You don't think it was just a case of honda pulling out all stops to win the last year of a formula?
You still had to be in it or on it to win it !
Lorenzos Dad - Simoncelli Comments
- Thread starter rickyduck
- Start date
-
- Tags
- comments dad lorenzos simoncelli
You still had to be in it or on it to win it !
Im not saying he would have won a wc in motogp, im just questioning your qualification in passing such a judgment that he couldn't due to his inteligence. Anyone who has dared question you on this is just subjected to a rant about how we dont watch close enough bla bla bla..
I say again, you sir are arrogant !
Fact is marco was only in his second season in the top class and was learning and improving all the time. To pass judgment so early on is misguided at best !
I was joking roger as you no doubt realised. I am sure honda were very keen to win the last year of the 500s as they were to win this year as has been much pointed out , but the impetus was perhaps not quite as great in 2001 given that honda had won the odd few 500 titles. In both cases choosing riders capable of winning a championship behind whom to put their effort, in both cases also not the established repsol factory rider, was integral to success. As I recall things went seriously astray with alex criville in 2000, and I would rate dani as the better rider and certainly the better developer, yet he has a title and dani (thus far anyway) does not.
Still a point that the natural state of affairs for the last 3 decades is for a honda or yamaha factory rider to win, and the likes of suzuki or ducati winning is historically an infrequent and short lived anomaly, to be credited rather than discredited imo.
I wasn't trying to discredit jnr or suzuki. I was just pointing out as others here have that many of the top boys crashed a lot in the early days at the top level. To ignore this then go on to discredit marco for crashing and pass a judgment he would never win a wc is ignoring the past. Most of us follow the sport a lot closer than MA give us credit for
Not many of us would have bet back in 06 that casey would become a 2 times wc. MA is making the same misguided illinformed judgments about marco, its just marco can no longer prove wrong the detractors like casey did. This imo makes it even more unfair to pass such a judgment on marco.
I wasn't trying to discredit jnr or suzuki. I was just pointing out as others here have that many of the top boys crashed a lot in the early days at the top level. To ignore this then go on to discredit marco for crashing and pass a judgment he would never win a wc is ignoring the past. Most of us follow the sport a lot closer than MA give us credit for
Sure, and I was not intending to draw any inference re marco, obviously acknowledging this is a marco thread though. I think he would have had trouble winning a championship against the current field, with the weight thing apart from anything else although the new formula may have changed that, but he would very likely have become a multiple race winner imo and was already close to winning. I think he was riding in a much more measured fashion in the latter half of the season, particularly at PI where conditions were very treacherous.
Joined Feb 2007
11K Posts | 2K+
Tennessee
I am no more qualified to say it then you are qualified to tell me I can't form an opinion based on what I see, perceive and read. The back and forth started because you told me that there is no way that I could form an opinion of a riders intelligence just from being an observer. You are wrong. I can form an opinion of such things from observation. I never claimed my opinion was fact but I have claimed all along that it is my opinion.
Now if I had claimed that I was presenting fact then calls of arrogance would be very justified. As I haven't then the calls are unjustified and as such I am justified in pushing back.
It would have been simple for you and Pov to simply say that we think your opinion is wrong because ........ In response I would most likely have taken on some of your points and possibly adjusted my position or possibly argued back against them. Unfortunately this didn't occur and we have just bored everyone with worthless name calling.
My opinion stands because no one has yet put forth a considered argument against it.
<div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;
Ok then i will just finish off by posting the original post of yours to re-cap. Let others cut out the crap and diversions and make their own minds up.
Joined Aug 2008
6K Posts | 748+
Thailand
OK - here's my response to that and my postulation to MA. I do indeed think Marco could have been a WC - but not because of his intelligence (or racing intelligence, if you will), in spite of it. MY observations have led me to the opinion that Marco could well have succeeded in the premier class, to the pinnacle of a championship, based on his heart and his desire. I have always contended that MOST sports at the semi-pro and below levels are 90% attitude (desire, will, whatever drives you) and 10% equipment. Marco was THE GUY with 110% attitude (albeit in my opinion, lacking somewhat in the "racecraft", "intelligence" departments) who had ALREADY GOT ON THE BEST FACTORY "GOOD STUFF"!!! If anyone could've stuffed it to Casey in the next few years, as he matured (he was already honing his "attitude" as this season passed), it was gonna be Marco IMHO, not Jorge. Dangerous as he could be I loved to watch his passion on the track - and yes Rog, I can determine passion in a rider from the sidelines.
There ya go, my ....!!
I don't know what to make of all this 'intelligence' chat really. He rode on the fine line in the same way Stoner did with the Ducati for a few years. Stoner is now world champ. Now Stoner it seems didnt really have a choice but to ride that bike the way he did because it was such a fickle .... of a bike and fair play to him. Simo started off in Moto-Gp in much the same way as Lorenzo and Casey did, by crashing, a lot. He was definitely taking a little longer to master his craft than those riders but anyone who says he wasn't improving is talking utter mince. He was improving every race and i think he could of been champ at some point....he certainly hadnt stagnated in terms of speed, like, say Spies has.
You make a couple of good points here. Hart and desire and the fact the big H gave him their best. Not something they do for any rider, especially one who they though had no hope of ever winning a wc.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Hahaha. Yeah bro. Well there are several reasons for this, some stuff doesn't come across right, sometimes the poster will write something and then stick to it no matter what even if its an indefensible position, other times the posters will write something then argue another point entirely (this is the worst), and other times its just the nature of the forum where one can't make eye contact and tone, and on the fly clarifications of one's meaning. This thread is a great example.
This is occurring, but this is NOT what you had said. Now you’ve gone and reframed the argument. This is why we have tangents because people can’t keep their points straight. You just added a lot to the single point that you made in which I had responded. Your reaction of saying you are “shocked” is because perhaps we are talking about different things, you said you were shocked that Roger couldn’t read minds (see quote below). I even highlighted what you said so you could see what you actually wrote. Now you have added a bunch of other stuff in your reply to me, that is, reframed the issue into formulating “opinions”. We can certainly form opinions, but that is NOT what you first took issue with. Again, here is what I was responding to:
If you can read the minds of the riders as they are THINKING, great, I can not. You took issue that Chopperman, would admit “not to be able to determine if a rider is THINKING about their strategy in a race…”
Its this I was replying to, so stick to this statement above, if you wish to clarify it and say that is not what you meant to say, then we can go from there, but as its written, I think my reply was fair.
I can’t determine what a rider is THINKING neither. And who can? Now can I formulate an opinion about riders in general, yes. We ALL do this, notwithstanding, only the rider knows what he was thinking. That was the only point I was arguing. Now you went on to add a bunch of other stuff and declared you are shocked. You just REFRAMED the debate dude. No wonder you are shocked, you read something I didn’t say and then proceeded to argue it as if I did.
Now regarding you other point about Sic’s mental capacity. There seems to be of mixing and matching of different concepts. The thread here was exploring Lorenzo Snr’s comments about riders being “prepared” mentally and skillfully. PREPARED not dumb or unintelligent. You are saying something different, you are saying the dude was not intelligent (not overly intelligent). Then you compare this to detractors that accused others of being “mentally weak”. Being mentally “weak” is an entirely different issue as well. There are three concepts here, the only one I addressed with you is Sic’s mental capacity, or intelligence. (Tom framed it as a “racing intelligence, you didn’t frame it as such, and God knows what the hell that means anyway). So you think Sic was not smart enough, or dumb, or as you say “not overly intelligent”. Again, I said, I don’t know where he would rank in “intelligence” among the 17 riders, we would need a measure of some sort, but I could certainly form an opinion, as you have done, but I’m not prepared to assess today he wasn’t smart enough, you have. I believe he was smart enough to be in the series and contend successfully. But you took this one step further, and said you don’t believe the man was intelligent enough to have ever won a WC. This extension of your opinion is something I won’t argue with you as its simply impossible to determine and arguing it is quite silly not to mention absurd. And honestly Mental, I’m surprised you would even attempt it, seems a bit out of character.
I’m not gonna argue this point much except to say that people grieve differently. Regarding the perspective you’ve now twice posted about the death and dying in the world and how it relates to people expressing a sense of loss, I’d like you to consider that people feel a connection with some deaths. If when somebody you know or think you have a connection with dies, I’m sure you will see how silly the grieving is the moment you see the news and are reminded of people dying throughout the world. My point, people feel a slight different perspective when somebody dies who they know. If you can’t see the “perspective” there, really what’s to argue?
Kropo made a similar point about respecting the dead by being honest, and said he was unique, or in the minority, in this regard. I took issue in his assessment that he is in the minority, I think most of us here are being in general terms fairly honest and accurate regarding Sic as a rider, and to suggest the rest of us lack some integrity or perspective on the dead is arrogant (which is why I asked Kropo to clarify this thought). I think most of us believe a dead person has no knowledge of what is going on now, so “respect for the living” is what people are generally talking about when they use the term “respect for the dead”.
funny that as it goes against the grain of the .... youve been spouting hahahahaha.
Now you are just being pedantic and attempting to be literal with every word. I think it is quite clear that I expressed the same basic opinion through out the exchange.
I will still opinion that you can draw conclusions as to what a rider is thinking by watching. I think you can draw conclusions about what any sportsmen or human is thinking in almost any circumstances if you observe the situation closely enough. Eg. When a rider pulls out a 8sec lead by being 1sec a lap fast than the field and then suddenly slows and maintains the gap, is it a fair assumption that they are thinking "ok I have enough of a lead I will back off and maintain the gap"? I do not understand why it is such a leap of faith to think that we can draw a conclusion on someones thoughts by observation.
Yes the thread was about Lorenzo's fathers comments about mental preparedness. Surely mental preparedness has something to do with intelligence just the same as ability to run has to do with someones physical attributes.
In regards to death, sure people grieve differently in different scenarios. Why push back at me or others who are over it already and want to get on and discuss stuff? Are we not entitled? Why do we have to respect those that take along time yet the respect does not go both ways. I can't stand people who go on and on about it so I don't read the threads where people continue to grieve, simple. If someone is not read to begin a discussion and are still grieving then don't click on a thread that clearly has the potential to be in conflict with your grieving process, simple. I will also reiterate my point that PS is a tiny little forum with not many readers, especially ones from Italy or Spain, and our conversations here I am fairly confident are not discussed in the MotoGP garages. So inferring that we must be sensitive to Sic's loved ones is just comical in my opinion.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Ok, I think I already said we can develop opinions based on observations, just the way you worded it didn't seem to make sense to me, hence my reply. I also agree that different threads have different functions, and I pointed out as much that threads not eulogizing Marco are open for extended discussion. However, the thing is that this thread had an element of explicitly discussing the issue of what constitutes appropriated public expression given the tragic event: (Lorenzo Snr comments about Marco while his family is still grieving, etc.). That's why this thread was created, and now you want everybody to shut up about exploring the idea of speaking badly of the dead while the living are still grieving? Dude, that's the thread topic.
Also, I thought the two people you quoted above and mentioned you respect their opinions were an odd example to point out, since on both accounts, they pretty much advanced the argument in which you seem to be arguing against. And I'd also like to point out that MickD probably better expressed this idea of Marco's intelligence that we are trying to explore and described it as "racecraft". I really think that's what is at issue here, though it turned into questioning the man's "intelligence". Was his racecraft questionable? Perhaps, but I don't think I'm qualified to question the man's mental capacity.
Also, Mental, don't underestimate the people who tune into PS. After all, its attracted such people as Kropo. And other notables I'm sure lurk. Did you know that Keith Code is a member of PS? You would be surprised, but I suspect there are other more famous names in the sport that lurk here.
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
Really? - then I'd be grateful if he could reveal his true identity and explain the principle of backing a bike in to Barry (still wouldn't be enough though).
There are also several different aspects to the topic being debated, not all of which as is often the case necessarily have definitive answers, even before getting into what Mr Lorenzo really meant and evidence supporting the stances of the debaters.
Whether or not what lorenzo's dad said is true in itself is a different question to whether he should have been saying it at the time, and if his statement was inappropriate whether he is a media novice who merely made an unguarded response when placed in a spotlight he didn't seek is a separate question again. I think it is possible to have differing opinions about these different aspects, more so perhaps if one is excessively diplomatic.
