2012 Jerez Test Thread

[stiefel]

Talpa, Mental, nice exchange. I found myself agreeing with many of both ur points. It boils down to speculation. I for one dont buy that generation to generation, there were any better or inferior riders 'in general terms' respective of their eras, and again, i reject this idea of four current "aliens" with some suposed super power over the last crop or the previous crop of 'usual race winners'. Who is to say Stoner, Pedro, Lorenzo would have excelled or .... their pants on previous eras, even the last of the 990s formula? ...., Rossi went from Honda to Yamaha in the same formula and kept on stomping, contrast that to Yamaha to Duc, never have we seen such a fall from success; and again, in the same formula! So to compare across formulas bring a whole other layer of uncertainty. With respect to declaring the four "aliens" especially now that the parity of their machines against the rest is so obvious, is to my perview, a complete ........ argument. I do however think there are stand outs, these if anything are the real "aliens" of their respective eras. Currently, Stoner, there can be no doubt. Previously, Rossi (with my personal caveat of SNS), previous to them, Rainey, Roberts, etc.

I often feel that we are all too fixated on putting riders into fixed categories, like rider X is the best, rider X is always better than rider Y, rider Z sucks. I think every season, every race, the accomplishments of any given rider are dependent on variables like a) his form,

his equipment,

the level of competition. Variables vary.



In 2007, Stoner's form was excellent, he made no mistakes. In 2008, he pushed too hard and made mistakes. He may never have been able to win that championship due to changes in other variables, but he also could have gotten more out of it.



In 2009, Rossi outclassed Lorenzo. That year, he was the better rider. In 2010, Lorenzo outclassed Rossi. Both seasons they were on equal equipment.



In 2004 and 2005, the level of competition was low enough for Rossi to dominate the championships with apparent ease. Than there was an influx of new talent, specifically Pedrosa, Stoner and subsequently Lorenzo. It forced Rossi to be a better rider.



Your only as good as your last race and your last season. Last year, Stoner was in absolute top shape again, but I'm not ready yet to say that this year, Lorenzo will not be able to beat him given equally competitive machinery.

 

[truent]

Quite the statement that given equal machinery, Lorenzo can't win.. Against stoner anyway. Honestly I got more faith in the past champ.. 2011 Honda was ridiculously good.. I think this year will bring a bit better parity.. If we don't get head to head battles race by race, at least give me a good title fight ya know

 

[stiefel]

Quite the statement that given equal machinery, Lorenzo can't win.. Against stoner anyway. Honestly I got more faith in the past champ.. 2011 Honda was ridiculously good.. I think this year will bring a bit better parity.. If we don't get head to head battles race by race, at least give me a good title fight ya know

I shouldn't have used the double negative, huh?



I was trying to say it may go either way between those two.

 

[barbedwirebiker]

was that wishful thinking, or has Stoner been playing the game.

Stoner's always playing the game when it comes to qualifying and testing.



Why?



Because he can.

 

[Goatboy]

Jesus Christ.

 

[Talpa]

I often feel that we are all too fixated on putting riders into fixed categories, like rider X is the best, rider X is always better than rider Y, rider Z sucks. I think every season, every race, the accomplishments of any given rider are dependent on variables like a) his form,

his equipment,

the level of competition. Variables vary.



In 2007, Stoner's form was excellent, he made no mistakes. In 2008, he pushed too hard and made mistakes. He may never have been able to win that championship due to changes in other variables, but he also could have gotten more out of it.



In 2009, Rossi outclassed Lorenzo. That year, he was the better rider. In 2010, Lorenzo outclassed Rossi. Both seasons they were on equal equipment.



In 2004 and 2005, the level of competition was low enough for Rossi to dominate the championships with apparent ease. Than there was an influx of new talent, specifically Pedrosa, Stoner and subsequently Lorenzo. It forced Rossi to be a better rider.



Your only as good as your last race and your last season. Last year, Stoner was in absolute top shape again, but I'm not ready yet to say that this year, Lorenzo will not be able to beat him given equally competitive machinery.

I couldn't disagree more, and I'm sure that year or any year, it wasn't easy. 3-4 top class riders on the RC211V -the greatest racing motorcycle ever made, against the well-under developed M1-enough said.

 

[michaelm]

I couldn't disagree more, and I'm sure that year or any year, it wasn't easy. 3-4 top class riders on the RC211V -the greatest racing motorcycle ever made, against the well-under developed M1-enough said.

I agree with you. All of rossi's championships were very creditable (as are all championships prima facie) but the 2004 along with the 2008 championship are the most creditable imo.

 

[birdman]

I couldn't disagree more, and I'm sure that year or any year, it wasn't easy. 3-4 top class riders on the RC211V -the greatest racing motorcycle ever made, against the well-under developed M1-enough said.

Ah, Talpa, if the RC211V was in fact the greatest racing motorcycle ever made then it kind of supports the theory the riders of them at that time who failed to win a championship were perhaps not quite top class? Top it off with an underdeveloped M1 and you have pretty much just supported Steifel's assessment. Sete Gibernau - will he be remembered as the equivalent of Jorge Lorenzo when its all done and dusted? I find it very simple, to be rated top class they need to win at least one w/c.

 

[Talpa]

Ah, Talpa, if the RC211V was in fact the greatest racing motorcycle ever made then it kind of supports the theory the riders of them at that time who failed to win a championship were perhaps not quite top class? Top it off with an underdeveloped M1 and you have pretty much just supported Steifel's assessment. Sete Gibernau - will he be remembered as the equivalent of Jorge Lorenzo when its all done and dusted? I find it very simple, to be rated top class they need to win at least one w/c.

How about Max and Marco Mel? There's 6 wc's.



You got anything else in your attempt to discredit Rossi's titles?

 

[michaelm]

How about Max and Marco Mel? There's 6 wc's.



You got anything else in your attempt to discredit Rossi's titles?

I think he meant premier class world titles; I agree with him these are the real currency. This doesn't discredit rossi though, given he has seven of them, all against at least one premier class world championship winner, the first and the last two against two premier class world championship winners.



I am glad to see you are getting into the not discrediting world champions thing, with only minor recidivism (in regard to your recent arguments regarding equipment difficulty/equipment advantage)

.

 

[birdman]

How about Max and Marco Mel? There's 6 wc's.



You got anything else in your attempt to discredit Rossi's titles?

See Max in my favorite rider list? I would love the guy to be a top = w/c, class = 500 or 990 rider. Unfortunately he's not, nor Melandri. They are not going to be remembered like Schwantz, Gardner, or Hayden.



Look you can't have it both ways, Rossi destroyed his competition, now on what you said yourself was a well under developed M1. You see the problem? This discredits Rossi titles more than saying he was so good he could win riding at 8/10ths half the time.

 

[yamaka46]

See Max in my favorite rider list? I would love the guy to be a top = w/c, class = 500 or 990 rider. Unfortunately he's not, nor Melandri. They are not going to be remembered like Schwantz, Gardner, or Hayden.



Look you can't have it both ways, Rossi destroyed his competition, now on what you said yourself was a well under developed M1. You see the problem? This discredits Rossi titles more than saying he was so good he could win riding at 8/10ths half the time.

I don't think any of us armchair racers should be trying to discredit any of the titles that any racer has in GPs. It only makes you look partisan and hence ridiculous IMO.



They can only compete against the opposition they have and at the end of the day Hayden's 2006 title with less wins than the guys placed 2nd, 3rd & 4th in that year is just as creditable as Stoner's dominance & 10 wins from 2007. One had loads of fierce competition and still came out on top, the other dominated. Both are World Champions.

 

[birdman]

I don't think any of us armchair racers should be trying to discredit any of the titles that any racer has in GPs. It only makes you look partisan and hence ridiculous IMO.



They can only compete against the opposition they have and at the end of the day Hayden's 2006 title with less wins than the guys placed 2nd, 3rd & 4th in that year is just as creditable as Stoner's dominance & 10 wins from 2007. One had loads of fierce competition and still came out on top, the other dominated. Both are World Champions.

It all started when someone interpreted being able to win at 8/10 was a discredit attempt. I would read it as praise.



Now suddenly after all those years I listened to the endless talk of how Biaggi was no match for Rossi, topped off with the latest info that Rossi also smashed him on an WELL under developed M1 against the GREATEST racing motorcycle ever made, at the same time saying Biaggi was really strong competition, the equal of any other? I'm getting confused!

 

[Talpa]

It all started when someone interpreted being able to win at 8/10 was a discredit attempt. I would read it as praise.



Now suddenly after all those years I listened to the endless talk of how Biaggi was no match for Rossi, topped off with the latest info that Rossi also smashed him on an WELL under developed M1 against the GREATEST racing motorcycle ever made, at the same time saying Biaggi was really strong competition, the equal of any other? I'm getting confused!

You need to face some facts, and Yamaka is right your POV is simply extremely bias.



Fact 1-The M1 in 2003-2004 was no match for the the RC211V.



Fact 2- There were 6 RC211V's competing in the 2004 world championship



Fact 3- Many observers and engineers rate the RC211V as the greatest racing motorcycle every made-myself included and I have stated this many times on this forum.



Fact 4- Many Neo's and other Stoner Fans/Rossi detractors, have stated or inferred that Rossi's 990cc World titles aren't credible as he had no decent competition and only rode around at 8/10ths in a contrived spectacle or that he was in fact riding at 100% and his success is only due to a lack of competition. I disagree



Fact 5- The 2004 Motogp world championship contained multiple World Champions including



Max Biaggi-4

Marco Melandri-2

Colin Edwards-2

Troy Bayliss-2

Loris Caparossi-2

Kenny Roberts Jnr-1



Not too mention some unbelievable and experienced talent on top spec machines- including



Carlos Checa

Alex Barros

Nicky Hayden

John Hopkins

Sete Gibernau

Nori Abe

Gary McCoy



Fact 6- Rossi won the very first race he competed in with the still relatively under-developed Yamaha, which had not won a world title since 1992, the RC211V won every race of the 2003 season- the M1 only got on the podium once in 3rd



Fact 7- Biaggi on his day was a very difficult top class opponent-and now at 40+ years of age he is still proving this on the world stage.



Fact 8- All of the above evidence only points to a simple conclusion, the 2004 championship win was an immense achievement against the odds and proved that the rider made the difference.







Still confused?

 

[Mick D]

Still confused?

No but I think you are.



The point being made is if all these world champions on "the greatest racing machine ever" lost to Rossi "on a dodgy Yamaha" does it means Rossi was extra good or those world champions weren't really up to the task? Me - I think its a little from column A and a little from column B.

 

[Mr Squiggle]

You need to face some facts, and Yamaka is right your POV is simply extremely bias.



Fact 1-The M1 in 2003-2004 was no match for the the RC211V.



Fact 2- There were 6 RC211V's competing in the 2004 world championship



Fact 3- Many observers and engineers rate the RC211V as the greatest racing motorcycle every made-myself included and I have stated this many times on this forum.



Fact 4- Many Neo's and other Stoner Fans/Rossi detractors, have stated or inferred that Rossi's 990cc World titles aren't credible as he had no decent competition and only rode around at 8/10ths in a contrived spectacle or that he was in fact riding at 100% and his success is only due to a lack of competition. I disagree



Fact 5- The 2004 Motogp world championship contained multiple World Champions including



Max Biaggi-4

Marco Melandri-2

Colin Edwards-2

Troy Bayliss-2

Loris Caparossi-2

Kenny Roberts Jnr-1



Not too mention some unbelievable and experienced talent on top spec machines- including



Carlos Checa

Alex Barros

Nicky Hayden

John Hopkins

Sete Gibernau

Nori Abe

Gary McCoy



Fact 6- Rossi won the very first race he competed in with the still relatively under-developed Yamaha, which had not won a world title since 1992, the RC211V won every race of the 2003 season- the M1 only got on the podium once in 3rd



Fact 7- Biaggi on his day was a very difficult top class opponent-and now at 40+ years of age he is still proving this on the world stage.



Fact 8- All of the above evidence only points to a simple conclusion, the 2004 championship win was an immense achievement against the odds and proved that the rider made the difference.







Still confused?

Answer me ONE simple question Talpa.....



If the competition has not improved in the last few years why has Rossi only been able to deliver 2 of the last 6 world titles considering he has been on what most experts consider the best bike during MOST of that period?



Because logically that would mean he has either.....



a - Lost his talent



or



b - The competition is stronger



So which is it?

 

[michaelm]

The problem, talpa , from the stoner fan viewpoint is that many rossi fans, and you in particular in the past, have made it their business to discredit stoner's championships on the basis of vast bike advantages, riding "easier" bikes than former champions etc etc.



The closest I can get to a balanced point of view given my biases (we all have them) is to say that stoner's slightly better record on several criteria in head to head competition against rossi does not negate rossi's fabulous record prior to stoner's advent. Then again, I don't believe stoner's slightly better record head to head against rossi is negated by rossi's fabulous career prior to stoner's advent either.



I probably should give this stuff up as stoner is holding all the aces just now, although that could obviously change as soon as next week-end. I do applaud you for sticking to your guns during this, the only real down period in valentino's career. If you recall I did the same in regard to stoner in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

 

[Mental Anarchist]

You need to face some facts, and Yamaka is right your POV is simply extremely bias.

Fact 1-The M1 in 2003-2004 was no match for the the RC211V.

Fact 2- There were 6 RC211V's competing in the 2004 world championship

Fact 3- Many observers and engineers rate the RC211V as the greatest racing motorcycle every made-myself included and I have stated this many times on this forum.



Fact 4- Many Neo's and other Stoner Fans/Rossi detractors, have stated or inferred that Rossi's 990cc World titles aren't credible as he had no decent competition and only rode around at 8/10ths in a contrived spectacle or that he was in fact riding at 100% and his success is only due to a lack of competition. I disagree

Fact 5- The 2004 Motogp world championship contained multiple World Champions including

Max Biaggi-4

Marco Melandri-2



Colin Edwards-2



Troy Bayliss-2



Loris Caparossi-2



Kenny Roberts Jnr-1







Not too mention some unbelievable and experienced talent on top spec machines- including







Carlos Checa



Alex Barros



Nicky Hayden



John Hopkins



Sete Gibernau



Nori Abe



Gary McCoy







Fact 6- Rossi won the very first race he competed in with the still relatively under-developed Yamaha, which had not won a world title since 1992, the RC211V won every race of the 2003 season- the M1 only got on the podium once in 3rd







Fact 7- Biaggi on his day was a very difficult top class opponent-and now at 40+ years of age he is still proving this on the world stage.







Fact 8- All of the above evidence only points to a simple conclusion, the 2004 championship win was an immense achievement against the odds and proved that the rider made the difference.

Still confused?

This post makes sense if you understand the real meaning of FACT.



F antasy

A nd

C onjecture from

T alpa

 

[Talpa]

Answer me ONE simple question Talpa.....



If the competition has not improved in the last few years why has Rossi only been able to deliver 2 of the last 6 world titles considering he has been on what most experts consider the best bike during MOST of that period?



Because logically that would mean he has either.....



a - Lost his talent



or



b - The competition is stronger



So which is it?

How is that logical?





in 2006 the competition was virtually the same as 2004 and all of the 990cc era, which is exactly why the credibility argument of that era is fundamentally flawed. Bar the rookies who didn't really have a impact at all on the title chase-except negatively for Nicky......!



In 2007 the argument still rages over which bike and certainly tyres were the best........many believe that the Japanese were clearly outsmarted by Ducati that year. And Bridgestone won the tyre war through the supply reg



In 2008, Rossi won the title against the current competition



In 2009, Rossi won the title against the current competition



In 2010, Rossi tore his shoulder and compound fractured his leg missing 4 rounds and turning up to 3 more on crutches. Which means he spent nearly half of the season uncompetitive or not there at all and still came 3rd



In 2011 Rossi was on the worst bike in the series.









IMO Rossi has aged of course, but that does not mean he has lost his talent, (maybe a loss of hunger but farck me 15 years at the top with 9 world titles- its amazing he is still there at all) Nor does it make the competition stronger now, nor does it mean his competition was weak in the 990 era, factor in ridiculous Honda inspired regulation and the electronics age over this period and the 'grey' area keeps getting larger......try again genius

 

[Gaz]

May I?



It has been a while Talps so please, do bear with me somewhat

You need to face some facts, and Yamaka is right your POV is simply extremely bias.



Fact 1-The M1 in 2003-2004 was no match for the the RC211V.

In what way was it no match?



Certainly the results for 2003 would indicate that something was amiss with the Yamaha in 2003, be that riders or bike or a combination of both, either way it was not an 'attractive proposition' for a new rider by comparison to the Honda and Ducati fo that year.



However (dare I say this) results would indicate that in 2004 it was vastly improved and again, whether that is bike, rider or a combination it is open to interpretation, but absolutely the improvemenst between the two years are substantial

Fact 2- There were 6 RC211V's competing in the 2004 world championship

Not sure what this proves Talps other than Honda put bikes out there.



One could well argue that if the RCV was indeed such a superior machine and ridden by riders of similar or equal abilities then they would have taken points off the others which would have benefitted riders and teams of other manufacturers (when comparing), although you and I both know this is not the case and no excuse anyway as in reality, riders are all competing equally to beat their opponents.

Fact 3- Many observers and engineers rate the RC211V as the greatest racing motorcycle every made-myself included and I have stated this many times on this forum.

So, you an observer or an engineer

And yes, you have been very adament that the bike was and is to date the finest example of a MGP bike ever built (personally I do feel that the 2008/2009 M1 was it's equal)

Fact 4- Many Neo's and other Stoner Fans/Rossi detractors, have stated or inferred that Rossi's 990cc World titles aren't credible as he had no decent competition and only rode around at 8/10ths in a contrived spectacle or that he was in fact riding at 100% and his success is only due to a lack of competition. I disagree

Now let the argument being.

I tend to feel that the level of competition was less back in 2003/2004 etc than it is or has been during the 800cc era (and yes, I rate Rossi's 2008 title better than the 2004) but that should not diminish anything Rossi has done during that time. Rossi (like everyone) can only compete against who is placed beside him on the equipment that is available, This of course is not Rossi's concern or issue and whilst there certainly were some strong riders in the time, I do not believe that he (or we) have ever seen the consistent high level of perfomances and opposition that we have today since the golden 500cc era (I do feel that the golden age fo 500cc was at least equal of today)



That all said, nobody and nothing should detract from a world title as all are earnt through ridiculous levels of commitment, training, skill, talent and desire, and to do it with the regularity that Rossi has done put him above reproach and challenge.

Fact 5- The 2004 Motogp world championship contained multiple World Champions including

Max Biaggi-4

Marco Melandri-2

Colin Edwards-2

Troy Bayliss-2

Loris Caparossi-2

Kenny Roberts Jnr-1



Not too mention some unbelievable and experienced talent on top spec machines- including

Carlos Checa

Alex Barros

Nicky Hayden

John Hopkins

Sete Gibernau

Nori Abe

Gary McCoy

My first comemnt here would be that just because a rider may have won a World Championship in one class does not necessarily make them a 'top flight' rider in another as over time we have seen many 'great' riders from one category/class who just have not been able to replicate their success in a second class (possibly no better in recent times than Kenan Sofoglu)



Interestingly enough, with your second list you mention that these riders were on 'top spec machines' , something I would question with regards to some of the bikes involved (McCoy being one ............. yes, an unabashed fan here). But interestingly you included Checa who was Rossi's team-mate in 2004 as being on top spec machinery which kind of negates any argument that Rossi may somehow have been on inferior (to the non-honda's at least) machinery.



Either way, IMO it does not matter as again I do not disagree that the competition was very strong in that era/time but I will disagree with regards to it's consistency of performance, something I feel separates the two eras, For me, the 2003/2004 years had some fantastic and spectacular rides and riders (exclusive of Rossi here) who did not and have not shown the levels of consistency shown by his competitors of today (and this is not to minimise any Rossi achievements - it should actually enhance them)

Fact 6- Rossi won the very first race he competed in with the still relatively under-developed Yamaha, which had not won a world title since 1992, the RC211V won every race of the 2003 season- the M1 only got on the podium once in 3rd

Refer the above.



If checa was on 'top spec' machinery, then ergo as Rossi's team mate it woudl go to state that he was also on 'top spec' machinery. Certainly, whether that bike started the season as 'top spec' is debatable (personally, I do agree it started the year appreciably behind the Honda and probably Ducat as well)

Fact 7- Biaggi on his day was a very difficult top class opponent-and now at 40+ years of age he is still proving this on the world stage.

Biaggi on his day (which IMO was the two stroke era) and absolute genius and would be the rider I do believe was Rossi's strongest opponent up until the recent crop of riders (I do rate Biaggi higher than Gibbers for a number of reasons)



What he achieves now is a reflection of the guy (totally agree) but at the same time I do think that time has proven that MotoGP is a definite step up in terms of pressure/quality and as such a rider going from MGP to WSBK should produce excellent results (injury not withstanding)

Fact 8- All of the above evidence only points to a simple conclusion, the 2004 championship win was an immense achievement against the odds and proved that the rider made the difference. Still confused?

Nope, not a fact but an opinion, and yes a reasonably well argued/discussed one given the facts you do list

.







Now on a general note and before you take any of the above the wrong way, I totally agree that any attempt to denigrate the achievements of Rossi are pointless and facical, just as they are for any rider who achieves a World Championship at this level