So Pedrosa wasn't injured during 2011 and 2012 was he? They BOTH were, and in fact my stats were biased towards Stoner if anything as his problems were his own fault, while Pedrosa was run over by Sic. So overall in both seasons it was 11-13 for Stoner, as close as you can get to a draw without it being an actual draw, VERY different to Dani vs Marquez.
Pedrosa certainly was injured in 2011 and missed three races from memory, plus he failed to finish a couple more but if you wish to say that Stoner's issue were of his own making and thus lesser of an 'excuse' then you also need to look at the individual DNF ratio and cause as well. But then, I suspect that you won't because it does not suit your narrative but by all means, feel free
By the way, the only score that counts is that during the period of time that they were both on HRC equipment is a 15 to 10 win ration to Stoner which includes both recovering from injury
FWIW, Pedrosa was not run over by Simoncelli but certainly he was knocked down by an overzealous Simoncelli - and the reason I mention that is pedantic as it was later that year where we saw the effects of someone being run over and it was vastly different to the Pedrosa/Simoncelli incident of Lemans.
No chance. Current riders are a selection from a much bigger sample of riders at a higher competitive level. The racing in the lower classes and in the feeding series to Moto3 is of a higher standard than it used to be, and there are more riders from many more countries taking part in the sport, apart from the impact of the rise of Spain as a motorcycling superpower after riders started to appear following the end of a dark period of military rule and isolation. Rossi would have mopped the floor with the "Old School" guys, and so would have done all the others. They're fitter and more precise riders, and you can see that by just looking at the consistency of their racing lines, the precision of their moves etc, even if you factor in the inferior equipment they were using, particularly tyres.
........ once again (IMO of course0
Rossi would not have 'mopped the floor' with the older guys, and nor would many of the others as to genuinely believe so shows a rather tunnel visioned view of the sport or perhaps a lack of understanding the history of the sport.
The sport was far tougher on the competitors in years past in physical terms as the medical advancements were not that of today that allowed riders back on bikes the same weekend that their collar is broken, nor did it allow the use of pain killers as frequently to allow riders to participate.
As for skills, well I would happily put Doohan, Schwantz, Rainey, Lawson, Spencer to name 5 up as equals of Rossi, Pedrosa, Marquez, Vinales and Lorenzo of today and in front of riders since retired who I may well very highly indeed
Let us take a look back.
You say that Moto3 is competitive, I retort with watch the 125cc era and you will see that in truth, they are remarkably similar in terms of competitiveness with a great number of riders from different countries and different backgrounds.
Moto2 and 250cc are another similar story although they do both have runs of domination (MM v Biaggi/Rossi) and may well be considered less competitive than Moto3/125cc.
The big game, well since the return to the tyre lottery it has been more competitive than it has been for a number of years in terms of race results, but in terms of outright competitors we still have 25 or so where years past we had far more. Sure not all were race winning chances, but then, today the same is true.
Of course you are well entitled to your opinion, as are we and whilst we never will know who was the better rider or who would dominate as it will not happen one should not dismiss the claims of riders past purely because the modern rider has better facilities (medical, training and technology) .
