You're making a judgement on a current event based on past events, which assumes he is incapable of learning from his mistakes. I think we've seen him grow quite a bit over the last few seasons. Got a ways to go - but he is evolving.
So then you are making the assertion that he has "evolved". Which decidedly makes a judgement based on past event projected onto the present (evolution). But my analysis is flawed because I used the same logic?
And I do agree, he has 'evolved', I just don't think he has evolved to a point where the dangerous risks put everyone under are acceptable.
He didn't look out of control when he crashed. He'd just used up too much tire in his dash to the front, and he lost the front end. He's not Rossi - who is a great tactician and he's not Lorenzo-the-smooth-clockworks-automaton. He's young and more balls (and uncanny natural ability) than brains. I can't stand him - but won't be surprised if he goes on to win a few more championships. It's ironic how many people gave Simoncelli a pass on all his berserk dangerous riding - without much in the way of results, but are mercilessly critical of MM - who has produced results. I have found both riders equally unlikeable for similar reasons.
You know, I no longer read every bit of information out there that the riders express after incidents like I used to. But I think I heard
Marqz complained about a lot of things, (engine power, swingarm, chassis, Honda being slow to react. etc) not the least being the tires (and of course it wasn't his own mistake, hell even Cuntslow said "the tired failed me", no not his brain attached to his hands). So honestly, I'm not sure what led to his 'crash' (
an event where one decidedly 'loses control'). I am starting to read how suddenly the RCV is a piece of ...., even revisions that it was a piece of .... last year (Kropaganda). Its amazing he (Marqz) is able to stay on top of this bucking Bronco which is "hard to ride" apparently; that is now declared the
"third" best factory machine behind Yamaha and Ducati--a machine that has yet to win a race. So I guess one can blame or claim whatever the hell thought crosses the mind.
Regarding Simoncelli compared to Marquez, quite the contrary of what you assert in my estimation, I would say
Marquez has enjoyed far more acceptance for his antics than Simoncelli. Simoncelli was not only rightly criticized by many spectators, pundits, and fellow riders, and league admonishments; but was the subject of an infamous public spectacle of high profile riders calling him out on his dangerous antics (Lorenzo and Pedrosa). The pundits chimed in too, Kropo even calling Simoncelli dumb.
Contrast this with Marquez, who has been basically criticized by a few members of Powerslide and (.....
Tiananmen Square), if a tree falls in the forest....well you get what I'm saying. Other than that, not many detractors, quite the contrary! Most fall over themselves to praise his magical powers to praised Marquez for his alien skills. His promos and Dorna feed is a never ending loop of superslow mos in an attempt to capture the mystical elbow down (a feat apparently invented by the lad). Even when he ..... up its describe in lofty terms, laughing as I type this, when he crashed at Mugellow going light speed hailed not as an attempted suicide but rather another record breaking feat as 'the fastest ever crash in GP history', that doesn't sound bad. Swept under the rug was his attempted murder of the Thai rider in Moto2, with a laughable penalty of starting from the back of the grid. Then there was the torpedo of Pedrosa, similar in fact to Simoncelli's incident. Semoncelli became the villain in that episode while an idiodically placed HRC sensor became the villain in the Marquez torpedo for .... sake. What of Marquez's torpedo of Rossi? Hardly a blip, deemed a racing incident. When Marquez and his team ignored the safety limits imposed by the League based on tire concerns at Phillip Island, putting himself and everyone else at risk, the only penalty was in effect deduction of points. The League shelved (and nobody questioned it) this penalty system that was supposed to be cumulative, which would have garnered a race ban, and surely the championship!
So...MurderMac has not been "mercilessly criticized", quite the contrary.
Simoncelli had his (at times, rightly) fair share of criticism, but this was almost all quickly forgotten when he passed then was inducted into the hall of fame. Death usually elevates someone above criticism I find.
Agree. And I would say, the sport has learned little to nothing from his untimely death because the particular incident was a freak accident and NOT judged (as Keshev has reasoned for Marquez) as a continuum of Simoncelli's previous transgressions. I would say that it will take Marquez to Alvaro Bautista bowling ball into 5 riders before anyone will take notice. But who am I kidding. Even when riders die we don't do .... about it and rationalize the event as just an unfortunate freak accident and nothing to do with the rider's lack of 'evolution'.
While on the subject, how do you think the incident between Marquez and Rossi at Le Mans been described had this happened between Marquez and Casey Stoner, where Casey would have called out Marc as a ....... dangerous rider? I can read the headlines now, Casey the Whiner Cry Baby. It was a miracle that Rossi stayed on his bike, but lets say they both crash. Does this change the dynamic? Well it seems to be the prevailing logic because MurderMac by some minor miracle hasn't careened into the first turn. And surely when it does happen, he can take the Alvaro Bautista excuse that riders in front of him were too slow.
