This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Haha ..... Kocinski had an interesting idea!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MigsAngel @ Apr 4 2008, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>"if riders don't win the championship in 3 years, throw them out" !!!!

John 'White Teeth' Hopkins...AKA 'Money Bags'
So we'd be left with Rossi's championships, Stoner's, Rainey's, and Lawson's over the last couple of decades, but be deprived of Schwantz, Doohan, Criville, KRJR, and Hayden's? 9 of the last 15 championships have been won by people who hadn't won one by their third season.
 
Tom & Phleg, I'm not ignoring you; I'm just not willing to debate knowing that neither of you will be convinced, nor I moved by your lack of understanding of the AMA (yes, with all its pros & cons). Suffice it to say, the top talent in the AMA, is not that different to the BSB or WSBK. The issue is the parity within the series not between the series.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 4 2008, 06:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The difference being that JT has proved himself by winning two WORLD Cahmpionships, Spies is far more comparible to Kiyonari. They are both double superbike champions of similar age and experience, both won their titles on the best equipment (Spies more significantly so). I'd look beyond the fact that Kiyo won his titles more convincingly, simply because i don't think the differece is that significant.
OK here we go again,HOW MANY GP TITLES HAVE BEEN WON from a rider that comes from the heralded WORLD superbike series.NOW,HOW MANY GP TITLES HAVE BEEN WON FROM THAT CRAPPY AMA SERIES.WSB titles dont mean .... in the big picture.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 4 2008, 03:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The difference being that JT has proved himself by winning two WORLD Cahmpionships, Spies is far more comparible to Kiyonari. They are both double superbike champions of similar age and experience, both won their titles on the best equipment (Spies more significantly so). I'd look beyond the fact that Kiyo won his titles more convincingly, simply because i don't think the differece is that significant.

Europeans crack me up. Put the word world or international in front of something and suddenly it's important.

Let's review. How many world champions have come out of WSBK? How many world champions have come out of the AMA?

Ouch.

I see Povol has reached the same conclusion.

I thought Americans were supposed to be the ones who fell for marketing rhetoric.
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 5 2008, 06:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Europeans crack me up. Put the word world or international in front of something and suddenly it's important.

Let's review. How many world champions have come out of WSBK? How many world champions have come out of the AMA?

Ouch.

I see Povol has reached the same conclusion.

I thought Americans were supposed to be the ones who fell for marketing rhetoric.
<


The most recent riders to come out of the US and have any success in GP (Kocinski, Roberts, Edwards, Hopper and Hayden) all had one thing in common. That is that they all got out as soon as they possibly could, most of them so much so that they could barely be considered products of the AMA system.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 4 2008, 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Tom & Phleg, I'm not ignoring you; I'm just not willing to debate knowing that neither of you will be convinced, nor I moved by your lack of understanding of the AMA (yes, with all its pros & cons). Suffice it to say, the top talent in the AMA, is not that different to the BSB or WSBK. The issue is the parity within the series not between the series.

1. I agree about the parity within AMA superbike being its biggest problem. I'd like to know what you make of the suzuki seperiority, and how you explain Tommy Hayden's relitively poor performance. Do Suzuki appear to have more of an advantage than they do in reality because they have the best riders? Does Tommy get equal equipment? Or is Tommy under performing?

2. As much as i appreciate the high level of your (and our) national championship, they are not on a par with the worlds. All riders know that the world championship is one up the ladder from domestic, thats why all the best American riders come to europe. You compare Spies to JT like they have achieved equal feats but look at Kiyo for a refference (who by your standard has achieved equally). Now i know he is just a learner right now and his bike is way underdeveloped compared to the competition, but he cannot be compared to Toseland. In his current situation he is racing for top 10's, i'd expect him to get into the top 5/front pack when everything settles. He can be a front runner for sure, as could an AMA champion but to be the world champion Spies would, and Kiyo will have to raise his game.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 5 2008, 04:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>OK here we go again,HOW MANY GP TITLES HAVE BEEN WON from a rider that comes from the heralded WORLD superbike series.NOW,HOW MANY GP TITLES HAVE BEEN WON FROM THAT CRAPPY AMA SERIES.WSB titles dont mean .... in the big picture.

We are arguing about what AMA Superbike is now, not what it was in the 80's when it supplied the GP world championships with many of the best riders. Since the superbike racing idea took off internationally, the AMA series has become less significant.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Apr 5 2008, 05:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>OK here we go again,HOW MANY GP TITLES HAVE BEEN WON from a rider that comes from the heralded WORLD superbike series.NOW,HOW MANY GP TITLES HAVE BEEN WON FROM THAT CRAPPY AMA SERIES.WSB titles dont mean .... in the big picture.

I'm not really into this argument but just find it amusing that your argument is about as valid as Barry's regarding Rossi's tires. Just so eager to draw a conclusion that you both ignore that there is absolutly no statistical significanse in those number.
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 5 2008, 06:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Let's review. How many world champions have come out of WSBK? How many world champions have come out of the AMA?

How many champions have come out of the AMA recently? If we take recently as 7 years, then we have the grand old sum of 1. And if we extend it to 8 years we have 2.

WSB has a long way to go to catch that tally.
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 5 2008, 02:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Just so eager to draw a conclusion
I agree in principle with what you are saying Babel. I'm just not willing to say that the talent of the AMA is that poor as to not deserve a chance to advance to MotoGP. I think this is part of the point that Povol & Lex are making--that is, the AMA has historically been able to produce riders that go into MotoGP. I think this deserves some consideration (but like you said, we would be hard pressed to make a definitive conclusions from it).

Another part of it is that Tom has held the position that the BSB is more significant in talent and prestige to the AMA. I have debated him in the past about it. I am of the opinion that the BSB is noteworthy, but as part of the discussion, I think it merits a look at how many BSB guys have skipped WSBK and gone straight into MotoGP, as oppose to guys who have managed to go straight from the AMA into MotoGP. (Again, don't misinterpret what I'm saying here, I'm not drawing a statistical conclusion from a small sample, but what I am saying is this should be part of the discussion). Obviously, if we go back to the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, then we could make a stronger case that the AMA was a pretty strong series in relation to how many riders it produced for MotoGP &WSBK. (I’m aware that WSBK has a limited history). But more recently, Roberts Jr, Hopkins and Hayden have made a career in MotoGP, both of which skipped WSBK; Edwards though a quasi product of the AMA chose to go to WSBK and managed to win two championships; but in MotoGP has not faired as well as Hayden but about par with Hopkins.

This discussion began over me saying Ben Spies deserved a chance as much as Toesland. So the question becomes, why not give a chance to Spies? I said I would compare Spies to Toesland, Tom & Phleg protested as if this was some outrageous statement. I think they feel that way because they think the AMA is far inferior to BSB &WSBK. My point is that the AMA can still (as it has in the past) produce talent worth y of MotoGP; and currently Ben Spies is one that merits consideration as much as Toesland did coming out of a series of Superibike racing, I don’t think that’s much of a stretch, do you Babel?

Well for Tom & Phleg, it is a stretch--despite evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure why, perhaps ignorance, naivety, bias, nationalism, or an idealistic idea of what is BSB & WSBK. Perhaps its because the AMA is currently not the spectacular series and lacking of parity it use to have; but even then, it continues to produce world class talent.
 
To add to my previous post: Upon more consideration, all the major motorcycle racing series, AMA, BSB, WSBK, & MotoGP have changed and evolved dramatically! MotoGP has catered to its ‘feeder’ series that are the lower classes (125/250s). This is another point Tom & I differ; he still thinks that the lower classes are not ‘feeder’ classes, where as I think they are ‘feeder’ series to the premier class. This should NOT be perceived as lacking an appreciation for the lower classes, but rather it’s an acknowledgment of how GP racing has changed. At one time, I would have agreed that the lower classes were perhaps stand-alone championships, but not now.

It is this change that I believe has limited the introduction of top talent from superbike racing. The 125 riders look like jockeys, I don’t think a normal sized youngster would be very successful, and as such, the top 125 boys (with their particular physical characteristics) move on to 250s, and eventually move onto MotoGP (as we have seen an influx this year). They are very talented young men, but certainly they are also groomed and my point—‘differentiated’ for MotoGP. This is very different from the reality of superbike racing where the classes are 600s & 1000s (lacking the 125s to a significant degree). What happens is there is less an emphasis in particular physical characteristics because the power to weight ratios are not as dramatic in what are effectively only two entry level displacements. Even a young rookie jumps on a 1000cc racing with veterans. The road to MotoGP has effectively changed! This has more and more limited the superbike racer to earn a seat in GP racing. As part of this discussion, consider that Toesland is the only ONE among a larger rookie class of 250 riders into MotoGP. Perhaps it is this reality that contributes to the perception that superbike racer, according to Tom, are not on par to 250 racers. But I would say, it’s more because the GP series has changed to cater to its ‘feeder’ series that reflects this perception.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 4 2008, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>REBUT
Yes Jumkie, I know. I don't like Hopper.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 5 2008, 03:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>1. I agree about the parity within AMA superbike being its biggest problem. I'd like to know what you make of the suzuki seperiority, and how you explain Tommy Hayden's relitively poor performance. Do Suzuki appear to have more of an advantage than they do in reality because they have the best riders? Does Tommy get equal equipment? Or is Tommy under performing?
Tommy was injured for the majority of the 2007 season. I don't think he will consistently be able to compete with Spies and Mladin this season but could very well finish third.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 5 2008, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The road to MotoGP has effectively changed! This has more and more limited the superbike racer to earn a seat in GP racing. As part of this discussion, consider that Toesland is the only ONE among a larger rookie class of 250 riders into MotoGP. Perhaps it is this reality that contributes to the perception that superbike racer, according to Tom, are not on par to 250 racers. But I would say, it’s more because the GP series has changed to cater to its ‘feeder’ series that reflects this perception.
I don't think that the change to 800cc was designed to bring the riding style required for Motogp nearer to that for the 250s, but this is what has happened regardless of the reasons.

Because of this I'd agree with you that the best road to Motogp has changed - with the 990s the riding style needed was nearer to the SBK series (plural) than to 250 2-strokes. With the 800s the pendulum has swung the other way.

However, the pendulum has swung before. When the top class in GPs were 500cc 2-strokes (pre 2002) I'd have said that they required a more similar style to the 250 2-strokes than to the SBK series.

The world turns.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 5 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This discussion began over me saying Ben Spies deserved a chance as much as Toesland. So the question becomes, why not give a chance to Spies? I said I would compare Spies to Toesland, Tom & Phleg protested as if this was some outrageous statement. I think they feel that way because they think the AMA is far inferior to BSB &WSBK. My point is that the AMA can still (as it has in the past) produce talent worth y of MotoGP; and currently Ben Spies is one that merits consideration as much as Toesland did coming out of a series of Superibike racing, I don’t think that’s much of a stretch, do you Babel?

Well for Tom & Phleg, it is a stretch--despite evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure why, perhaps ignorance, naivety, bias, nationalism, or an idealistic idea of what is BSB & WSBK. Perhaps its because the AMA is currently not the spectacular series and lacking of parity it use to have; but even then, it continues to produce world class talent.

Good reply thanks
<


Firstly i'd like to start by clarifying that although i think more highly of BSB over AMA, i do acknowledge that the difference is small and could easily put down to my bias for the decent tracks, my interest in close racing or that more of the riders appear to be "somebodies" because i've been watching them for years. However i do maintain that the world championship is a higher level of rider than the national series' and naturally so, racing the worlds best will always be better than racing your countries best unless the ten or so besst riders all exist in one national series, which they clearly don't.

As for Spies getting a chance i will say this. It is clear looking back at all of the recent US riders in GP that they all left the US as soon as possible to get to europe and ride at the highest possible level. Kenny Senior himself knows this and has reccomended Steve Bonsey to get out of America as soon as he can because that is the best way to train a rider for a grand prix career (as in it produces better grand prix riders). Obviously the very most talented riders will make it to the top even without using the ideal path, but giving those riders the chances comes with a larger amount of risk for the people employing them. The Hopkins risk for example has not paid off, but the Hayden one certainly has. Spies is clearly a very good rider and has more than proved himself at national level but he has taken his time in doing so, and once accomplished what there is to do in the AMA has stagnated at that level. I can appreciate the value of defending a title and i know that not every rider is lightening fast right away but i think that as he eases into a comfort zone, gets older, and settles into being an "AMA rider" (something that the internationaly successful US riders didn't stick around long enough to do) it will become harder for him to become a GP rider. To date Spies career does not resemble the path out of America that has proved successful in the recent past (i.e. the quickest one possible) and as such i am not so convinced the risk will pay off with any great success.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 5 2008, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>To add to my previous post: Upon more consideration, all the major motorcycle racing series, AMA, BSB, WSBK, & MotoGP have changed and evolved dramatically! MotoGP has catered to its ‘feeder’ series that are the lower classes (125/250s). This is another point Tom & I differ; he still thinks that the lower classes are not ‘feeder’ classes, where as I think they are ‘feeder’ series to the premier class. This should NOT be perceived as lacking an appreciation for the lower classes, but rather it’s an acknowledgment of how GP racing has changed. At one time, I would have agreed that the lower classes were perhaps stand-alone championships, but not now.

It is this change that I believe has limited the introduction of top talent from superbike racing. The 125 riders look like jockeys, I don’t think a normal sized youngster would be very successful, and as such, the top 125 boys (with their particular physical characteristics) move on to 250s, and eventually move onto MotoGP (as we have seen an influx this year). They are very talented young men, but certainly they are also groomed and my point—‘differentiated’ for MotoGP. This is very different from the reality of superbike racing where the classes are 600s & 1000s (lacking the 125s to a significant degree). What happens is there is less an emphasis in particular physical characteristics because the power to weight ratios are not as dramatic in what are effectively only two entry level displacements. Even a young rookie jumps on a 1000cc racing with veterans. The road to MotoGP has effectively changed! This has more and more limited the superbike racer to earn a seat in GP racing. As part of this discussion, consider that Toesland is the only ONE among a larger rookie class of 250 riders into MotoGP. Perhaps it is this reality that contributes to the perception that superbike racer, according to Tom, are not on par to 250 racers. But I would say, it’s more because the GP series has changed to cater to its ‘feeder’ series that reflects this perception.

I don't think that the 250cc class is a feeder series as its rule structure and format are not designed around producing motogp riders (like AMA in the 80's), i would say similar about the 125's but the introduction of the age limits have ultimately changed its identity to the official feeder class above the redbull rookies cup. This is a decision i don't approve of because the quality of racing has suffered as a result, and i think its a shame because 125 is often the most entertaining race of a GP sunday. I understand that this is all part of the progression of motogp to a more mainstream sport, and as the never endeing effort to be like F1 continues we see more of these decisions being made. I expect the new (4 stroke) rules for the smaller classes to be made up in a way that very much defines them as "feeder" classes not unlike GP2 for example.

I agree that the road to motogp has changed, but i don't think that the motogp's changes have been conciously trying to cater to its own smaller classes. In the 80's the people best prepared for 500cc bikes were people who were not affriad of a lot of power, could cope with a rear wheel that was almost always sliding and who were strong enough to force a bike to fit. Those riders mostly came from superbikes and dirt tracking backgrounds. As chassis and tyre technology has improved that weigting has shifted to riders who need to be able to ride the front end of their bike hard and precise, use a lot of corner speed and set up a chassis with a complicated amount of parameters. these riders mostly come from grand prix backgrounds. This transition was already taking place long before the switch to 4 stroke machinary, hence why i think it is a product of advancing technology and not a concious alteration.

The reason why i think superbike riders are not quite on a par with 250gp guys is because I judge them based on their performance at the pinnacle of roadracing, and GP riders quite simply come better prepared.
 
I happen to think it doesn't matter which competition a rider comes from be it BSB, AMA, 250cc etc if they are good enough they can win whatever competition they are in and earn their stripes. When they get to World Superbike or MotoGP they can impress on a factory bike (if lucky enough to get the opportunity) or impress on a satellite bike and then make their way into the factory. True talent and potential shines through and although the road travelled is never fair, they should make it in the end. Some of the greatest riders have actually come from the Australian Superbike Championship (Doohan, Corser, Bayliss etc) who had to then go overseas and win other championships to make it to the world level. But that is just to earn entry, it all starts again once you get there. There are many overrated and underrated riders, and the results tell the story at the end of the day after analysing and comparing the machines and conditions. And anyway which is better, to get gifted an opportunity as a raw young talent with it all to learn or to make it as an established and experienced veteran with the hunger to make up for years in the wilderness? Just have to make the most of your opportunities and the best will make it in the end..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 6 2008, 06:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Good reply thanks
<


Firstly i'd like to start by clarifying that although i think more highly of BSB over AMA, i do acknowledge that the difference is small and could easily put down to my bias for the decent tracks, my interest in close racing or that more of the riders appear to be "somebodies" because i've been watching them for years. However i do maintain that the world championship is a higher level of rider than the national series' and naturally so, racing the worlds best will always be better than racing your countries best unless the ten or so besst riders all exist in one national series, which they clearly don't.

As for Spies getting a chance i will say this. It is clear looking back at all of the recent US riders in GP that they all left the US as soon as possible to get to europe and ride at the highest possible level. Kenny Senior himself knows this and has reccomended Steve Bonsey to get out of America as soon as he can because that is the best way to train a rider for a grand prix career (as in it produces better grand prix riders). Obviously the very most talented riders will make it to the top even without using the ideal path, but giving those riders the chances comes with a larger amount of risk for the people employing them. The Hopkins risk for example has not paid off, but the Hayden one certainly has. Spies is clearly a very good rider and has more than proved himself at national level but he has taken his time in doing so, and once accomplished what there is to do in the AMA has stagnated at that level. I can appreciate the value of defending a title and i know that not every rider is lightening fast right away but i think that as he eases into a comfort zone, gets older, and settles into being an "AMA rider" (something that the internationaly successful US riders didn't stick around long enough to do) it will become harder for him to become a GP rider. To date Spies career does not resemble the path out of America that has proved successful in the recent past (i.e. the quickest one possible) and as such i am not so convinced the risk will pay off with any great success.
 

Recent Discussions