what is "fancy" + why does everybody care so much?

True Story: Whenever I describe competitive riding and horse showing to a non-horsey person -- esp if they're genuinely curious or interested -- I always mention the horse world's unique system of measurement. 

Telling them, in a conspiratorial or playful whisper, that, honest to god, "Fancy" is a real unit of measure. That when describing a set of horses, we will in all seriousness judge: "This one is the fanciest. That one is less fancy." Likely with crossed arms and a stern, deliberate voice.

Have you likewise told the uninitiated about this .... seemingly esoteric metric?

If not, you definitely should. It always garners at least a few incredulous giggles, and replies of, "Really? What the hell does 'fancy' even mean tho??"

Also a true story: I, personally as an equestrian, had never really heard (or, more likely, noticed) that turn of phrase until discovering this blogging community and beginning to read along. 

At first I thought it was just an interesting choice of adjectives -- but then I realized that actually the term was generally accepted to be endowed with its own well-defined meaning. That there was somehow this objective spectrum from "Not Fancy" to "Very Fancy" that was easily discernible to anybody who cared to notice.

Even during my college years at the h/j barn, amid what were certainly some very nice horses. I was just kinda blissfully unaware of what it meant to be "fancy." Had no concept. Never really paid attention enough to even realize that I could be developing my eye. I was just kinda riding whatever was available for me to ride (usually horses that needed miles before they could integrate into the lesson program) without thinking any more deeply about it.

I've only recently understood the opportunity in educating myself more on what it means to be a "nice moving" horse. What it means to be "fancy." Generally speaking, I'd like to recognize quality, talent, ability, style and technique in how a horse goes. Still got a ways to there tho haha. 

Honestly, tho? For my purposes as a low level eventer, I'm pretty sure that's a-ok.

I honestly believe amateurs often place too much emphasis on "fancy." Taking it a step further: I believe amateurs might value the quality of movement above other qualities at their own peril.

There seems to be this extreme preoccupation with fancy moving horses, coupled with what I see as a demonstrably false idea that fanciness alone can win horse shows or make progress somehow easier or faster.

Granted, I identify as an eventer who dabbles in dressage. The judging metrics for these disciplines are entirely different from, say, hunters -- where style matters in a somewhat different sense. So. Ya know. I'm only speaking from my own observations and experiences here. Tho I'm very curious about how you think and feel on the subject.

Basically tho, when I say it's demonstrably false to claim "fanciness" is what wins horse shows, what I mean is that it's not enough in and of itself.

Rather, in the world of adult amateurs (read: limited time and resources) riding at the lower levels, I'd argue that the #1 most important factor in likelihood for success with a horse is: Rideability.

Meaning? As an adult amateur rider, can I fully ride the horse? Is it a horse I can work with, train, learn and make mistakes? A horse I get along with? That, in riding this horse, can we achieve a reasonable degree of correctness and consistency in our work together?

I'll use Charlie as an example here. I specifically sought out a mind and personality in the horse that felt like a type I could work with, that I understood. Charlie is not a fancy horse. I jokingly refer to him as my Future Elegant Horse -- and I do believe that -- but he's basically very plain. There are tons out there exactly like him in style and way of going. He is average.

Yet I'm 100% convinced he can win in the dressage, "nice" or not. Why? Because he's rideable. He's got all these qualities like kindness, patience, sensibility. He's more or less game. He's forgiving. Call it anthropomorphization if you like, but you know what I mean.

Charlie lets me ride him fully, and as such he is steadily developing into a what I hope will be a very correct horse. He's not fancy. He might never be what anybody calls 'nice.' But he can enter at A in a show environment and consistently lay down a test that fully demonstrates his current level of training. Likewise with the jumping phases too. (tho he likes that part better so often performs beyond his training just by nature of enjoying the game haha).

Since I can rely on him to be so consistent, really the ball is in my court to train and practice and be as disciplined as possible. Because the horse will absolutely reflect those efforts for better or worse. And in my experience, at the lower levels the judges will and do reward steadiness and consistency and correctness.

Flashy will always help, obviously (hai, Isabel!), but it is not enough in and of itself. And "upper level potential" means nothing if the horse can't get through a lower level test without a meltdown.

Another example: Isabel is an objectively fancy mare. She could and did win in the dressage. But she could also lose, often from one week to the next. It depended entirely on how rideable she was on that particular day.

Which.... ya know. She's a very very good girl, a very special kind of horse with a seemingly limitless capacity for pressure. It was never her talent that dictated our success (she's always lovely to watch and is a natural performer), it was her mood. Some days she was just. not. rideable.

So while I learned so much from her and appreciated what it felt like to ride that fancy, eye catching horse... I also learned that the kernel of our success was not just her fanciness, but rather that special ability of hers to take pressure. To be game. The qualities that I had recognized in her before I even knew what "fancy" was. And so I set out on my search for a new eventing partner with those qualities chief in my mind.

I'm curious tho, because I know this is a much bigger topic than what my own limited experience encompasses.

There are a few questions here: What, really, does it mean to be "fancy"? And why does it matter? Or, Does it matter?

Do you agree with me that 'fanciness' is overrated for the purposes of most adult amateurs at the lower levels? That folks would be better served by focusing on mind over matter in their equestrian partners? Or maybe you think I'm missing some critical piece of the puzzle, overlooking something obvious? Perhaps the horse's talent and capability is more important to you and your goals than I've given credit to above?