Is it more important to have a good rider or a good horse?

Question

in competitions (English competitions) is it more important to have a good horse or a good rider?

People always complain about other riders having better horses and that being the reason they win, but if someone has enough money to buy a better horse they probably also have more opportunities to ride in general which would logically make them a better rider.

Obviously you have to be able to ride a horse competently, but would you rather put your money on an Olympic horse with an average rider or an Olympic rider with an average horse?

answers and experiences from riders would be much appreciated : )

Answer 1

better rider=better horse. end of story.

Answer 2

Both. I think that good riders can make good horses but sometimes if a great rider is on a horse that just isn't for them it can make the appearence that they are a terrible rider.

Answer 3

better rider all the way if you are a good rider you make a bad horse look good

Answer 4

thats a tough one

but i gotta say

better RIDER!!!

Answer 5

I'm sure I will get a bunch of thumbs down for this but I think a nice mount is VERY important on the upper levels of competition.

Sure, a good rider can make a decent horse look good but the judge sees you in the ring for 2-5 minutes. He's not thinking about how the horse/rider goes all the time, he's thinking about what he sees in front of him.  I've seen kids on ponies that could barely stay on but the pony packs them around the course and viola! They are in the ribbons.  

I've known girls who made it all the way up to Maclay finals on their Frank Chapot trained horses.  The also cried (literally - one in the middle of ring at finals) when you put them on an unfamiliar horse because they couldn't ride it and had to be assured a packer to take them around the course.

After saying all this, my money is still on the Olympic Rider overall.

In a 5 minute competition though, seeing an Olympic rider on a ring sour bucker vs. an average rider with a packer, it might be hard to tell.  

Answer 6

On a one time only kinda deal, I'd say horse. If you could put two green riders in a show ring, one on a pro trained horse and another on a green horse, the pro would probably win.

But long term a better rider definitely. Because a good rider can make an average horse a great horse with time.

I'd put my money on the Olympic Rider.

Answer 7

The better the rider, the better the horse

Answer 8

good rider + bad horse = good horse and even better rider

good rider + good horse = great combination/rosettes

Bad rider + good horse = bad, ruined horse

bad rider + bad horse = injury

with time, i would say a good rider, a bad rider in a ring with a good horse would do badly - they do need the rider.

Answer 9

well a horse is ONLY as good as its rider....

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 10

You must have a better rider in order to make the horse good too.

Without a good rider, the horse would be nothing.

Even push button horses need to have riders that can show the judge that their horse is the best.

Also you need to think about what classes you are in.

If you are in an equitation class (which is strictly based on rider) when your horse rears up for no reason, the judge will watch how you handle the situation. if you respond badly, then the judge will mark you down. if you  respond well... then the judge will write nothing.

If you are in a pleasure class (based on the horse) then the judge is picking out which horse he or she would enjoy riding the most. that means, when your horse rears up.. your going to get counted down... no matter HOW you handle it.

Hope this helps. =]

Answer 11

When people complain about that kind of stuff it's pure jealousy.  

There isn't really an answer to your question.  An Olympic quality horse would probably not be able to put up with an average rider (and in the long run would ruin the horse) and a great rider won't be able to go very far without a horse that can take them there.  

Answer 12

Better horse dose not equal better rider. Your Olympic analogy makes no sense because no one but the best goes to the Olympics, because they are ALL far better than the average rider. In  the hunter ring judges can favor certain horses, just by the way they move. So technically someone with a better mover can place above someone who rode just as well if not better than them and their horse is a horrible mover.

Answer 13

Um I would say A better rider becuase they know how to control the horse. If you put a inexperienced rider on a amazing horse they dont know how to control the horse. But it also does help to have a better horse it makes everything so much easier