Replying to How to win by John Duhamel

so if you know me you know im not the one to be typign this but i have to lay some shit out after reading some to fthe responses in the x-games thread. so first you gotta look for what the comp is about. are they looking for new talent or are they looking ofr publicity. for example, vanular was a perfect winner for the US open but tanner was a perfect iwnner for hte x-games. i mean, vanular established himself for real at the US open, which is what the competiition is about. for this reason, skiers like pep, tanner, and canide didnt even compete. look at the recent victors of it. however, of course the x-games was gonna put someone like tanner on the top cuz he brings all the money to the sport and people want to see the big names win. uf vanular won the x-games, sure we osuld have been stoked, but the average person would not have been as excited. this is because espn gives more coverage tot he athlets that they think might win before the event. this creates the buildup and then the payoff. so essentially espn has a good idea of who is gonna win before the event happens. get what im saying? this also applies to simon two years ago. however, is someone comes out clearly above the rest of the competition, they have to win, so its not set in stone. but everyone knew that tanner wanted it for years and therefore espn gave it to him. however, favre was a new name that killed it but no one was really rooting for him. finally, what about local comps? the secret there is to create a huge stoke factor for urself before the event. i mean, in practice go out and kill it. if people are talking to you, ur gonna get the same advantage that tanner had at the x-games. so its all about what you do around the sides that really matters. you still have to kill it in the competition, but if you just show up and no one knows who you are, of course you arent gonna win. i was rushed in writing this so it might be a little unclear but does anyone agree?