I don't think my late night brain was having much success in articulating what I meant!!!
In no way was I advocating breeding horses that are unridable - that's a complete misinterpretation of my post. By 'suitable' temperament, all I mean is a temperament that is good, but appreciating there WILL be a variance in what is required in that temperament. For example, you would hope that a well bred children's first ridden show pony would have the patience of a saint and a very calm demeanor, whereas the well bred eventer needs to be quick thinking (for safety) enthusiastic and brave. None of these are bad traits - but you don't want your top class eventer to be a steady eddie, and you certainly don't want your 12hh childs pony to be too enthusiastic and brave. Both are essentially 'good' temperaments, but crucially different.
I personally think temperament is more important than conformation - it's all very well if something moves beautifully, but if it doesn't want to do the job, it won't. But you have to bear in mind that 'the job' varies!!!
Also, Tasel, again this isn't really what I mean;
That can't work... you just have to look at the top horses in several disciplines for that. A lot of top SJ horses are related to dressage horses, for example... they are all kinda mixed these days. What you are talking about is how it used to be done ages ago and which is still done theoretically... but genes are just not that easy to manipulate.
I am not saying you need different streams of horses that are not related - (although obviously a well bred norwegian fjord is probably not going to be related to a well bred flat racehorse) what I am trying to say is that I don't agree with the train of thought that there is one homogeneous standard of being 'well bred' - and that just because something is a cob doesn't mean it isn't well bred, despite the fact it probably doesn't have any fancy names in the pedigree.