2012 Jerez Test Thread

[michaelm]

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.

Excellent post. I see great similarities between the 2004 and 2007 championships, although not every one did at the time in 2007. 2004 was the first premier class yamaha riders' championship on a yamaha since wayne rainey in 1992, 2007 still the only ever riders' championship on a ducati.

 

[michaelm]

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?

Look talpa, no argument. It is ridiculous to detract from rossi, 7 premier class world championships and 80 odd premier class wins speak for themselves.



This does not mean that all other riders current or past are dirt beneath his feet or that people cannot choose to be their fans. Things have now really gotten out of hand in general, most followers of the sport came from the starting point that rossi was a genius, but some of us got annoyed when other riders were derided rather than appreciated for beating him. The balance has now well and truly been redressed. If he retires between now and qatar his place in history will be secure, and very unlikely to be challenged by stoner or lorenzo. Should the sport survive, I suspect stoner and lorenzo will end up also ranked fairly highly, there not being many riders who have luckily won premier class championships with nine or ten race wins.



What people do when they are 15 or 16 on 125 bikes doesn't have much to do with the price of fish imo btw. Wayne rainey had an unsuccessful 250 season at age 24. As I also said at the time (by which I mean in 2007) to draw a loose analogy, I don't recall much detraction from olympic 100 metre freestyle gold medallists on the basis that they were beaten in the under 16 breaststroke by the runner-up.

 

[michaelm]

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...

Except that doohan was utterly smashing peak rainey and schwantz (very likely with the help of a bike advantage, not that there was much consideration of such things back then, it being regarded as part of the sport), prior to utterly smashing his leg. He even rode the last race with no leg, so few were the number of points that would still have won him the championship.



So whilst there are no lucky champions, he is one of the more unlucky losers of a championship imo. Nevertheless whilst there was no internet then I recall little or no detraction from rainey's 1992 world championship, or schwantz's 1993 championship, and nor should there have been; people mostly understood the sport, and the sometimes brutal truth that to finish first a rider first had to finish.

 

[Talpa]

Look talpa, no argument. It is ridiculous to detract from rossi, 7 premier class world championships and 80 odd premier class wins speak for themselves.



This does not mean that all other riders current or past are dirt beneath his feet or that people cannot choose to be their fans. Things have now really gotten out of hand in general, most followers of the sport came from the starting point that rossi was a genius, but some of us got annoyed when other riders were derided rather than appreciated for beating him. The balance has now well and truly been redressed. If he retires between now and qatar his place in history will be secure, and very unlikely to be challenged by stoner or lorenzo. Should the sport survive, I suspect stoner and lorenzo will end up also ranked fairly highly, there not being many riders who have luckily won premier class championships with nine or ten race wins.



What people do when they are 15 or 16 on 125 bikes doesn't have much to do with the price of fish imo btw. Wayne rainey had an unsuccessful 250 season at age 24. As I also said at the time (by which I mean in 2007) to draw a loose analogy, I don't recall much detraction from olympic 100 metre freestyle gold medallists on the basis that they were beaten in the under 16 breaststroke by the runner-up.

All good, you are not the one detracting from Rossi 990cc titles. Others are, this is the argument. And thanks to Jums excellent pointer, others have now failed to apply that argument to Doohans 5 in a row-which had little to do with Rainey, Schwantz, Gardiner, Lawson etc. as they were not competing during those years........thus proving the validity of their argument.

 

[Talpa]

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.

I believe it was you who copied Mentals rubbish from another site which had the 990cc era credibility argument in it. I do agree with your suggestion here but try not to twist the debate as it is about the 'credibility' of Rossi titles, the Neo's are saying those titles are not credible because the competition was not that good back then, I'm saying they were and are.



I do understand the difference between credible championships and inspiring championships, but you are failing to see that this debate is about the 'CREDIBILITY' of Rossi's 990cc championships, not whether or not they were inspiring. Credibility is in question indeed-this why the debate exists!

 

[Mental Anarchist]

I believe it was you who copied Mentals rubbish from another site which had the 990cc era credibility argument in it. I do agree with your suggestion here but try not to twist the debate as it is about the 'credibility' of Rossi titles, the Neo's are saying those titles are not credible because the competition was not that good back then, I'm saying they were and are.



I do understand the difference between credible championships and inspiring championships, but you are failing to see that this debate is about the 'CREDIBILITY' of Rossi's 990cc championships, not whether or not they were inspiring. Credibility is in question indeed-this why the debate exists!

It has been fun watching you scramble and I have been waiting for you to bring me into it because I knew you had your back up about my comments.



What is funny is that I never said or do I believe that Rossi's championships lack credibility. What I did say to start you off was that racing in the 990 era was contrived. Why? Because on most weekends Rossi was easily able to dispatch his competitors. Because he was easily able to dispatch them he often rode at only 8/10's until a few laps to go when he would drop the hammer and win.



My comment was that for the unknowledgeable punter, you, this was exciting racing but for those that understood what was happening it was contrived.



How could Rossi's championships lack credibility when he was SO much better than his competition. I can not understand this view point. I say it gives him more credibility as at the time he was super human in comparison to all that came before him. This is why he is loved by so many.



Today, the riders at the top aspired to ONE thing. Beating Valentino Rossi. They have and they are, so what, he had his time and it was an almost unprecedented career. Get over it mate he is a champion, we all know it and respect it but we don't have to continually kiss his arse like you do until the end of time.

 

[Goatboy]

I think it is the utter desperation to write him off that is the real problem. & The trick of it is that no-one really knows what is going to happen.



Rossi fans fear it is over, & others fears it isn't. This fuels the tendency to spack out over something none of us can control, & the questions it is impossible to answer.

 

[Kropotkin]

How could Rossi's championships lack credibility when he was SO much better than his competition. I can not understand this view point. I say it gives him more credibility as at the time he was super human in comparison to all that came before him. This is why he is loved by so many.



Today, the riders at the top aspired to ONE thing. Beating Valentino Rossi. They have and they are,

This.

 

[Mr Squiggle]

I do understand the difference between credible championships and inspiring championships, but you are failing to see that this debate is about the 'CREDIBILITY' of Rossi's 990cc championships, not whether or not they were inspiring. Credibility is in question indeed-this why the debate exists!

Only in your own fertile imagination. No one on here is saying Rossi's titles lacked value, just that he has struggled to conquer the present riders in the same way he did the previous generation....something you dont seem to want to accept.

 

[michaelm]

All good, you are not the one detracting from Rossi 990cc titles. Others are, this is the argument. And thanks to Jums excellent pointer, others have now failed to apply that argument to Doohans 5 in a row-which had little to do with Rainey, Schwantz, Gardiner, Lawson etc. as they were not competing during those years........thus proving the validity of their argument.

I have not (and would not) personally apply the argument to either rider, but leaving that aside their 5 championship sequences were similar with the same next best rider for part of each run in max biaggi, so if anyone does want to prosecute that argument I would agree it should apply to both of them. Perhaps you now undertand the rancour generated by previous attempts to discredit stoner's championships, no more justifiable than attempts to discredit rossi's imo except for there being less of them.

 

[Mick D]

I believe it was you who copied Mentals rubbish from another site which had the 990cc era credibility argument in it. I do agree with your suggestion here but try not to twist the debate as it is about the 'credibility' of Rossi titles, the Neo's are saying those titles are not credible because the competition was not that good back then, I'm saying they were and are. I do understand the difference between credible championships and inspiring championships, but you are failing to see that this debate is about the 'CREDIBILITY' of Rossi's 990cc championships, not whether or not they were inspiring. Credibility is in question indeed-this why the debate exists!

Actually what I quoted was Mental's post regarding growing revenues and fan base. I've just reread Mental's post and only a total lack of comprehension or really twisted logic could interpret any "credibility" debate in his post. Everyone seems to taking pains to make clear that they are not debating a "credibity" issue with you but you just keep hammering on, totally oblivious. Plus c'est le change, plus c'est le mem chose...

 

[michaelm]

I think it is the utter desperation to write him off that is the real problem.

Very definitely still in championship contention if he was on a yamaha or honda imo, although the honda as it is currently running might suit stoner a little better.



On a ducati, as you say who knows? No chance of a win if it was a development of the gp10/gp11, winning not entirely out of the question in the second half of the season with the new design imo.

 

[Talpa]

Actually what I quoted was Mental's post regarding growing revenues and fan base. I've just reread Mental's post and only a total lack of comprehension or really twisted logic could interpret any "credibility" debate in his post. Everyone seems to taking pains to make clear that they are not debating a "credibity" issue with you but you just keep hammering on, totally oblivious. Plus c'est le change, plus c'est le mem chose...

Actually no, this is what you quoted......

Go Mental! Opening up revenues is a panacea that MGP should be feverishly perusing - much more so than cost reduction.





Chant???



Submitted by Mental Anarchist on Sun, 2012-03-25 00:02.



All well and good in theory Bricktop but in reality your scenario forgets that motorbike racing is about the rider. In the 990 era the grid had a bunch of guys that were all about the same skill level and then one guy who was head and shoulders above the them. That one guy created a show by riding at 8/10's until 3 or 4 laps to go and then he would ride at 10/10's and win. Exciting for those who didn't understand that that is what was happening but contrived for those that did understand it.

In this current era there are 3 or 4 guys who are in a completely different skill level class to the rest. These guys need to push 10/10's all race to beat each other and the rest of the field gets left way way behind. This has almost NOTHING to do with the bikes and the same thing would happen if you sent the field out on stock CBR1000's.

I say MotoGP is about the fast bikes going full pace for an entire race. That is why it is the pinnacle. There are other series that are about parity and big groups of riders of similar skill level banging fairings. Why there is a need to make MotoGP just another of these is beyond me. I don't want to watch a MotoGP that is dumbed down so lesser riders can be competitive.

Lin Jarvis has the right idea and it is one of have talked about over and over again and that is increasing revenues by broadening the countries raced in and the nationality of riders. Once MotoGP returns to earned seats rather than bought seats than maybe we will have a field of riders that can ride their way to the front instead of be carried to the front on the back of the promoter who should be concentrating on building the series rather than ruining it.

In response to a responder to Kropo's excellent comments here.

Even though it sickens me to have to repost this ...., my apologes I'm proving a point

The entire first paragraph is dedicated to stating that the 990cc era was contrived, and for me anything that is contrived cannot be seen as credible. Otherwise the competition in WWE would be taken seriously, would it not?

 

[Talpa]

It has been fun watching you scramble and I have been waiting for you to bring me into it because I knew you had your back up about my comments.



What is funny is that I never said or do I believe that Rossi's championships lack credibility. What I did say to start you off was that racing in the 990 era was contrived. Why? Because on most weekends Rossi was easily able to dispatch his competitors. Because he was easily able to dispatch them he often rode at only 8/10's until a few laps to go when he would drop the hammer and

Show us some evidence of this then? Have you spoken to Rossi about this oh knowledgeable one? Or are you referencing a single race in 2003 to prove your theory?



Sounds like an opinion to me, as we know they are just like ...........



Newsflash oh god of motogp knowledge, contrived competition is generally not considered credible. And in your patronizing tone you are accusing a great number of fans of this sport of not understanding these events as being contrived for a spectacle. If this is so, then was Rainey just playing with Doohan and schwantz for the show? Wayne was considered to be the better rider on the better machine at the time. How do you distinguish Rossi and Biaggis rivalry from Rainey and Schwantz''s?

 

[Mental Anarchist]

Show us some evidence of this then? Have you spoken to Rossi about this oh knowledgeable one? Or are you referencing a single race in 2003 to prove your theory?



Sounds like an opinion to me, as we know they are just like ...........



Newsflash oh god of motogp knowledge, contrived competition is generally not considered credible. And in your patronizing tone you are accusing a great number of fans of this sport of not understanding these events as being contrived for a spectacle. If this is so, then was Rainey just playing with Doohan and schwantz for the show? Wayne was considered to be the better rider on the better machine at the time. How do you distinguish Rossi and Biaggis rivalry from Rainey and Schwantz''s?

Not sure why I bother because your intellect does shine brighter than the fantasy you construct but....



The 990 era was not contrived. The excite was. Rossi could have won <u>most</u> of those 55% of races in the era within the first 3-4 laps. Yes, he was that good. But he did not. Why? Because he is a show man with the utmost confidence in himself. So what did he do? He would just pace himself with the others and then use his superior skill and racecraft to win the races in the last few laps. At the time I was a big fan of Rossi's. I loved watching him race. But at the same time I always knew what he was doing because he did it soooooo often. Was it exciting? Yes. Was it contrived? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Do I blame you for not understanding? No, because as Ron White says "you can't cure stupid".



Dance all you want and try to twist everyones words so you have something to defend you beloved over but at the end of the day you are wrong and its so comical.

 

[Mick D]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

Actually no, this is what you quoted...... Even though it sickens me to have to repost this ...., my apologes I'm proving a point The entire first paragraph is dedicated to stating that the 990cc era was contrived, and for me anything that is contrived cannot be seen as credible. Otherwise the competition in WWE would be taken seriously, would it not?

Talp, you are a broken record and by reposting you have proven nothing. Mental used the word contrived in that paragraph and I agree with his use of the word: contrive |kənˈtrīv| [/font]verb [ trans. ] create or bring about (an object or a situation) by deliberate use of skill and artifice. Absolutely nothing to do with "credibility". Dude, WWE is FAKE... a better analogy would be Muhammed Ali - a vastly superior boxer to most of his contemporaries - rope-a-dopin' to bring about victories over lesser opponents using his skill and artifice. Capice?

 

[Talpa]

Not sure why I bother because your intellect does shine brighter than the fantasy you construct but....



The 990 era was not contrived. The excite was. Rossi could have won <u>most</u> of those 55% of races in the era within the first 3-4 laps. Yes, he was that good. But he did not. Why? Because he is a show man with the utmost confidence in himself. So what did he do? He would just pace himself with the others and then use his superior skill and racecraft to win the races in the last few laps. At the time I was a big fan of Rossi's. I loved watching him race. But at the same time I always knew what he was doing because he did it soooooo often. Was it exciting? Yes. Was it contrived? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Do I blame you for not understanding? No, because as Ron White says "you can't cure stupid".



Dance all you want and try to twist everyones words so you have something to defend you beloved over but at the end of the day you are wrong and its so comical.

More Rubbish........Pretty easy to use your usual argumentum ad hominem in attempts to mask a lack of credible argument.....

 

[THE_FREAKY]

Not sure why I bother because your intellect does shine brighter than the fantasy you construct but....



The 990 era was not contrived. The excite was. Rossi could have won <u>most</u> of those 55% of races in the era within the first 3-4 laps. Yes, he was that good. But he did not. Why? Because he is a show man with the utmost confidence in himself. So what did he do? He would just pace himself with the others and then use his superior skill and racecraft to win the races in the last few laps. At the time I was a big fan of Rossi's. I loved watching him race. But at the same time I always knew what he was doing because he did it soooooo often. Was it exciting? Yes. Was it contrived? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Do I blame you for not understanding? No, because as Ron White says "you can't cure stupid".



Dance all you want and try to twist everyones words so you have something to defend you beloved over but at the end of the day you are wrong and its so comical.

no, you can't cure stupid: you are living proof. you claim you knew what he was doing, you claim it was indeed exciting, then you claim it was all contrived, and to top it all off: found nothing wrong with it? LMFAO!!!

 

[yamaka46]

It has been fun watching you scramble and I have been waiting for you to bring me into it because I knew you had your back up about my comments.



What is funny is that I never said or do I believe that Rossi's championships lack credibility. What I did say to start you off was that racing in the 990 era was contrived. Why? Because on most weekends Rossi was easily able to dispatch his competitors. Because he was easily able to dispatch them he often rode at only 8/10's until a few laps to go when he would drop the hammer and win.



My comment was that for the unknowledgeable punter, you, this was exciting racing but for those that understood what was happening it was contrived.



How could Rossi's championships lack credibility when he was SO much better than his competition. I can not understand this view point. I say it gives him more credibility as at the time he was super human in comparison to all that came before him. This is why he is loved by so many.



Today, the riders at the top aspired to ONE thing. Beating Valentino Rossi. They have and they are, so what, he had his time and it was an almost unprecedented career. Get over it mate he is a champion, we all know it and respect it but we don't have to continually kiss his arse like you do until the end of time.

I'd definately class myself as a "knowledgable punter" and I'm not sure I'd use the word contrived. Splitting hairs, but I also don't think it was "the 990 era", more 2001 (500s) 2002, 2003 & 2005 (990s). 2004 Rossi had to work pretty hard, espcially the first part of the season, 2006 he couldn't work hard enough

Greater excitement may have been generated in those years by one man who had the desire to do more than hole shot, gap the field & win, but I'd say the same about Doohan before him.



As you say, Rossi appeared to ride at 8/10ths then pull the pin with a few to go, but also we do need to remember that the tyres in those days used to go off towards the end of the race and he was credited with being one of the best for preserving his tyres, giving him something to allow the pin-pulling. Just a thought. Mind you, for me his win at PI in 2003 after the 10 second penalty proved just how much he had in reserve at times.



Doohan, in his last couple of championship years often made attrocious starts despite the fact that he had no such problems in his first couple of WC years. I came to the conclusion that it gave him something to do on the way to the top step

Again, Doohan dominated but I don't think of those races as contrived either and many called this era of racing boring despite Doohan contriving to at least add some passing to the mix. That is where the word contrived belongs IMO, Rossi and Doohan attempting to make the races more fun for themselves and on the way adding to the excitement of the racing for the fans. Just because I knew that Doohan was going to pass the 6 or so riders he'd ended up behind at least 90% of the time didn't make my enjoyment of the passes less.

 

[Mick D]

Yamak - once you've "contrived to at least add some passing to the mix" you're in for a penny, in for a pound - the whole race is contrived. Remember - contrive |kənˈtrīv|verb [ trans. ] - create or bring about (an object or a situation) by deliberate use of skill and artifice...