Is Mir’s 2020 title undervalued?

#22 said:

I personally don't think so, he did the best job that yr. That said, his performances since are what have undervalued his 2020 title.

Click to expand...

Olivavu said:

I don’t dispute that Mir won it fair and square, but it was a normal season by any means. 14 races and all in Europe, some doubles at the same track. Someone had to win it though. Quartararo could have and Morbidelli made a late charge for it. Had Mir not won a single race, it certainly would have been even more downgraded in the eyes of many.

Hayden ground out the title in 2006 through consistency, yes. But Rossi and Yamaha also threw it away. The bike was poor and they never really got it right that year and Rossi binned it at Valencia, but was given that position thanks to Pedrosa wiping out Hayden the race before. Nobody can begrudge him that title and if Rossi had to lose to anyone, he would be near the top of the list. Great guy and a real loss. I went to his memorial at Misano this year. Was very poignant.

Click to expand...

#22 said:

And the reason for that was Rossi was so dominant in 05 he got complacent and spent way too much time in 05/06 testing Ferrari F1 cars. So the blame for the 2006 bike being poor falls considerably on his shoulders.

Click to expand...

Gaz said:

Undervalued by whom?

I would say that many of the single title winner titles are undervalued by a great many watchers of the sport - whther that is fair or not is individual interpretation.

I say it however as people will see a failure to win a 2nd ast he first being a fluke as there is no consistency around the rider - does not make it right or wrong.

Absolute true followers of a sport would rarely undervalue a title win as we have watched the sport for long enough and seen what is required to be at the level, never mind to be comeptitive and then to win. But not everyone has followed the history of the sport but rather look at the printed numbers and make assumptions.

Some look and will say shortened season so does it count, where we also look and acknowledge the challenges of that season with the condensed format and its other challenges. We also, as followers of the sport recognise that the old adage is 'you can only race those that turn up' is true and no title should be besmirched because of smaller fields or a missing genius as even genius have bad days, weeks and months.

Then there are also the 'other type of watchers' that need to lessen a riders achievements when it is compared to the rider they follow or prefer. Different to the tall poppy syndrome is the sheer fact that for some, there is only one person worthy as the idolise the individual and do not acknowledge or recognise challenge.

Mir and Hayden won titles with few race wins - so what - they were consistent at a time many were not and that fact alone needs to acknowledge their title. The fact that others were inconsistent alone should illustrate the worth of the title by consistency, as the question needs to be asked why others fell or did not finish when Mir/hayden could for example - they should not be punished for anothers lack of consistency (if that rant makes sense)

Click to expand...

#22 said:

I personally don't think so, he did the best job that yr. That said, his performances since are what have undervalued his 2020 title.

Click to expand...

Olivavu said:

He did get his head turned by F1 and he had won five in a row - on two different manufacturers. On the flipside to that, he came back and won two more titles in 2008 and 2009 - including one in his thirties, which is very rare, especially in the modern era.

Click to expand...

Gaz said:

Undervalued by whom?

I would say that many of the single title winner titles are undervalued by a great many watchers of the sport - whther that is fair or not is individual interpretation.

I say it however as people will see a failure to win a 2nd ast he first being a fluke as there is no consistency around the rider - does not make it right or wrong.

Absolute true followers of a sport would rarely undervalue a title win as we have watched the sport for long enough and seen what is required to be at the level, never mind to be comeptitive and then to win. But not everyone has followed the history of the sport but rather look at the printed numbers and make assumptions.

Some look and will say shortened season so does it count, where we also look and acknowledge the challenges of that season with the condensed format and its other challenges. We also, as followers of the sport recognise that the old adage is 'you can only race those that turn up' is true and no title should be besmirched because of smaller fields or a missing genius as even genius have bad days, weeks and months.

Then there are also the 'other type of watchers' that need to lessen a riders achievements when it is compared to the rider they follow or prefer. Different to the tall poppy syndrome is the sheer fact that for some, there is only one person worthy as the idolise the individual and do not acknowledge or recognise challenge.

Mir and Hayden won titles with few race wins - so what - they were consistent at a time many were not and that fact alone needs to acknowledge their title. The fact that others were inconsistent alone should illustrate the worth of the title by consistency, as the question needs to be asked why others fell or did not finish when Mir/hayden could for example - they should not be punished for anothers lack of consistency (if that rant makes sense)

Click to expand...

michaelm said:

Mick Doohan was actually 29 years old when he won the first of his 5 consecutive titles. I would have liked to see how Valentino's 'mind games' including unleashing the Valeban would have gone had Valentino tried it on with Mick if they been contemporaries in their respective primes.

Click to expand...

Olivavu said:

Biaggi and Gibernau lost the mind games battle because they knew they weren’t good enough to beat Rossi. Stoner, Lorenzo and Marquez were a different matter - but Rossi was also older by those days.

Rainey, Lawson, Doohan and Gardner wouldn’t have stood for any of it either. But it was a different era then and I would expect that mind games wouldn’t have been worth trying against them. They were hard as nails because they had to be given the bikes they were trying to tame. As much as Schwantz was a childhood hero of mine, Rossi wouldn’t have needed mind games to beat him, if we are honest. He wouldn’t have suffered from the mind games either, but he was the personification of win it or bin it.

Click to expand...

Olivavu said:

If this season’s championship was 14 races, Fabio would already be champion. I don’t think there is anything Mir can say or do to change the minds of those who don’t see his title as the same as others.

Click to expand...

michaelm said:

He won operating under the same conditions as the rest of the field, his title can’t be argued with, historically there were less races anyway.

People can legitimately question his performances and attitude since, but as has been said I am sure Yamaha would be happy to gave him on their second factory bike.

Click to expand...