To the average eye the competitors at a horse show all seem to be the same. The riders and horses had to be at a certain skill level in order to be there. The horses are at par with one another, but how do they really differ?

I happened to be at English riding show with a client and their horse. We had prepared him for the show and it was time to put the horse to the test. The difference between all the horses would be in the performance level. In equine terms, the form of the horse had to be perfect in order to compete. Any horse begins unbalanced, asymmetrical and often unmotivated to perform; it takes much training to get to this level with a horse. The ideal horse is in this perfect form but only takes the red ribbon when it matches the disciplines status quo in the best way. (I realized the status quo has not changed that much over the years.) This performance level is achieved usually by 'form to function' as the standard in most horse training. It is generally agreed that if the rider can get a horse into an ideal form then it not only looks the part but it should then perform the part. However, this is not necessarily the case for many horses. Looks can be deceiving! It is how the form of the horse was derived that is the important. Is the horse made be in form by mechanical devices and relentless repetition? Or, is the horse allowed to find this ideal form and function with it out of its own willingness? Did the horse get there on its own terms or was it 'no holds barred' made to get there?

As a rule I work with a horse so that it can function first. Any horse can function naturally because they already innately know how to do everything we ask of them. The rider has to figure out how to have the horse do certain things with them. Function to form is the best way for a horse to find perfect or ideal form such as, collection or balanced movement. A horse will find it if they are allowed to first do things freely in self discovery. My client's horse wanted to perform at the show. We watched the whole class in the show ring and there was seemingly little difference in the class of horses. Each horse was doing what was required in the class in ideal form. To the knowledgeable eye there was a difference. My client's horse and a few others were collected in the Bridle on a soft-easy rein with very little resistance. These horses were not being falsely held together and one could tell that they were motivated to perform. The mouths of these few showed no signs of worry; no fretting and they were confident in their movement. The majority of the other horses were going along being constantly pushed and pulled on to stay in form and Gait. Not to mention the unyielding preparation these horses underwent before the class just to make sure they would stay together for the class. These horses showed subtle signs of distress and discontent.

The different means to developing desired ends in horses stems from a growing rift between showmanship and Horsemanship on how to motivate a horse to be in functional form. The ideals of a showman compared to a horseman are now fundamentally different which causes many different approaches to handling horses. The form of these show horses was derived in a myriad of different ways and often becomes a self fulfilling prophecy for the owner. To fulfill these desired ends there are many methods and devices that guarantee that a horse will function properly. The majority of these show horses were developed by being packaged to perform. The form and way of being was laid on the horse from day one; intentional or un-intentional in design you are going to be this way- conform to it or else? The thinking is - just do it and we should win. The few horses going naturally in form, motivated to respond and willing to the function well were a pleasure to watch. They were different in their own ways. These types of horses win with their riders every day. It is a mutual not a judgmental relationship.

The point is that on the surface things may appear the same, yet underneath many motivators and de-motivators are at work within the horse. It is like the analogy to the hot house tomato. The hot house tomato is uniformly an ideal looking tomato as compared to the natural one. It is made to grow year round in a controlled-artificial environment. The hot house tomato with all its fancy - shiny appearance often has a mushy un-substantial core. It is almost tasteless. It fits the part ideally and commercially but not really. The natural tomato is often rich and dense to the core with vibrant taste. The natural tomato has dexterity and substance.

Like the hot house tomato horses can be ideal looking but is their heart in it? The horse that was developed naturally like the natural tomato also has a rich and dense core of willingness and respect for what it is doing. It is appreciated for what it is. The hot house tomato looks damn good in the middle of the winter, but I would rather wait for the seasonal tomato.

Like the hot house tomato the show horse is supposed to be uniform and up to the status quo. It has to look ideal. Any horse in balanced movement is a pleasure to see. But, again how is the horse made to do this? The means to the desired ends are in question. All too often training form to function produces horses that are dysfunctional. They may get through a show and resentfully fit the mold but their life is usually includes neurotic behavior because of losing some their nature in the process.

Incidentally, my client's horse was third in a open class of 20 riders. The rider was 13 years old and she was competing against established trainers. Unfortunately, the other ones looked better to the judge, but the real difference was that when the girl and her horse left the ring he was a champion of her. Their mutual intentions were true to one another. He did nothing wrong and how could he? He was just doing what he does naturally. He was the same as usual. Perhaps the question is: Should a horse become what it really is; developed to what it could be? Or, should the horse be ideally made to be what it has to be?

Happy Discussion!