can rossi take the title this year?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Apr 7 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I understand that people may say that to counter some easy (and wrong) assumptions, but the statement in itself does not stand, because it amounts to saying that the value of past experience and achievements is ZERO.

If that value is zero, then ANY rookie could win the title ANY year, or any race could be won by any rookie as much as by any experienced champ... Of course that is possible and it happens, but it happens as an exception rather than a rule.

This is statistically a fact and it tells us that experience and titles do matter something (unless they are too far in the past of course - his 15 titles wouldn't help Ago now... ).
Both I and skid were referring to 5 specific riders in one particular race in the current 800 formula, rather than any random rookie, and I think all of these riders know it is possible to beat rossi, whereas many riders in the past didn't really believe this could happen even with superior equipment. I agree that it would seem statistically unlikely that 4 other riders would appear at the same time who were as good as a five times world champion.

Rossi may well win this year because he is the best rider on a more competitive bike than last year, but not because these riders at least are intimidated.

In any case it seems to be a common belief which rossi himself has agreed with on occasion that past experience is to some extent detrimental in the era of advanced electronic aids. This is just a theory in my view, even though I think you and I are among the first to have advanced it .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 8 2008, 06:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Oh Lord. Well then, why on Earth did we have all those: “who is better Rossi or Stoner threads? Look everybody, Ferry, has figured out the magical formula. After two races, he figures that—“LORENZO IS BETTER THAN ROSSI”!

Wow, that is breathtaking. And you came up with this all by yourself? Are you sure you didn’t get help with that very complex statistical formula and mountain of evidence? Surely you must have retained the services of an army of scientists to help you with the mathematical arithmetic to arrive at such a sweeping conclusion? (Perhaps you and Pinky consulting in private?)

I would laugh, but I know you are serious. I usually laugh at pathetic posts, but this is your second time you try and make such a pitiful statement using such a poor sample. You must have a foot fetish, because that foot of yours must taste great in your mouth. And you even had the presences of mind to say, “some don’t like to accept it”, well no .... dude, you are right about that, but not for the reason you think, but rather because its beyond stupid to think that after two races you can declare Lorenzo is better than Rossi.

Lets see, here I will use Berry’s sample for making definitive conclusions below:

After two races:

Rossi 5th & 2nd=31 points
Stoner 1st & 11th=30 points

There you have it folks. Rossi is in fact better than Stoner!!!!!!!!!!

Lets go home, its been settled. No need to worry yourselves with the 18 different threads that try to tackle the important and complex question of who is better, Eureka—we have solved the mystery!






Like I said boys and girls, this is not the first time we see such a sweeping statement after two rounds, anybody remember this:


Hahahaha, this is great. You make a case to compare tires after two rounds. Ok then lets see if your magnificent scientific postulation based on two rounds makes sense:

07 after round 1 Stoner......1st
08 after round 1 Stoner......1st
08 after round 2 Stoner......4th Oh my God, what's happened to those Bridgestones???

From your statment above; your conclusion:
"Rossi is not as good on Bridgestones as he was on Michelins."
Using your reasoning:
<strike>Rossi</strike> Stoner is not as good on Bridgestones as he was on <strike>Michelins</strike> Bridgestones.

Please man, lets try and make some intelligent analysis shall we. Tires are not the only factor here, so why must you try and isolated them?



...., so now what, are we gonna have a thousand threads that Lorenzo is better than Rossi? Oh, that reminds me of that thread you posted with your LIST of 10+ reasons why Rossi is NOT the purest rider. (He's only won on everything). ......., according to you the whole world is better than Rossi. Why don't you just stick to riding Stoner's jock man.

LINK
now you see why i just cant be arsed to read any of barrymachines posts,infact the only ones i read are when he is quoted. be carfull to always quote him tho or he will edit his post and denies he said it. got no time for him/her myself. say what you like bm, i wont read it

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 8 2008, 09:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>..............
In any case it seems to be a common belief which rossi himself has agreed with on occasion that past experience is to some extent detrimental in the era of advanced electronic aids. This is just a theory in my view, even though I think you and I are among the first to have advanced it .

True
In fact ''old' riders like Capirossi (but also Melandri) may appear to have trouble adapting to the new "decreased capacity/less fuel/increased electronics" formula introduced in 2007.
Rossi seems to be the exception though, and in fact so far he has always managed to stay at the top (or very near it) through 3 different MotoGP formulas, changing bike and tyres along the way. This tells a lot about the kind of champion he is.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Apr 8 2008, 08:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i just cant be arsed to read any of barrymachines posts,infact the only ones i read are when he is quoted. be carfull to always quote him tho or he will edit his post and denies he said it.

well more "boohoo" ..... if indeed you feel I have "edited" out comments after you have made too much of an arse of yourself ....... show it ...... have it checked!

Gee its ok to say something as long as its in Rossi's favour .... or its "sook central"

Nice try Jumkie, but a waste of bandwith.
This one is way beyond reasoning, not to mention "Intelligent analysis"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 8 2008, 04:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Gee its ok to say something as long as its in Rossi's favour .... or its "sook central"


Hahahaha. Jumkie--the Rossi apologist?!?!


What next? Jumkie--the Pedrosa lover.....(don’t worry people, the universe is not about to implode)

Is nothing sacred? Wow, you will say anything…. but I’m not worried; I think my well-documented reputation, as a Hayden-worshiper is not in jeopardy (I hope). (Especially with those that know how to read and formulate judgment based on reality.)

Its time to realise and acknowledge, its not about Rossi anymore.. He has been overtaken by the new breed who's time has come. It's all about Pedrosa v Lorenzo v Stoner for the championship. Rossi will be entertaining and put in the odd good ride for old times sake but he is not the man to beat and will not win the championship. I've heard all the excuses I can take, wake up and realise!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AB#1 @ Apr 9 2008, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Its time to realise and acknowledge, its not about Rossi anymore.. He has been overtaken by the new breed who's time has come. It's all about Pedrosa v Lorenzo v Stoner for the championship. Rossi will be entertaining and put in the odd good ride for old times sake but he is not the man to beat and will not win the championship. I've heard all the excuses I can take, wake up and realise!
You've heard nothing yet - you've only just got here.

When the season is over, if Rossi has turned out to have lost it, then I'll "wake up and realise". For now, the ability he has shown to get those Bridgestones working well enough to finish 2nd at Jerez (not a Bridgestone track) will allow me to keep my faith in his ability to challenge for the Championship. I don't believe your crystal ball is any better than mine, so STFU and watch the racing.

BTW - If you're going to troll having just arrived at the forum, at least troll consistently. Lorenzo is or isn't a championship challenger for 2008 in your opinion?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AB#1)<div class='quotemain'>I think Lorenzo has been very surprising to be so good so soon, he can challenge for the podium consistently and be very fast at some rounds, maybe win a couple of races as the season goes on. But I don't think he is a top challenge contender just yet, he's been in a great position to win a couple of races but not quite been able to do it.
link to AB#1's post

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 9 2008, 03:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>

Hahahaha. Jumkie--the Rossi apologist?!?!

How come you took "ownership" of my comment?

I quoted Rog ..... are you guys one and the same?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 9 2008, 01:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>#
BTW - If you're going to troll having just arrived at the forum, at least troll consistently. Lorenzo is or isn't a championship challenger for 2008 in your opinion?


link to AB#1's post
spot on mate, he also forgot the fact that rossi is 1 point ahead of stoner in the championship. ok not much but hardly overtaken by stoner

Wasn't Rossi something like 9 points ahead of Stoner after Jerez last year?

Listen to me, ever the optimist

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 9 2008, 02:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How come you took "ownership" of my comment?

I quoted Rog ..... are you guys one and the same?


First you hijack the thread by replying on a question to Tom from Yamaka and then you complain as soon as you get a serious reply to your typical troll posts? FU Priceless!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Apr 7 2008, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>My position is simple: 1 (one!) point does not have the same value as 2 (two) victories. I can accept a point system, and everybody accepts it for the sake of regulations etc., according to this point system Pedrosa arrived 2nd - GREAT for him - but a point system is just a necessary evil and it can NOT be translated into a "value" system always. Amen

Thats fine, as a fan of the sport i don't feel i could ever get so caught up over one rider that i'd make an imaginary points sytem up to justify his results. Each to there own though

Peace.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 7 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why are you so hung up on WC points?

There has to be a method of determining the WC, but at the end of the day the points are a only statistic to be repeated in the history books.

They cannot tell the complete story, nor should they be expected to do so.

If rider A has a season with X bike failures and Y points scored then viewing the points only would lead to the conclusion that his ability was identical to rider B who has a season of X at-fault crashes and Y points scored.

I would strongly disagree that the two riders were equivalent.

I would consider these riders very much equivalent. They would obviously not have identical qualities because they each achieved their points totaly (Y) in a different manner but ultimately their achievement is equal.

I know that racing is very much a team sport and there are many things that will influence the result outside of the rider himself but when discussing in the context of the riders championship i consider all these things to be variables the rider must cope with, risks he must minimize and performances he must maximize. It is the only way to be fair.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 10 2008, 04:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>
First you hijack the thread by replying on a question to Tom from Yamaka and then you complain as soon as you get a serious reply to your typical troll posts? FU Priceless!



Its a forum ..... one reads and reacts to posts ...


BH ( thats "boohoo" ) Princess!

Just because I don't say "oh Rossi is god" .... you don't have to sook at me

In fact all you ever seem to post about is bitching statements reacting to people who aren't saying "peachy fairytales" about Rossi, and are even. Much of it is matter of fact. And you still react!! .......

There is a general question for the topic of this post and I comment on it ..... when I do its my thoughts ATM ....... if they cause you problem then ignore me

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 9 2008, 08:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I would consider these riders very much equivalent. They would obviously not have identical qualities because they each achieved their points totaly (Y) in a different manner but ultimately their achievement is equal.

I know that racing is very much a team sport and there are many things that will influence the result outside of the rider himself but when discussing in the context of the riders championship i consider all these things to be variables the rider must cope with, risks he must minimize and performances he must maximize. It is the only way to be fair.
So do you actually watch the racing or just check out the points after each race

I'm not suggesting a change to the points system, so there is no issue of what is "fair". I'm saying that I would consider the talents of riders A & B to be different, given that B has crashed out a lot whilst A has been unlucky with his machinery.

As I said, the WC points system cannot tell the complete story, nor should it be expected to do so. You can tell me that Pedrosa was a better rider last year than Rossi because he got one more point in the championship, but I think that Rossi showed more talent through the season as a whole than Pedrosa did, and won more races. If I didn't bother watching the racing and thinking about the ramifications, then I could join you in just reading the points at the seasons end.

If results alone are taken as a comparator then some interesting things can happen :

Schwantz wins 25, Rainey wins 24
Schwantz 500cc career points = 1216, Rainey 500cc career points = 1215

As you know, Rainey and Schwantz achieved their points in a different manner, but using your argument they can be claimed to be near enough equal using their career points or their career wins. And, yes I do know Rainey won 3 WCs and Schwantz just one.

Please take a moment to understand the gross contradiction between your two statements below:


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 9 2008, 04:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How come you took "ownership" of my comment?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 9 2008, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Its a forum ..... one reads and reacts to posts ...

Truly, these two posts should be framed and bronzed!


Would you like to quit while you’re in a very deep hole of futile absurdity, or are you doomed to continue digging?

I realize you may not understand what is obvious to most who read your two above statements, but for YOUR benefit, here is a bit of an explanation (I do it because its fun to see you wallow in futility). But….

In your first quote, you question my motive for “reacting to your post” But, thanks to you for making a case that its irrelevant of who you quoted--(as you clarify in your second statement). Yet when Babel above questions you “reacting to posts”, your defense is: ‘that’s what we do in forums’, we “react to posts”!?! Wow, this is truly astounding. Can hypocrisy be any more flagrant??? Seriously, I’m beginning to wonder, do you simply NOT understand? Is the real issue simply your inability to follow simple sense and logic? If so, then I’m the one mistaken for trying to expose what must be an embarrassing deficiency (that you are not aware of).



Curve, I'm starting to see the wisdom of your "special olympics" poster.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 9 2008, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If results alone are taken as a comparator then some interesting things can happen :

Schwantz wins 25, Rainey wins 24
Schwantz 500cc career points = 1216, Rainey 500cc career points = 1215

As you know, Rainey and Schwantz achieved their points in a different manner, but using your argument they can be claimed to be near enough equal using their career points or their career wins. And, yes I do know Rainey won 3 WCs and Schwantz just one.
Yamaka, may I offer this advice. You make a very good point, one that MOST EVERYBODY could appreciate; however, you may want to choose another example. <u>Tom</u> has stated in no uncertain terms, that he thinks <span style="color:#0000FF"Kevin Schwantz is overrated!" Knowing this, I think it would be fruitless to try and debate him using this example (assuming you make the same mistake I have, that is--thinking that reasoned debate will move some people).

Just a thought...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 10 2008, 11:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Please take a moment to understand the gross contradiction between your two statements below:






Truly, these two posts should be framed and bronzed!


Would you like to quit while you’re in a very deep hole of futile absurdity, or are you doomed to continue digging?

I realize you may not understand what is obvious to most who read your two above statements, but for YOUR benefit, here is a bit of an explanation (I do it because its fun to see you wallow in futility). But….

In your first quote, you question my motive for “reacting to your post” But, thanks to you for making a case that its irrelevant of who you quoted--(as you clarify in your second statement). Yet when Babel above questions you “reacting to posts”, your defense is: ‘that’s what we do in forums’, we “react to posts”!?! Wow, this is truly astounding. Can hypocrisy be any more flagrant??? Seriously, I’m beginning to wonder, do you simply NOT understand? Is the real issue simply your inability to follow simple sense and logic? If so, then I’m the one mistaken for trying to expose what must be an embarrassing deficiency (that you are not aware of).



Curve, I'm starting to see the wisdom of your "special olympics" poster.


Oooh gee ... look Junk ... the mailmans coming!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 10 2008, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yamaka, may I offer this advice. You make a very good point, one that MOST EVERYBODY could appreciate; however, you may want to choose another example. <u>Tom</u> has stated in no uncertain terms, that he thinks <span style="color:#0000FF"Kevin Schwantz is overrated!" Knowing this, I think it would be fruitless to try and debate him using this example (assuming you make the same mistake I have, that is--thinking that reasoned debate will move some people).

Just a thought...
Cheers for the advice Jumkie.

However, I know that Tom thinks Schwantz is over-rated, which is exactly why I chose his and Rainey's statistics to show that just looking at the points does not prove his beliefs on Schwantz to be true.

I may have made a mistake in attempting reasoned debate (with the odd friendly dig), but I don't class Tom as being incapable of reason. I may yet be proved wrong.