Todd mentioned that there were some problems with the horses in Oblivion that he would want to resolve before bringing them into Skyrim. Namely, the fact that you need to feel like you're riding an animal, not a truck. Todd and the team want to do things only if they can do them well, and not add things just because people want them. Paraphrasing Todd, the horses in Red Dead Redemption are much better than the ones in Oblivion, and because games are out that do horses better than they did them in Oblivion, simply adding horses similar to Oblivion without improving them just wouldn't cut it. It's things like this that reinforce my already large amount of respect for Bethesda.
I'm in complete agreement. The Oblivion horses were awful, there's no need to sugarcoat it, they svcked and we all know it. Riding Oblivion horses did not feel like actually riding a horse, they were slow, they were cumbersome and they just didn't feel or look real. That immedately screamed "This is not real, this is a game!". Obviously I knew that already, but when that happens it's not a good sign. It didn't help that with a high athelics skill (Which you could not be terrible at) you could outrun pretty much every horse, and you could certainly do it with more precise movements.
The horses in GUN felt mre natural than that. Though the best example is of course Red Dead Redemption just as Todd said, those horses were incredible. The controls were good (Not sure why anyone complained, it wasn't hard) and the horses looked and moved naturally, not to mention quickly.
When another game obviously does something better than yours, you don't draw attention to that. You either try to match that game or do better, or you don't do it at all. Never intentionally make your game look bad when compared to other games.