Replying to Comp skiers vs good skiers

so ive been thinking about what makes tanner so successful in competitions when there are skiers out their who clearly do better stuff in movies. so ive decided that their are two types of skiers, comp skiers and skiers just trying to get as good as possible for the love of skiing. like a comp skier is a whole new breed. they have to promote themselves at any opportunity possible, and they have to train specifically for the next comp. skiers like tanner and simon are like this. they are never hitting the 300 foot jumps or anything, but they are always consistant on average features. they are not really "crazy" or anyhting. however, skiers like mike wilson and candide are just trying to get as good as possible. although candide won the x games a while back, he really hasnt shown much at competition since. mike wilson was kinda impressive at us open, but has never really been at the top of the competition. these two also arent really promoted for any reason other than how good they are. like you dont see candide looking all gangster wearing a quicksilver jacket flashing a gang sign in freeskier, but you might see a picture of him 80 feet in the air. therefore, there are two different breeds of skier. thoughts?