View Single Post
Old 06-30-2012, 06:37 AM   #332
wilkinsonk
Riff Raff
 
wilkinsonk's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Sanford, NC
Oddometer: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twin-shocker View Post
Bearing in mind the content of your posts on here, and the fact they seem to indicate you have been involved with trials riding for many decades, I wonder what year you started riding Sting, and what line do you ride currently?

Just chiming in here, but I am having trouble relating length of tenure riding trials (and ability level) and quality of opinion/strength of argument.

To relate a story, I was once in a bad (re: dangerous) place in 2004. There I happened to do some work with a certain type of soldier that they make movies and television shows about. Some refer to them as operatives (no not the green beret types...think higher). Anyway, these guys know everything there is to know about firearms right? After all these are the primary tools of their trade. I asked him about a 1911-pattern pistol he was carrying, as it was obviously highly customized by a skilled pistolsmith. His answer, "I have no idea. It's a tool and I know how to use it."

Moral of the story: there was no direct correlation between his skill level and his knowledge of the inner mechanics and theories behind the tools he used. Why would it be any different for a high-caliber moto rider/racer? Does Toni Bou know what the optimal cam timing is for making his bike react just the way he wants it? Maybe he does maybe he doesn't. Regardless, it's not a given and furthermore it doesn't necessarily help him be a better competition trials rider.

On the opposite side of this coin, a poorly skilled rider could have a great deal of knowledge on the mechanical working of his bike and the theories behind them. Again, no direct correlation between skill and mechanical knowledge.

Lastly, I've known people to say, "I've been doing this for ## years, so I know what I'm doing." The only given fact of the matter is that you've been doing it for ## years. Could have been doing it correctly, could have been doing it incorrectly. Empirical evidence proves whether it was being done correctly or not, the length of time it was done is far less relevant.

Point being, we should stick to presentation of relevant facts in presenting our arguments and try to stay away from points of data that may have nothing to bear on the discussion.

Just an opinion.

- Ken
wilkinsonk is offline   Reply With Quote