can rossi take the title this year?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 10 2008, 03:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Oooh gee ... look Junk ... the mailmans coming!!
Hmmm, looks like your hole of futile absurdity just got deeper my friend.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 10 2008, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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!! .......

Who's bitching now. I'm just pointing out the evident and having a good laugh at it.
Btw. Got yourself a new favorite word? Boohoo seems to come up as often as Rossi is .... these days.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>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
But you didn't answere the general topic but a direct question to Tom just like Jumkie answered you. I really couldn't care less, but your double standards seems to have now limits as you did the same one page back and then whinge about others replying to your post on the next page.
That's DS for Double Standards

On Topic:
Rossi might be able to win it. I give him 40/60 in Stoners favor.

is it over yet?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skid @ Apr 10 2008, 05:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>is it over yet?



Pinky's rebutal went on for two pages ...... so who knows



or did you mean Estoril?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skid @ Apr 10 2008, 02:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>is it over yet?
it'll never be over.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 10 2008, 01:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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.

I very much doubt career points total is the riders main aim, drive or motivation. Ask a rider why they compete and i am fairly sure non of them will say "to score more points in my career than the next guy" but rather to be world champion.

I understand that we all have our opinions and we all reach conclusions using our own discretion, it is natural. However an opinion is a bias by nature so can never be fair. In order to remain as fair as possible I think it is suitable to compare riders success based on what is the undoubted common aim. Beyond that we have no choice but to use opinions. Rating riders on race wins, career total points and winning margins is all completely discretion based because it is impossible to speculate the significance the riders put on these things and therefore naturally impossible to fairly rate their success. Does that make any sense to you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 10 2008, 02:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>"Kevin Schwantz is overrated"
Just a thought...

Can you really still not appreciate an alternative opinion?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 10 2008, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I very much doubt career points total is the riders main aim, drive or motivation. Ask a rider why they compete and i am fairly sure non of them will say "to score more points in my career than the next guy" but rather to be world champion.

I understand that we all have our opinions and we all reach conclusions using our own discretion, it is natural. However an opinion is a bias by nature so can never be fair. In order to remain as fair as possible I think it is suitable to compare riders success based on what is the undoubted common aim. Beyond that we have no choice but to use opinions. Rating riders on race wins, career total points and winning margins is all completely discretion based because it is impossible to speculate the significance the riders put on these things and therefore naturally impossible to fairly rate their success. Does that make any sense to you?
No.

I agree that the WC is decided on a points system, and that is the only "fair" method of "determining" the "best" rider in that season. I'll repeat once more "The WC points system cannot tell the complete story, nor should it be expected to do so."

Having opinions, and looking to show why those opinions are valid, rather than just sticking to the facts that can be proven is what makes the difference between a mediocre engineer and a bloody good one. You can't innovate without straying from the road which is "fair".

Of course opinions are biased. I believe Rossi is better than Pedrosa and it is my opinion that running away at the front when your package allows it is not better than fighting from 11th on the grid in order to finish as the winner. I can attempt to explain why I feel this is so. You are free to explain why you disagree. This is a forum. If it were as simple as Pedrosa finished one point ahead of Rossi in 2007 so the only "fair" thing to say is that he was a better rider in 2007, then we would all be home in bed with a nice cup of cocoa "knowing" that there would be no questions to be answered for 2008.

As I said to Jumkie, I was trying to show that your "alternate opinion" on Schwantz can be shown to be "incorrect" by simply looking at points.

Relax - live a little. Tell me why you think Pedrosa (or whoever) is better, rather than why the points show that he's better. It'll be good experience, 'cos without that capability you may end up a manager, rather than an engineer. (I apologise if this is in fact your chosen career path )

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 10 2008, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Of course opinions are biased. I believe Rossi is better than Pedrosa and it is my opinion that running away at the front when your package allows it is not better than fighting from 11th on the grid in order to finish as the winner. I can attempt to explain why I feel this is so. You are free to explain why you disagree. This is a forum. If it were as simple as Pedrosa finished one point ahead of Rossi in 2007 so the only "fair" thing to say is that he was a better rider in 2007, then we would all be home in bed with a nice cup of cocoa "knowing" that there would be no questions to be answered for 2008.
As you say, most things on this forum are a matter of opinion. In my opinion whilst pedrosa performed well last year he did not really show himself to be a better rider than rossi. Again in my opinion if rossi had set himself to beat pedrosa and finish second in the championship he could have accomplished this. He in fact continued to try to win each individual race, and for that matter the championship as long as it was a possibility, and hence his offs which were in pursuit of stoner and race victory rather than just a high finish.

I don't necessarily agree with the coming from 11th etc, although it was spectacular and admirable. Rossi at least partly did this because he could, and with the tyre and other technology of the time it made sense to preserve tyres early. I think you will find he will now be happy to disappear into the distance when he can, and I believe the possibly improved ability to go hard early is one of the reasons he switched to bridgestone.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 10 2008, 02:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No.

I agree that the WC is decided on a points system, and that is the only "fair" method of "determining" the "best" rider in that season. I'll repeat once more "The WC points system cannot tell the complete story, nor should it be expected to do so."

Having opinions, and looking to show why those opinions are valid, rather than just sticking to the facts that can be proven is what makes the difference between a mediocre engineer and a bloody good one. You can't innovate without straying from the road which is "fair".

Of course opinions are biased. I believe Rossi is better than Pedrosa and it is my opinion that running away at the front when your package allows it is not better than fighting from 11th on the grid in order to finish as the winner. I can attempt to explain why I feel this is so. You are free to explain why you disagree. This is a forum. If it were as simple as Pedrosa finished one point ahead of Rossi in 2007 so the only "fair" thing to say is that he was a better rider in 2007, then we would all be home in bed with a nice cup of cocoa "knowing" that there would be no questions to be answered for 2008.

As I said to Jumkie, I was trying to show that your "alternate opinion" on Schwantz can be shown to be "incorrect" by simply looking at points.

Relax - live a little. Tell me why you think Pedrosa (or whoever) is better, rather than why the points show that he's better. It'll be good experience, 'cos without that capability you may end up a manager, rather than an engineer. (I apologise if this is in fact your chosen career path )

You will never be a good engineer if you look past your experimental results because you don't like them. If Yamaha had said to Rossi, "yes you came second but the points don't tell the whole story, we believe our bike is the best so we won't be changing it" He would have walked, and rightfully so. The good engineers are clever enough to accept when they are beaten (something riders and their fans are often incapable of) and then anylize why they were beaten. This is the part that involves all the opinions and risk taking which is a result of putting faith in those opinions.

I don't need to explain that Dani was second best last year because it's a given, but if you want to know what i think the reasons are for this outcome, i will try.

First, and most significantly, he was consistent. When things were going bad Dani was still there, gaining points he so badly needed. Racing errors b Dani last season were what? Crash in Japan from the lead, and a sub-par showing after a clutch problem at donnington. Rossi made far more errors and had plenty more bad days. Dani was also taken out of a few races from the thick of the first lap pack, which you never want to be in at the start of a race because it is risky. However he showed improvement in that sense by achieveing the last 4 consecutive pole positions, making sure he was at the sharper and safer end of the pack.

Furhtermore despite some outcries from him and some definite frustration in the direction of both honda and Michelin, Dani kept his head together much more so than Rossi and kept working through his problems. That is something that i not only think helped him last season, but will work to his advantage this year as he has the benefit of continuity.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 10 2008, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You will never be a good engineer if you look past your experimental results because you don't like them.
I strongly suspect that yamaka may have some experimental and/or experiential evidence that he is a good engineer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 10 2008, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I strongly suspect that yamaka may have some experimental and/or experiential evidence that he is a good engineer.

I am fairly sure. This comment was meant to be general not personal. It in fact should have read "One will never be a good engineer........." but i don't think i'm posh enough for that

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 10 2008, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You will never be a good engineer if you look past your experimental results because you don't like them. If Yamaha had said to Rossi, "yes you came second but the points don't tell the whole story, we believe our bike is the best so we won't be changing it" He would have walked, and rightfully so. The good engineers are clever enough to accept when they are beaten (something riders and their fans are often incapable of) and then anylize why they were beaten. This is the part that involves all the opinions and risk taking which is a result of putting faith in those opinions.

I don't need to explain that Dani was second best last year because it's a given, but if you want to know what i think the reasons are for this outcome, i will try.

First, and most significantly, he was consistent. When things were going bad Dani was still there, gaining points he so badly needed. Racing errors b Dani last season were what? Crash in Japan from the lead, and a sub-par showing after a clutch problem at donnington. Rossi made far more errors and had plenty more bad days. Dani was also taken out of a few races from the thick of the first lap pack, which you never want to be in at the start of a race because it is risky. However he showed improvement in that sense by achieving the last 4 consecutive pole positions, making sure he was at the sharper and safer end of the pack.

Furhtermore despite some outcries from him and some definite frustration in the direction of both honda and Michelin, Dani kept his head together much more so than Rossi and kept working through his problems. That is something that i not only think helped him last season, but will work to his advantage this year as he has the benefit of continuity.
I never suggested looking past any "experimental results". Just that over-use of statistics can lead to management tendencies.

As far as "analysing why they were beaten" Rossi has changed tyre manufacturers and told Yamaha to up their game. If that ain't showing that he has analysed and come up with a way forward, then pray tell me what is.

The WC points system is a "forced" statistical system. It does not have the pedigree of being a useful engineering data set, nor does it set out to have that pedigree.

You are (deliberately or otherwise) avoiding the concept I was trying to explain. It is not a "given" that Pedrosa performed better than Rossi last year just because his points haul was one more than Rossis. Rather, the points system is a simplistic and "fair" system to show the relative positions in the championship. If you really cannot see past this, then don't expect too much kudos from fellow engineers once your degree is over and you join the "real" world. Sorry to appear harsh, but that's the "points system" we work to.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 10 2008, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I strongly suspect that yamaka may have some experimental and/or experiential evidence that he is a good engineer.
Fact is I keep getting lucrative contracts with the same few employers, despite my frequent elopments to Oz

Off to the milk the European cash cow again in May. Hopefully the snow will have fcked off by then!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 10 2008, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The WC points system is a "forced" statistical system. It does not have the pedigree of being a useful engineering data set, nor does it set out to have that pedigree.

The point you are chosing to see past, or cannot see is where we fundamentally differ. You say the points system is a "forced" statistical system that is the best approximation to represent what is actually going on. And I would consider this true in the very early days of racing, but now the system has been in place for long enough to not simply be a means of approximating the outcome, but actually it is what the teams and riders aim to achieve. That is why i consider them so significant. No rider or engineer in motogp would end a season satisfied with losing in the points because they felt they were the best anyway. If anything feeling like they were superior would only add to the disappointment of not actually achieving the aim (thats those points again).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 10 2008, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The point you are chosing to see past, or cannot see is where we fundamentally differ. You say the points system is a "forced" statistical system that is the best approximation to represent what is actually going on. And I would consider this true in the very early days of racing, but now the system has been in place for long enough to not simply be a means of approximating the outcome, but actually it is what the teams and riders aim to achieve. That is why i consider them so significant. No rider or engineer in motogp would end a season satisfied with losing in the points because they felt they were the best anyway. If anything feeling like they were superior would only add to the disappointment of not actually achieving the aim (thats those points again).
There is no doubt pedrosa was more successful than rossi in 2007, and how small the margin was doesn't count. However it is my opinion that finishing second in the championship was never an aim of rossi's. Arguably it should have been, and I am sure you are correct that his team would have preferred him to finish second rather than third. He also perhaps made the point in trying to win every race that they were not maximally assisting him to do so.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 10 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The point you are chosing to see past, or cannot see is where we fundamentally differ. You say the points system is a "forced" statistical system that is the best approximation to represent what is actually going on. And I would consider this true in the very early days of racing, but now the system has been in place for long enough to not simply be a means of approximating the outcome, but actually it is what the teams and riders aim to achieve. That is why i consider them so significant. No rider or engineer in motogp would end a season satisfied with losing in the points because they felt they were the best anyway. If anything feeling like they were superior would only add to the disappointment of not actually achieving the aim (thats those points again).
OK, I now see where you are coming from, and think we may just have to agree to differ.

In my opinion riders do not ride for points. They ride for race wins, or if they can't get a win, then the podium, or failing that the highest position they can manage to maintain for race distance. They mostly just want to win, whether it be a race or the championship.

Watching the 2000 and 2006 seasons, both Hayden and KRJR, who have been criticised for the way they won their championships, were trying for the highest race pace they could manage for each individual race rather than just points at the end of the season IMO.

If, now that the field is so much smaller, we were to alter the points structure to be as per F1, ie 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 do you think it would affect the way the riders viewed the races? Do you think they'd be happier to settle for second as the percentage difference between the points for 1st and 2nd had reduced?

I think that the level of red mist going on (as pointed out in other threads re Hopper/Stoner etc) shows that the riders are not robots calculating the odds (except maybe Asimo ) and are just looking for a way to get past the guy in front and to keep the others behind them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 11 2008, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>OK, I now see where you are coming from, and think we may just have to agree to differ.

In my opinion riders do not ride for points. They ride for race wins, or if they can't get a win, then the podium, or failing that the highest position they can manage to maintain for race distance. They mostly just want to win, whether it be a race or the championship.

Watching the 2000 and 2006 seasons, both Hayden and KRJR, who have been criticised for the way they won their championships, were trying for the highest race pace they could manage for each individual race rather than just points at the end of the season IMO.

If, now that the field is so much smaller, we were to alter the points structure to be as per F1, ie 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 do you think it would affect the way the riders viewed the races? Do you think they'd be happier to settle for second as the percentage difference between the points for 1st and 2nd had reduced?

I think that the level of red mist going on (as pointed out in other threads re Hopper/Stoner etc) shows that the riders are not robots calculating the odds (except maybe Asimo ) and are just looking for a way to get past the guy in front and to keep the others behind them.

Indeed we may have to agree to differ, because i believe the riders (front runners particularly) are all very mindful of the big picture (championship points) when they race, and changing the points system would definitely alter their stratergies. The F1 system has been called into question because some people want one which encourages more risk taking and less settling for points, i know F1 is more strategic than motogp but i still think the principle applies to a lesser extent.

I don't know if you guys are debating Rossi v's Pedrosa properly ....... in a way both of them had bad seasons last year, not because of how many wins they had, or didn't have, but I think with last year you need to more look at just how bad did the "lows" get for them last year .... eg. DNF's, poor placings, poor decisions in setup.

You can't just count the wins or near wins in a WC .... not if they are sporadic at best.

Folk get pissed at me for saying Rossi is on the wane, and some even deny he is, citing wins he still achieved ...... but the "unRossi" thing we did see in both 06 and 07 was more and more of the sporadic "bad performances" ...... in short yes Rossi is capable of winning on the day ..... but its the loss of consistency, and more "lows" that is costing him, a point system documents this also ....... a rider may have phenominal "highs" in a season, but his "lows" also come into it. ...... I think, hopefully, both he and Pedrosa know this now and we should see a better year from them if this is the case ...... however its early stages , and an inabilty to remain consistent will show more and more as the season wears on.

How about an Accumulative time distance from the winner way of analysing a WC? .... except DNF's would be hard? Kinda live the BMW M award. ...... it would have the effect of adding all the races of the season to see who wins. No ..... thats really impossible .... DNF's are just too subjective ...... thats why we have points for the race ....... its the longest running WC out there isn't it? ..... surely the point system must be ok by now?

I don't think Rossi's heart is in it 100% this year, i think he's thinking about racing something else. I think theres a few other riders this year that are a little hungrier. I really like Valentino but hes not pushin all the way! I feel Stoner, Hayden, Pedrosa or possibly Lorenzo will be the ones to beat this year with Rossi comin in like 3rd, Just my opinion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 10 2008, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Indeed we may have to agree to differ, because i believe the riders (front runners particularly) are all very mindful of the big picture (championship points) when they race, and changing the points system would definitely alter their stratergies. The F1 system has been called into question because some people want one which encourages more risk taking and less settling for points, i know F1 is more strategic than motogp but i still think the principle applies to a lesser extent.
Racers being "mindful of the big picture" I'd agree with. That they race for points as an end game for each race I don't agree with.

Out of interest, does anyone else subscribe to Tom's "they race for points not for wins" argument?