Ben Spies' "Litany of reasons"
- Thread starter Kropotkin
- Start date
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Tom, was Ben Spies MotoGP worthy in 2009-2011?
Was he worthy in 09 of promotion (not that "worthy" has all to do with the actual dispensation of GP seats, but this aside) to a satellite GP ride?
Was he worthy in 2010 to be promoted to a factory seat?
Was he worthy of retaining his factory seat after 2011?
Now given the mechanical mishaps of 2012, how much confidence do u think this gave the rider to perform? I'll assume u would answer prob very little, but given ur propensity to disagree with me in such particular line of reasoning, i'd say ur answer would be that this is an irrelevant question. Though if ur going to argue a factory expects a certain level of performance out of a "factory rider" it seems many are not holding the factory to that same standard. Given this, do u think he deserved at least one more year on the factory seat given the outlier of issues he endured through no fault of his own, which normally are not associated with a "factory entry"? Basically, im asking u to consider, who did not hold up their end of the bargain, that is, expectation of fiduciary duty (pretending there is one) which u are indirectly citing for "retaining" a factory seat?
Now its obvious seats are not issued on a 'merit' basis, because strictly speaking based on the record of 2012, which u are using to judge that Spies did not deserve to retain his factory seat, Dovi would have deserved the factory Yamaha. YET, Rossi will take that position, so the factories have made it crystal clear that the record of finishing order pointing to performance merit either means little or is up for some other consideration formula. So here we are, debating who "deserves" a "factory" seat, but its clear "deserve" means .... to the actual factories in terms of what we are saying is meritous, hell, that goes for all the GP seats. How Crutchlow ever made it to GP still has me scratching my head, and after his first year, by ur logic, "deserved" to be jettisoned from the series (thank God for contracts, eh) speaking of 'contracts', lets not even bring up Smith. So this debate is purely for fun, completely hypothetical. Nothing more. If Spies would have had another contract year left he would have been in the good but 'underved' happenstance (by ur assesment) as did Crutchlow the previous season). Though, i know from debating u and reading ur opinions in the past, u seem to think GP has the most talented riders in the world, and the finishing classification is the go-to indication to judge who is best. U seem to defer to this classification as ur principle assesment without much consideration for other circumstance, and again it seems to be true in ur conclusion that Spies does not deserve to retain his factory position (even though u at least admit he suffered several mishaps, u fal short of stating the factory was not up to snuf). Anyway, so i ask u, who then deserved the Yamaha factory? Again, i know this discussion is just for fun, God knows the team principles dont give the seats based solely on merit.
Its so interesting to me that the people who have voiced their opinion that Spies doesnt deserve to retain a factory seat, based on supposedly not performing to whatever they have decided merits a factory seat, have not equally argued against Rossi not deserving to take that exact factory seat given his 2011-2012 performance. Was Rossi's performance that good on a bike that was previously a multiple race winner (isnt that how Spies is being judged here)? Not to mention a program decidedly revamped at an alarming rate and resource and developed around Rossi, the #1 rider, for two solid years? I'll assume most would argue Spies deserved a factory seat at the end of 2011. Those im debating here say he doesnt deserve it after 2012 based on his "performance"...'last season'' (shelving the fact 'last season'' had a stark outlier in quantity of no-fault highly unusual mechanicals). Yet the reality is,VR will gain that exact factory seat given two last years of dismal performance.
Was he worthy in 09 of promotion (not that "worthy" has all to do with the actual dispensation of GP seats, but this aside) to a satellite GP ride?
Was he worthy in 2010 to be promoted to a factory seat?
Was he worthy of retaining his factory seat after 2011?
Now given the mechanical mishaps of 2012, how much confidence do u think this gave the rider to perform? I'll assume u would answer prob very little, but given ur propensity to disagree with me in such particular line of reasoning, i'd say ur answer would be that this is an irrelevant question. Though if ur going to argue a factory expects a certain level of performance out of a "factory rider" it seems many are not holding the factory to that same standard. Given this, do u think he deserved at least one more year on the factory seat given the outlier of issues he endured through no fault of his own, which normally are not associated with a "factory entry"? Basically, im asking u to consider, who did not hold up their end of the bargain, that is, expectation of fiduciary duty (pretending there is one) which u are indirectly citing for "retaining" a factory seat?
Now its obvious seats are not issued on a 'merit' basis, because strictly speaking based on the record of 2012, which u are using to judge that Spies did not deserve to retain his factory seat, Dovi would have deserved the factory Yamaha. YET, Rossi will take that position, so the factories have made it crystal clear that the record of finishing order pointing to performance merit either means little or is up for some other consideration formula. So here we are, debating who "deserves" a "factory" seat, but its clear "deserve" means .... to the actual factories in terms of what we are saying is meritous, hell, that goes for all the GP seats. How Crutchlow ever made it to GP still has me scratching my head, and after his first year, by ur logic, "deserved" to be jettisoned from the series (thank God for contracts, eh) speaking of 'contracts', lets not even bring up Smith. So this debate is purely for fun, completely hypothetical. Nothing more. If Spies would have had another contract year left he would have been in the good but 'underved' happenstance (by ur assesment) as did Crutchlow the previous season). Though, i know from debating u and reading ur opinions in the past, u seem to think GP has the most talented riders in the world, and the finishing classification is the go-to indication to judge who is best. U seem to defer to this classification as ur principle assesment without much consideration for other circumstance, and again it seems to be true in ur conclusion that Spies does not deserve to retain his factory position (even though u at least admit he suffered several mishaps, u fal short of stating the factory was not up to snuf). Anyway, so i ask u, who then deserved the Yamaha factory? Again, i know this discussion is just for fun, God knows the team principles dont give the seats based solely on merit.
Its so interesting to me that the people who have voiced their opinion that Spies doesnt deserve to retain a factory seat, based on supposedly not performing to whatever they have decided merits a factory seat, have not equally argued against Rossi not deserving to take that exact factory seat given his 2011-2012 performance. Was Rossi's performance that good on a bike that was previously a multiple race winner (isnt that how Spies is being judged here)? Not to mention a program decidedly revamped at an alarming rate and resource and developed around Rossi, the #1 rider, for two solid years? I'll assume most would argue Spies deserved a factory seat at the end of 2011. Those im debating here say he doesnt deserve it after 2012 based on his "performance"...'last season'' (shelving the fact 'last season'' had a stark outlier in quantity of no-fault highly unusual mechanicals). Yet the reality is,VR will gain that exact factory seat given two last years of dismal performance.
Joined Aug 2008
6K Posts | 748+
Thailand
Jumkie
It is my understanding that the wrenches perform some form non destructive testing on major components (swingarm, frame, bars, forks) post crash... .... we did it as amateurs 20 years ago.
Frizzle
I don't thinks so... I'm leaning more towards Lyria's take below.
Lyria
Well said Lyria.
Jumkie
Jum, dude, you keep riding that cadaver and enjoying it! Not one sane mgp denizen would deny that Rossi has earned one more good ride based on 2002 to 2010. If you haven't noticed the same treatment is VERY common in north american stick and ball sports, boardrooms and in life in general. If this two year stint at Yammy is a bust for Rossi then off to the pastures of WSBK or cages. The point being 'the people who have voiced their opinion that Spies doesnt deserve to retain a factory seat, based on supposedly not performing' don't need to bring Rossi into the discussion for two reasons. One its like comparing Michael Jordan to Scott Williams and, two they fully understand that that their totally different career arcs are incomparable.
It is my understanding that the wrenches perform some form non destructive testing on major components (swingarm, frame, bars, forks) post crash... .... we did it as amateurs 20 years ago.
Frizzle
I don't thinks so... I'm leaning more towards Lyria's take below.
Lyria
Well said Lyria.
Jumkie
Jum, dude, you keep riding that cadaver and enjoying it! Not one sane mgp denizen would deny that Rossi has earned one more good ride based on 2002 to 2010. If you haven't noticed the same treatment is VERY common in north american stick and ball sports, boardrooms and in life in general. If this two year stint at Yammy is a bust for Rossi then off to the pastures of WSBK or cages. The point being 'the people who have voiced their opinion that Spies doesnt deserve to retain a factory seat, based on supposedly not performing' don't need to bring Rossi into the discussion for two reasons. One its like comparing Michael Jordan to Scott Williams and, two they fully understand that that their totally different career arcs are incomparable.
Joined Jun 2008
2K Posts | 6+
America
Also something to note. Think back to the comments Ezy said about Rossi's future. Without any information being told on the outside, Ezy said he knew that Rossi would be on a competitive bike next year. Now he said this before anyone was really thinking about him Leaving Ducati, especially with Audi coming into the picture to say they are in it to win it and have a plan. Those plans included Rossi. So, we all for the most part picked that apart as soon as we saw his comments about Rossi being on a good bike next year. The thing just stinks really. Ezy let the cat out of the bag, and with hindsight, it really proves the point people try to make about the golden boy thing.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
I'll take credit for coaxing him out of the shadows of his cave. My posts regarding the truth about Rossi rather than the common apology of his career (of which Mick seems to partake) and my takes on Islam, which he counter as zealotry, were too much for him to remain silent. :lol:
Why not come in late and give Jums another post to pick to pieces 
Now, first off I will state outright that IMO Spies under-performed tremendously in 2012 and he was, for me a major disappointment throughout the season (by 'he' read results wise etc).
However, I cannot accept that all of the issues were Spies and will not accept that Yamaha played tricks, but rather I suspect that Spies was the victim of a number of different circumstances combining to have a major negative consequence on his performances (hey, is that stating the bloody obvious or what?)
First off, like many I expected that the change to 1000cc may have helped Spies somewhat but instead he did seem to struggle from day one with the new machine. Whether it be weight bias, power deliver etc etc he struggled.
Secondly were the tyres. Was Spies with his riding style also affected by the changes in tyres (combined with the new capacity) be that carcass construction or general performance as there were glimpses throughout the season of what Spies is capable of producing, but sadly these displays were few and far between.
Third was Lorenzo. IMO, there is little doubt that Yamaha were strongly supporting Lorenzo as he is the number 1 riders and as such I suspect that the bike had been strongly developed around his wants, needs, feedback and style which then extrapolated to mean that Spies different style was greatly affected.
Mental, and I suspect this is where some will take total umbrage as we are not allowed to speak of some mental states, but Spies has always interested me in this aspect. When he first went to WSBK and then Tech3 his interviews always projected a single minded focus and total belief in himself, his ability and of those around him. However, over the last year or so I have seen a number of interviews where he will explain aspects and I no longer see the desire in his eyes, nor hear it in his words. For me as much as I admire his honesty, his comments regarding Stoner (where he states that he cannot see how Stoner is so fast, yet can with others) concerns me in that whilst refreshingly honest, it is almost defeating and comes across as if he is saying 'I can compete with all, but him'.
All up though, for me whilst he disappointed in 2012 I do feel that we did not see the ability that the guy DOES possess as he has shown a few times that he can ride with and beat these riders. Yes, certainly some may (rightly) say 'well if he is not suited to the 1000cc capacity then he should leave etc', but one year does not a career make and for mine 2012 was an aberration and I do look forward to and hope that he produces in 2013.
Whilst there seems to be some discussion surrounding why Spies has maintained a ride, the same question could well be asked of a number of riders over the years who have produced far less than has Spies in the few years he has been in MGP, but that said I readily admit that 2013 is an important year for him in a number of ways
Now, first off I will state outright that IMO Spies under-performed tremendously in 2012 and he was, for me a major disappointment throughout the season (by 'he' read results wise etc).
However, I cannot accept that all of the issues were Spies and will not accept that Yamaha played tricks, but rather I suspect that Spies was the victim of a number of different circumstances combining to have a major negative consequence on his performances (hey, is that stating the bloody obvious or what?)
First off, like many I expected that the change to 1000cc may have helped Spies somewhat but instead he did seem to struggle from day one with the new machine. Whether it be weight bias, power deliver etc etc he struggled.
Secondly were the tyres. Was Spies with his riding style also affected by the changes in tyres (combined with the new capacity) be that carcass construction or general performance as there were glimpses throughout the season of what Spies is capable of producing, but sadly these displays were few and far between.
Third was Lorenzo. IMO, there is little doubt that Yamaha were strongly supporting Lorenzo as he is the number 1 riders and as such I suspect that the bike had been strongly developed around his wants, needs, feedback and style which then extrapolated to mean that Spies different style was greatly affected.
Mental, and I suspect this is where some will take total umbrage as we are not allowed to speak of some mental states, but Spies has always interested me in this aspect. When he first went to WSBK and then Tech3 his interviews always projected a single minded focus and total belief in himself, his ability and of those around him. However, over the last year or so I have seen a number of interviews where he will explain aspects and I no longer see the desire in his eyes, nor hear it in his words. For me as much as I admire his honesty, his comments regarding Stoner (where he states that he cannot see how Stoner is so fast, yet can with others) concerns me in that whilst refreshingly honest, it is almost defeating and comes across as if he is saying 'I can compete with all, but him'.
All up though, for me whilst he disappointed in 2012 I do feel that we did not see the ability that the guy DOES possess as he has shown a few times that he can ride with and beat these riders. Yes, certainly some may (rightly) say 'well if he is not suited to the 1000cc capacity then he should leave etc', but one year does not a career make and for mine 2012 was an aberration and I do look forward to and hope that he produces in 2013.
Whilst there seems to be some discussion surrounding why Spies has maintained a ride, the same question could well be asked of a number of riders over the years who have produced far less than has Spies in the few years he has been in MGP, but that said I readily admit that 2013 is an important year for him in a number of ways
Poor Ben Spies, he seems like a pretty nice bloke, but as with most Superbikers, he lacks the talent to compete against the GP riders.
