Lets talk cars rather than pizza. Maybe more helpful,
Say a car was made that was decent and acceptable (but lets agree for sake of argument not stunning/DDG) in outer appearance, but also came with a high performance engine (eg that was a lot fun to spin around with), also high-performance shocks (that could a take pounding), also high-end tires (that were very responsive to the driver's touch), also some very popular options thrown (eg for oral fans), and was very dependable (eg did not cut out short of expected time), also was not fussy if the driver wanted to wash its exterior by hand (eg let hands wander freely), and you could hear the engine accelerate (eg made some fun moaning sounds), and was priced fairly (eg below elite competitors), then many unbiased car hobbiests would think that was a pretty good combination overall.
But the key to appreciating this particular higher-performance sports car would be to take it for an actual road test, rather than just kick the tires in the showroom.
- Imagine if a paper published a negative review of a car from someone who didn't actually do a road test?? What weight should be given to those strong opinions?
Finally, the more practically-minded car drivers would remember the UK built Jags of old - looked stunning, but unreliable performance in use. So while it is certainly fun to make quick comparisons based on initial eye-candy appeal, that is never an adequate substitutes for a solid road test under a variety of read world conditions our special drivers will meet and expect (cfs in multiple positions, lfk, cbj, service queen, rooming hands ok, not clock watcher, not excessively greedy for tips, does duos, etc. etc.).
Enjoy the beautiful day everyone. Good time to plant the garden.