc).

You can work on lack of talent on the whole - unless of course you were aiming for the olympics ;)


Thinking about it, I'd choose neither. I'd pick one that had the looks/conf but a blank canvas work wise, i never buy 'ready done' ones!
 
Difficult to say - because talent is an extremely vague definition and as long as a piece of string.

If number 1. had sufficient talent for my need/level of riding, and number 2. didn't then I'd opt for number 1. given no other choice (lthough may just accept that neither were my ideal and keep looking)

If number 2. had the talent for my needs (but number 1. was very talented and I would likely be overhorsed) then I'd opt for number 2 no question.

I like a good looking horse, end of. But I am very self aware of how much talent that good looking horse needs to have to match my riding level.
 
Well talent's no good to me as I'm useless myself, and no horse will ever make me look good!

So I'd go for the one with the nicer temperament, or the one that looked like it would be easiest to do :)
 
I would find myself a number three, something talented enough for what I want, that I found attractive.

A little bit like a man in many ways - I'm not going to go for the world's funniest man if I don't find him attractive, equally I wouldn't go out with a fitty that had the personality of a donkey's behind.
 
Depends what you mean by no talent. I don't want an eventer or a dressage star, I just want something to hack on! So if it could handle a hack and behave, then I'd go for #2!

However, if by lack of talent you mean it's just downright annoying, then #1!
 
I chose no 1 for my young son my mother thought I had lost the plot when she saw a pic of him . I have had the last laugh the duckiling is turning into a swan hasn't put a hoof wrong is my sons best friend and is showing talent! Handsome is s handsome does:)
 
Always the first.

I've bought several 'ugly ducklings' over the years which turned into swans with the correct feed and exercise but they were all capable of doing the job I wanted them to do when I bought them.
 
ihatework said:
Difficult to say - because talent is an extremely vague definition and as long as a piece of string.

If number 1. had sufficient talent for my need/level of riding, and number 2. didn't then I'd opt for number 1. given no other choice (lthough may just accept that neither were my ideal and keep looking)

If number 2. had the talent for my needs (but number 1. was very talented and I would likely be overhorsed) then I'd opt for number 2 no question.

I like a good looking horse, end of. But I am very self aware of how much talent that good looking horse needs to have to match my riding level.
Click to expand...

This 100%
 
IMO the two go hand in hand. Talent is often at least partially due to good conformation and a horse with good conformation is, in my eyes, the best kind of good looking. An upright shoulder and weak behind is never going to have the power to move nicely or jump well.

Also, it's amazing what correct training and muscling can turn a rather plain horse both talent and looks wise into .....
 
Having spent most of my life buying sensible ponies that where child safe when my children stopped riding I decided to buy for looks as well, and if you buy quality you can have both.
One think I have found out though is you can never improve a plain head and a pretty head is so lovely to look at poking over the stable door in the morning. It just makes me smile.
 
Talent every time.

I'd just love to be looked down on for having an 'ugly' horse in the show jumping/eventing etc ring then go on and whop everyone else's butts while they have rails down on their attractive all the gear horses.

Like someone else said, looks dont leave fences up/jump them better
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm biased towards mine so I think they're quite beautiful but also talented. Or should say do the job well they were bred to do, including the ones I sold on. But I would always prefer a horse that is talented and sound enough to do whatever job you want it to do. So a safe hacker is talented too if you know what I mean. As I have no aspirations beyond my stations I tend to turn over the ride to pros so my horses can at least show their talent. As in they ride at show only!

Terri
 
I'd keep looking till I found one with both. Although saying that all horses look good in perfect self carriage, so assuming our combined talent made that possible most of the time, number one could be suprisingly stunning under saddle.
I did actually in part fall for mine though cos she was an ugly duckling, I didn't have the knowledge then to know she'd become a swan. And daughters I bought from pure sympathy, didn't even see her in proper light till we got home. Yet the beauty of both takes my breath away when I watch them.
 
Handsome is as handsome does - as the saying goes. Doesn't matter what it looks like so long as it delivers. Some of the nice looking ones are good to see when in the stable/field, but think they are so pretty they don't have to do any work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top