The final straw was the day in November when he did what the Spanish School in Vienna might describe as a "levade" but which we will more accurately call a "refusal" which involved a lot of rearing and dancing about on his hindquarters.
We had set a cavaletti on its lowest setting, a couple of centimetres off the ground, as a trot-pole. Oakley went over this, albeit with some urging. Then my coach took the pink scarf that someone left behind in the arena some ages ago and draped it over the pole to test his obedience to scary objects.
He took one look and completely lost it.
There was no way, no how was he going to go over that terrifying object because he insisted that he was in charge of us and he wanted to make that absolutely clear. Thus we argued for 10 minutes until he finally lept over the pole, exploding with a good meter or so to spare into the air. I had my hands firmly on my safety strap, so I didn't jerk into his mouth, and was still safely in the saddle, so we could promptly turn around and go right back for another argument. By the fifth time, he was stepping carefully over the scarf-draped pole with minimal urging, but we were both drenched with sweat.
Enough.
Next day, I thought he was lame, because he was walking oddly. No, not lame; his butt was as stiff and sore as mine, because he didn't (doesn't) have the muscles to sustain that kind of effort and I don't have the tone to sit at a 45-degree angle in the saddle for that long, either.
My coach and I had a lengthy discussion because, obviously, there is no way I can take a horse who is going to give me this much trouble going over a simple trot-pole into a competiton.  Let's just imagine with dismay what kind of wreck would happen when faced with a typical show-ring full of 'interesting' jumps.
"So," she said, "you need to concentrate on ground-work. Have you ever heard of Clinton Anderson?"
"Who?"
"You need to get his training videos. He's amazingly good."
I'm skeptical.
I wondered if he was like Parelli or Lyons. Obviously competent, knowlegeable trainers, who know a hell of a lot about horses, but whose style of teaching and self-promotion have always rubbed me the wrong way. I'm always leery of promotional claims and anything that smacks of hyperbole. Specialized new equipment (what's wrong with the equipment horse trainers have been using for some 5000 years?). Amazing results with a new system (as if no one before has ever trained a horse properly?). And expensive: think New Age Spirituality which comes from a pecularly North American tendency to expect achievement without time and effort (for $300 I can teach you life-happens-awareness). I find it distasteful and typically a waste of money.
However, she assured me Anderson is different and very good. Now, I trust her advice because we are both come from the same classical European school mentality and have the same opinion as to what constitutes good horse training. So, not being independently wealthy and able to jet myself and my horse off for a lengthy stay at some fine equestrian school in Europe nor even able to afford daily lessons, I reluctantly looked at Clinton Anderson's website. First impression: not thrilled. Hmm. Looks a lot like the others. And expensive! (sigh).
But, as I said, I trust my trainer, and the lessons amortize to something like $20 each, with a bonus that I can repeat as needed, so I took a deep breath, quelled my doubts, and shelled out.
Best investment ever.
Except for a little hitch at the beginning, when I tried to jury-rig a round-pen and promptly discovered that Oakley can, in fact, jump 1.75m from a standstill to escape the ring (oh, you are so busted, mister: you can jump!), progress has been steady, consistant and very rewarding.
This is all the stuff they train horses with in the classical schools in Europe, that I knew about, but never had a chance to learn. (If I'd known these exercises three years ago, I'd never have had all the issues I had with the horse I used to part-board: refusals, being thrown into walls, bucking, catch-me-if-you-can in the paddock... and at least one less visit to the emergency room...)
It has taken three months of almost daily work, on the ground and in the saddle to effectively get a new horse: he's gone from really spooky, disrespectful and difficult, with choppy, hollowed-out gaits to being calm, respectful and smooth. One who is light in the hand and responsive and goes over cavaletti and x-rails with much less prodding and minimal argument. We still have a lot more to do, but... wow.
Now I know and understand how great equestrians were able to ride with such delicate aids, how I was able to ride with the lightest touch as a student: it's not just the rider, it's the attentive, obedient horse. Mssr. Godot longed his horses every week, he did groundwork exercises and kept his horses beautifully trained and supple, so that I, the student, could learn to ride with lightness. I knew something of this, but never did get to learn how before now.
Why does no one teach this basic groundwork to all students after the first few lessons? Why is this not part of core curriculum? It is so much easier to become a good rider on a quiet, responsive, respectful horse than on one that needs a constant effort. Hmfp.
Well, no matter, I now have a comprehensive and detailed training program; an effective toolkit of techniques that I used on the trail Sunday to deal with spooks and refusals; a horse that is supple, light, and responsive... and who goes over cavaletti draped with pink scarves without much argument.