2012 Jerez Test Thread

[yamaka46]

Yeah, I can explain it. The world, she not black and white mon ami. The answer you are looking for (which I believe I posted earlier in this thread but I'm buggered to look it up) is: a little from column A and a little from column B. Jorge, Casey and Pedders are, as a group, probably, better competition than Biaggi, Checa, Gibernau, Barros, AND Vale, as is expected with age, is losing a little of the drive, reflex, magic - whatever. See, the flaw in your logic is we live in a world of many shades - not B&W!

We have a winner, folks

 

[Jumkie]

I'm all for having a favourite rider, I'm unashamedly a Rossi man, but this trying to take away wc's off ANYONE is ........ and reeks of little kids arguing in the playground.

Its not so bad. As long as peeps take the time to write logical argument backed up with data. Sometimes we can learn a thing or two, rarely but it happens. Some posts offer nothing, but thats par for course. Of course there is bias. U want to see a silly exchange, the last couple pages of Spies says Stoner talented thread. But oh well. Gaz, Talps, Mikem among others have put together some interesting posts. Just be thankful BM hasnt chimed in with usual worthless meaningless input we immediately skip. Other than that, I quite enjoy it actually.

 

[J4rn0]

I am certainly NOT attempting to discredit ANY of Rossis championships....but his results HAVE gone backwards since 2006 in every single relevant statistic (Titles, Wins, Poles, Fastest laps and podiums). That is an indisputable fact and you can look it up for yourself. Talpas post cites "opinion as fact" and therein lies the difference.



So either the riders competing against Rossi are better....or he has lost some of his skill - you cannot have it BOTH ways I am afraid. Which is what Talpa is suggesting.



So if I am wrong, would you be so kind as to point out the flaw in my logic and set me straight on this point as I am curious to what other possible explanation there could be for his deteriorating results.....thanks.

Any reasonable person could tell you that Rossi's results could ONLY have gone backwards after winning five titles in a row in 2001-2005. Nobody can keep winning at that rate forever in GP: injuries happen, stronger competitors are bound to come up, one doesn't get any younger or any hungrier.



I personally find it amazing that Rossi did indeed find the motivation and strength to win again in 2008 and 2009 against younger champions like Stoner and Lorenzo. Now I consider 2010 (11 years after his first win in 500) as the real beginning of his decline, and I think it unlikely that he will be able to come back on top again.



But how many riders have remained consistently at the top for over 10 years in the premier class... ? He's done more than enough.

 

[michaelm]

But how many riders have remained consistently at the top for over 10 years in the premier class... ? He's done more than enough.

Only one other, agostini. As mick doohan said last year, staying at the top for over a decade is the really difficult thing, and something he didn't manage himself.

 

[truent]

Any reasonable person could tell you that Rossi's results could ONLY have gone backwards after winning five titles in a row in 2001-2005. Nobody can keep winning at that rate forever in GP: injuries happen, stronger competitors are bound to come up, one doesn't get any younger or any hungrier.



I personally find it amazing that Rossi did indeed find the motivation and strength to win again in 2008 and 2009 against younger champions like Stoner and Lorenzo. Now I consider 2010 (11 years after his first win in 500) as the real beginning of his decline, and I think it unlikely that he will be able to come back on top again.



But how many riders have remained consistently at the top for over 10 years in the premier class... ? He's done more than enough.

I'd agree, the hardest part about discussing his decline though is knowing that if he was on a honda or yamaha he'd still be up there with the other guys.. he's undoubtedly less hungry for victory.. but if the ducati isnt giving him the feedback, power, whatever he needs to go as fast as the rest.. its not like he's a lesser rider than the others up top, the duc just doesn't work for him or his style as it stands. I'd still consider him one of the aliens, just not a very potential week-in week-out winner with this combination. of course if they do get the duc sorted to his style, that bodes very well for the rest of the later ducati riders, as its been a bit of a death sentence for just about everyone who's tried so far.

 

[Mr Squiggle]

Yeah, I can explain it. The world, she not black and white mon ami. The answer you are looking for (which I believe I posted earlier in this thread but I'm buggered to look it up) is: a little from column A and a little from column B. Jorge, Casey and Pedders are, as a group, probably, better competition than Biaggi, Checa, Gibernau, Barros, AND Vale, as is expected with age, is losing a little of the drive, reflex, magic - whatever. See, the flaw in your logic is we live in a world of many shades - not B&W!

Agree 100%. Of course the world is shades of grey and I would never suggest otherwise. My argument was with Talpa stating that it was neither ie Rossi hasnt lost any of his magic and the new gen arent any better.

 

[Talpa]

I am certainly NOT attempting to discredit ANY of Rossis championships....but his results HAVE gone backwards since 2006 in every single relevant statistic (Titles, Wins, Poles, Fastest laps and podiums). That is an indisputable fact and you can look it up for yourself. Talpas post cites "opinion as fact" and therein lies the difference.



So either the riders competing against Rossi are better....or he has lost some of his skill - you cannot have it BOTH ways I am afraid. Which is what Talpa is suggesting.



So if I am wrong, would you be so kind as to point out the flaw in my logic and set me straight on this point as I am curious to what other possible explanation there could be for his deteriorating results.....thanks.

Wrong, your ultimatum was



A) the competition is better



Or

Rossi has lost his talent







This is pretty black and white and conpletely illogical. Not Rossi has lost some of his talent, how much has he lost? Or has he lost it all?



All of this in reference to his 990cc titles and how his competition was weaker.



Now you are backpedaling.



My point is once again, is that the competition during the 990cc era, particularly years like 2004 was not inferior and these titles were well deserved. Having to go to such lengths to point out the obvious is just a reflection of the bias affecting the neos argument.

 

[Talpa]

2006 - same competition? Discounting Pedrosa, Stoner, Elias.

Pedrosa wins two races in his rookie season, whereas the year before on the same bike Biaggi promised much but delivered 0. Biaggi, the main competitor of years past was actually gone by 06. Poor old Gibber was riding cursed in 06, 0 wins. Without either, some have theorized Honda was forced to throw some support towards Hayden, and well the rest is history. Definitely not the same as 04 then.



2007 - excuses,

2010 - excuses, (fair enough, any injured riders in 2008, 2009 by any chance?)

2011 - excuses,

2006-Caparossi and Sete on the Strongest duck since their return to Motogp, Melandri and the RC211V, Hayden on the RC211V, Colin, Kenny, Elias,......Just as strong as 2004



2007 - Well, Squigs point was that Rossi was on the Best Bike for MOST of this period, undefined and referencing most of the Neo's argument I'm presuming he also ment 2007.....during this season this is very debatable. No excuse



2010 - Whats your point? How much time lost due to injury can be factored in, at what point does this seriously affect the title chase? Which is why a big part of the ultimatum is illogical.



2011 - I gathered this was a year that wasn't a part of the 'MOST' of the period.

 

[Mr Squiggle]

Wrong, your ultimatum was



A) the competition is better



Or

Rossi has lost his talent







This is pretty black and white and conpletely illogical. Not Rossi has lost some of his talent, how much has he lost? Or has he lost it all?



All of this in reference to his 990cc titles and how his competition was weaker.



Now you are backpedaling.



My point is once again, is that the competition during the 990cc era, particularly years like 2004 was not inferior and these titles were well deserved. Having to go to such lengths to point out the obvious is just a reflection of the bias affecting the neos argument.

I will break it down to basics for you as you show zero propensity for grasping simple concepts.



Either



a. Rossi has gotten SLOWER.



OR



b. The competition has gotten FASTER.



It can of course be a combination of BOTH these things which is a third option I failed to include as I thought that concept would be fairly obvious to most people.



MickD's OPINION is that it was a combination of both factors....fair enough. Seems logical AND possible.



I stated that I didnt believe Rossi has lost any of his skill..........BUT I do think he has been mind ...... in the last 2 years....and as sport is so fundamentally linked to the psychology of the human mind this is perhaps one of the reasons why we are seeing a decline in his results. Therefore option a he has gotten slower is applicable in this instance.



Your argument is that it is neither option a or b.....that is completely illogical. In other words his performance has declined over the last six years for some other reason. So please enlighten us all with your wisdom and tell us why he is slower.

 

[Talpa]

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

Honda won every race in 2003, Yamaha scroed one 3rd place. More than something just amiss for Yamaha....... and everyone at the time knew it was no match for the Honda. The changes they made in the off-season and the rider were the difference. this was an immense acheivement after 14 years of getting whipped by Honda and even Suzuki a couple of times. My point was that 2004 was not an easy contrived title against weak competiton-as some are suggesting.

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)

What about the 2010 M1? Not so good? A more deserving win then for Jorge?

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.

Refencing regulation changes and electronics/tyres, I would love to hear you reasons as to why the competition was not as good as today? Its simple to say it wasn't, lets hear why?



As an addition, and I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but I would also like to hear your thoughts on the popular POV from mostly Stoner fans, that the current generation are the best ever?

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)

Does this then mean that some world championships are not as credible as others? Or does winning a world championship not qualify a rider as 'Top Class'? Moreso 'Lucky' pehaps? If Casey Stoner could not win a 125cc or 250cc world title then surely this means there is a decent enough level of competition in these categories to warrant the category champion to be considered 'top class'?

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.

The argument was predominantely about the Honda, however seeing as you've brought it up. The level of competition is the argument, depends on your POV 'Top Spec'. Do you not believe that the Honda was superior to the Yamaha?

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)

One would have to say that Lorenzo's Motogp title is a one 'off' at this point, Stoner has 3 seasons in between his titles, hardly consistent? Dani Pedrosa is considered an alien still, many are not giving Rossi this status anymore, yet Dani has not yet won a Motogp world title?

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)

Fair enough, lets then refer to the Yamaha as not top spec and remove it from the debate. I would just like to know if you rate the Ducati in 2004 as top spec? so i can re-refine my stats.

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)

So then, was Biaggi strong enough and consistent competition in 2004 on the RC211V. As is my point and stated fact previous, are you agreeing that this does make Rossi's title credible then? and not Contrived?

Moreso, and this is where it gets interesting and difficult, does his strength on a very difficult beast like a 500 with no aids, make him an even larger adversary than anyone of today?

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

.

Thanks mate

. seeing as many here, including the Neo's who are now backedalling are also in agreement with that opinion.

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

This is the argument which continues, once again not refencing you here, IMO it is a fundamentally flawed argument to state that all World Championships at this level are credible, then at the same time state that the competition is stronger now, essentially suggesting that titles in the past were more easily won by lesser riders-Black or White-grey-whatever.





this is my point, in attempting to detract from Rossi, the Neo's argument is essentially belittling their own favorites riders acheivements....... funny stuff

 

[birdman]

2006-Caparossi and Sete on the Strongest duck since their return to Motogp, Melandri and the RC211V, Hayden on the RC211V, Colin, Kenny, Elias,......Just as strong as 2004



2007 - Well, Squigs point was that Rossi was on the Best Bike for MOST of this period, undefined and referencing most of the Neo's argument I'm presuming he also ment 2007.....during this season this is very debatable. No excuse



2010 - Whats your point? How much time lost due to injury can be factored in, at what point does this seriously affect the title chase? Which is why a big part of the ultimatum is illogical.



2011 - I gathered this was a year that wasn't a part of the 'MOST' of the period.

Interesting, thanks for mentioning Capirossi. If he is the top level from years past, he simply must win the 07 championship. Otherwsie Stoner is stronger competition and throws the whole comparison out the window.





2002 - 2006:



Rossi - 45 wins, 55% ratio

Sete - 8, 10%

Capirossi - 6, 7%

Biaggi - 5, 6%

Melandri - 5, 6%

Hayden - 3, 4%

Barros - 3, 4%



Rossi is the clear alien. If its true he rode an under-developed Yamaha against competition as strong as today on better machinery, Rossi is the absolute super-alien, a man capable of 12/10 riding. His record does suggest this was so.



2007 - 2011



Rossi - 22 wins, 25% ratio

Stoner - 33, 37%

Lorenzo - 17, 24% ratio (since 2008)

Pedro - 13, 15%

Capirosi - 1, 1%



The fourth ranked rider Pedro still has more wins than any of the 990 rivals managed. And he's had a lot of injuries.



Lorenzo and Stoner are clearly able to win more than the likes of Sete, Biaggi, Capirossi and Melandri. I dont know if this proves they are stronger competitors, but it sure looks that way on paper. I would prefer from my biased viewpoint to think they would at least give Rossi a better run for his money on a 990.

 

[Gaz]

Refencing regulation changes and electronics/tyres, I would love to hear you reasons as to why the competition was not as good as today? Its simple to say it wasn't, lets hear why?



As an addition, and I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but I would also like to hear your thoughts on the popular POV from mostly Stoner fans, that the current generation are the best ever?

As I have stated, I do not say they are not as good, I say that the riders of that era were not as consistently good.



Championships are about a consistently high level of performance (in order to collect a higher number of points) and this is an area where I doubt we disagree in our opinion.



So, for me using Rossi and his consistency as the benchmark (given that he transcends both the timeframes being discussed – we could also reference Capirossi) it would become apparent that Rossi of today has more consistent high performing challengers. In short, across the era of the early to mid 2000s Rossi may have had 1 seriously high performing challenger per year or per race, but today he has 3 and as such, where in the past an ‘off day’ may have meant 2[sup]nd[/sup] or 3[sup]rd[/sup], today it means 4[sup]th[/sup] or lower.



For me, I am not convinced that the current crop of challengers are the 'best ever' but as I do say above I do feel that collectively they are the most consistent that Rossi has faced. Personally as a collective group I would place them no higher than on par with teh golden era group of Lawson, Rainey, Schwantz, Gardner and early Doohan with Mamola in the mix (and yes, I did miss a few).



Best ever is an opinion, so people are entitled to it and it is up to those that disagree to support their own opinions with facts and reasoned argument (no judgements being offered there either)

Does this then mean that some world championships are not as credible as others? Or does winning a world championship not qualify a rider as 'Top Class'? Moreso 'Lucky' pehaps? If Casey Stoner could not win a 125cc or 250cc world title then surely this means there is a decent enough level of competition in these categories to warrant the category champion to be considered 'top class'?

Your words not mine.



What my point is (and has been made many times) and yet you choose to ignore (or do your own fishing) is that just because one can ride one category of motorcycle does not necessarily mean that the person will continue to a high level in a separate category. There are many instances over the years where a rider may have been dominant in one class and has progressed to another, only to struggle (thus the Sofoglu reference)



This does not mean that these people are ‘crap’ riders by any means, they are sensational but what it does mean is that some riders are better suited to some categories over others



With your specific reference to Stoner (noting that you bought this up), many people have used the fact that Stoner did not win a lower class championship as meaning that he was unworthy of an MGP ride, and in fact his results support my hypothesis that not all classes suit all riders. That said, certainly the riders that beat him to a championship are better 125/250 riders, but what have their results been in MGP?

The argument was predominantely about the Honda, however seeing as you've brought it up. The level of competition is the argument, depends on your POV 'Top Spec'. Do you not believe that the Honda was superior to the Yamaha?

Where do I say the Honda wasn’t top spec?



Simple fact (opinion) is that Honda do not do things by halves and as such you can rest assured that Honda would have had the highest specification they could produce.



As I alluded to in some of my comments, I have no doubts that the Honda started 2004 as superior to the Yamaha (it had to given that it was essentially the same bike as the year before) but where it ended the year superior is possibly debatable (different argument and one that really is open to a lot of interpretation)



But to make you happy, I agree that in 2004 Rossi did start the year behind the 8 ball somewhat.

One would have to say that Lorenzo's Motogp title is a one 'off' at this point, Stoner has 3 seasons in between his titles, hardly consistent? Dani Pedrosa is considered an alien still, many are not giving Rossi this status anymore, yet Dani has not yet won a Motogp world title?

Come on, you knew what was meant.



Consistency is about performing to a high level week in, week out, from one race to the next, from one season to the next and we may well differ but I do feel that since they arrived on the scene and on factory bikes, Lorenzo, Pedrosa and Stoner have maintained an extremely high level of consistence in sheer result terms. Yes, they all have bad weekends but when Stoner has a bad weekend Rossi still must contend with Lorenzo and Pedrosa whereas in 2003/2004 generally it was only one high performing challenger at a time.



That is the consistency that I see and that is the consistency that to me separates the two eras and that is the consistency that I feel makes Rossi’s 2008 achievement a greater result than that of 2004 (makes 2009 pretty damn special as well).



The riders of 2003/2004 were not as consistently fast nor as ‘ganged up’ on Rossi across that era and as such Rossi concentrated on the one opponent over and above the others. Since the 800’s started Rossi has not been afforded this ‘luxury’ and instead has been under constant attack from all corners, the fact he continues to perform (2011 aside) is testament to his mental strength and inner desires.

So then, was Biaggi strong enough and consistent competition in 2004 on the RC211V. As is my point and stated fact previous, are you agreeing that this does make Rossi's title credible then? and not Contrived?

Moreso, and this is where it gets interesting and difficult, does his strength on a very difficult beast like a 500 with no aids, make him an even larger adversary than anyone of today?

Biaggi was, IMO Rossi’s biggest adversary of those days …………… yes.



Now, I do (and did) state that I strongly feel that Biaggi was a better two stroke rider than he was a four stroke (who can forget his first 500cc race) and that he has now learnt better the nuance of a four stroke. But hell yes, Biaggi was an extremely strong competitor (and I would have loved to see him thrown into a modern mix).



But, I am not so certain that Max was as consistent as he should have been at that time as Max of that era was (and none of this is intended to diminish any of Rossi’s achievements) was far more temperamental (tightly wound) that I recall any since and this did affect him. Again, this was Max being Max’s worst enemy (and part of the reason why I parallel Max against Stoner in many comparisons) and I do feel that he did not achieve what he could have and should have at the MGP level, and further that the spectators of the time were somewhat ‘robbed’ because of it.













One aspect that I do beleive is being missed is that of the perception of 'denigrating a championship' of a particular rider as it is a passionate discussion and one borne to be affected by allegiances and bias.



But, is it denigration?



Afetr all, each rider who has won multiple titles will openly admit that they have their favourite titles (Rossi for example has been quoted as rating 2004 and 2008 above others). As such and if we follow the argument that to question is to denigrate, in theis example is Rossi himself denigrating the other championships he attained?



Discuss perhaps?

 

[stormypete]

yawn ....

 

[Jumkie]

Im waiting for those making the case about the soft competition Rossi faced and the aspects of rivals machinery, etc. apply the same 'logic' for Doohan...

 

[birdman]

Im waiting for those making the case about the soft competition Rossi faced and the aspects of rivals machinery, etc. apply the same 'logic' for Doohan...

We already have.

Rainey, Schwantz, Lawson, Gardner. 9 w/c in total between them. Maybe thats why it was the goldern era.

Criville, Cadalora, Beattie, Biaggi. One w/c. Not so goldern.

Before, after. Doohan 0, 5.

Whats your opinion, would Doohan win 5 straight against the former?

I see him as the equal of them but not superior.

Rainey was the standout rider of the time to me with three straight. Absolute legend to rival anyone.

By coincidence, or maybe not, he seams to identify a little with Stoner, at least more than Schwantz does.

 

[Talpa]

As I have stated, I do not say they are not as good, I say that the riders of that era were not as consistently good.



Championships are about a consistently high level of performance (in order to collect a higher number of points) and this is an area where I doubt we disagree in our opinion.



So, for me using Rossi and his consistency as the benchmark (given that he transcends both the timeframes being discussed – we could also reference Capirossi) it would become apparent that Rossi of today has more consistent high performing challengers. In short, across the era of the early to mid 2000s Rossi may have had 1 seriously high performing challenger per year or per race, but today he has 3 and as such, where in the past an ‘off day’ may have meant 2[sup]nd[/sup] or 3[sup]rd[/sup], today it means 4[sup]th[/sup] or lower.



For me, I am not convinced that the current crop of challengers are the 'best ever' but as I do say above I do feel that collectively they are the most consistent that Rossi has faced. Personally as a collective group I would place them no higher than on par with teh golden era group of Lawson, Rainey, Schwantz, Gardner and early Doohan with Mamola in the mix (and yes, I did miss a few).



Best ever is an opinion, so people are entitled to it and it is up to those that disagree to support their own opinions with facts and reasoned argument (no judgements being offered there either)

Well said, however we agree to disagree that the current crop are the best Rossi has faced

Your words not mine.



What my point is (and has been made many times) and yet you choose to ignore (or do your own fishing) is that just because one can ride one category of motorcycle does not necessarily mean that the person will continue to a high level in a separate category. There are many instances over the years where a rider may have been dominant in one class and has progressed to another, only to struggle (thus the Sofoglu reference)



This does not mean that these people are ‘crap’ riders by any means, they are sensational but what it does mean is that some riders are better suited to some categories over others



With your specific reference to Stoner (noting that you bought this up), many people have used the fact that Stoner did not win a lower class championship as meaning that he was unworthy of an MGP ride, and in fact his results support my hypothesis that not all classes suit all riders. That said, certainly the riders that beat him to a championship are better 125/250 riders, but what have their results been in MGP?

My point is and remains that Rossi has always faced top class talent

.....and see above

Where do I say the Honda wasn’t top spec?



Simple fact (opinion) is that Honda do not do things by halves and as such you can rest assured that Honda would have had the highest specification they could produce.



As I alluded to in some of my comments, I have no doubts that the Honda started 2004 as superior to the Yamaha (it had to given that it was essentially the same bike as the year before) but where it ended the year superior is possibly debatable (different argument and one that really is open to a lot of interpretation)



But to make you happy, I agree that in 2004 Rossi did start the year behind the 8 ball somewhat.

Just gauging your opinion on the Honda Vs the Yamaha that year.......

Come on, you knew what was meant.



Consistency is about performing to a high level week in, week out, from one race to the next, from one season to the next and we may well differ but I do feel that since they arrived on the scene and on factory bikes, Lorenzo, Pedrosa and Stoner have maintained an extremely high level of consistence in sheer result terms. Yes, they all have bad weekends but when Stoner has a bad weekend Rossi still must contend with Lorenzo and Pedrosa whereas in 2003/2004 generally it was only one high performing challenger at a time.



That is the consistency that I see and that is the consistency that to me separates the two eras and that is the consistency that I feel makes Rossi’s 2008 achievement a greater result than that of 2004 (makes 2009 pretty damn special as well).



The riders of 2003/2004 were not as consistently fast nor as ‘ganged up’ on Rossi across that era and as such Rossi concentrated on the one opponent over and above the others. Since the 800’s started Rossi has not been afforded this ‘luxury’ and instead has been under constant attack from all corners, the fact he continues to perform (2011 aside) is testament to his mental strength and inner desires.

Interesting, one has to factor in very large reg changes and the age of electronics in here also. The current crop 'may' not have been anywhere near as consistent on rubber that went off, and very minimal aid from electronics, not saying they wouldn't be but impossible to state as we've never seen it. However as far as consistent title winners go, none of the current crop have proven this in Motogp-bar Rossi, wouldn't you agree?

Biaggi was, IMO Rossi’s biggest adversary of those days …………… yes.



Now, I do (and did) state that I strongly feel that Biaggi was a better two stroke rider than he was a four stroke (who can forget his first 500cc race) and that he has now learnt better the nuance of a four stroke. But hell yes, Biaggi was an extremely strong competitor (and I would have loved to see him thrown into a modern mix).



But, I am not so certain that Max was as consistent as he should have been at that time as Max of that era was (and none of this is intended to diminish any of Rossi’s achievements) was far more temperamental (tightly wound) that I recall any since and this did affect him. Again, this was Max being Max’s worst enemy (and part of the reason why I parallel Max against Stoner in many comparisons) and I do feel that he did not achieve what he could have and should have at the MGP level, and further that the spectators of the time were somewhat ‘robbed’ because of it.

I agree with some of this, and his pedigree on these machines rates very highly with me due to the lack of rider aids and regs back then

One aspect that I do beleive is being missed is that of the perception of 'denigrating a championship' of a particular rider as it is a passionate discussion and one borne to be affected by allegiances and bias.



But, is it denigration?



Afetr all, each rider who has won multiple titles will openly admit that they have their favourite titles (Rossi for example has been quoted as rating 2004 and 2008 above others). As such and if we follow the argument that to question is to denigrate, in theis example is Rossi himself denigrating the other championships he attained?



Discuss perhaps?

Well the denigration has been pretty much against the entire 990cc era and of it being contrived-so to speak, as so the motivating factor is rather obviously and extreme Stoner fan bias, and feeble attempts to make Rossi, or anyone else seem like they are nowhere near the current riders. Which of course I completely disagree with

 

[Talpa]

We already have.

Rainey, Schwantz, Lawson, Gardner. 9 w/c in total between them. Maybe thats why it was the goldern era.

Criville, Cadalora, Beattie, Biaggi. One w/c. Not so goldern.

Before, after. Doohan 0, 5.

Whats your opinion, would Doohan win 5 straight against the former?

I see him as the equal of them but not superior.

Rainey was the standout rider of the time to me with three straight. Absolute legend to rival anyone.

By coincidence, or maybe not, he seams to identify a little with Stoner, at least more than Schwantz does.

So then answer it properly then, was Doohan's competition 'Strong' enough during his reign, are his 5 titles in a row credible? Are the riders he raced against no-where near the level of the current crop therefore some level of margin needs to be applied to his achievements?

 

[Mick D]

Talpa you just do not seem to understand the difference between "credible championships" and "inspiring championships". All championships are credible imo - only some are inspiring.



For example had Doohan won five WCs against Rainey, Schwantz, Lawson, Gardner - that would be inspiring.



I believe that Rossi's 2004 WC was inspiring.



Casey's 2007 WC was inspiring.



"Credibility" is hardly in question. Think of it as the difference between commercial art and fine arts. Both take considerable technique and vision but only one inspires.

 

[birdman]

So then answer it properly then, was Doohan's competition 'Strong' enough during his reign, are his 5 titles in a row credible? Are the riders he raced against no-where near the level of the current crop therefore some level of margin needs to be applied to his achievements?

Level of margin? Where did you get that from.

You listed 2007 to 2011. For the years 2007, 2010, 2011 you felt the need to add your own commentary. Why? To add some perspective. Ok your allowed to do that, but I'm not. So lets take it all out.

For 2008, 2009 you just listed the champion. No commentary, no perspective.

Let me do it again for you.

2007 - Stoner beat the competition

2008 - Rossi beat the competition

2009 - Rossi beat the competition

2010 - Lorenzo beat the competition

2011 - Stoner beat the competition

Biaggi, Pedro, Spies, Sete, Capirossi, Melandri - did not beat the competition.



Now sure do the same thing with Doohan's rivals, of course its only fair.

1989 - Lawson beat the competition

1990 - Rainey

1991 - Rainey

1992 - Rainey

1993 - Schwantz

Lawson has retired, Rainey injured, Schwantz goes one more year

1994 - 1998 - Doohan beats the competition

Cadalora, Beattie, Biaggi, Barros, Capirossi - do not beat the competition.



Make whatever conclusions you like. I dont think there are wrong or right ones, just opinions each way.

 

[Mr Squiggle]

Im waiting for those making the case about the soft competition Rossi faced and the aspects of rivals machinery, etc. apply the same 'logic' for Doohan...

Do pay attention....theres a good chap.