Nicky Hayden, MotoGP Legend

Jumkie said:

Uccio has a fan club you know. His status ... laid-men is undisputed.

Stoner's Ducati title by itself is worthy of Legend status.

Click to expand...

That last bit rings true so completely which is why I'm kind of aghast by Gaz's insistence that having only 2 titles isn't worth of being called a legend....especially when he considers Schwantz with his 1 title as being a legend. Given everything we know about how difficult a task Stoner faced at Ducati or in the premier class in general due to not being granted favored nation status, it makes what he achieved far greater accomplishment than anything done over the last decade.

No one would even question Kevin Schwantz being a legend in spite of bagging his lone title in less than ideal circumstances. Titles are one measure, but I think you have to consider the overall contribution to the sport as a whole whether the rider was liked by the fans/media/Dorna or not.

I keep reading about a high standard for HOF entries. While I agree with this one would think most posters on here put a low value on winning a Moto Gp premium class championship.

Congrats to Hayden on his accomplishment. Not many riders can win championships at the highest level and even fewer make it into the HOF.

I've generally hesitated to weigh in on this. What or who is a legend is so subjective to the individual. All us arm-chair judges (I count myself amongst you) have some pretty high standards. Tho - I bet if you asked Kenny Roberts if Saarinen is a legend - he wouldn't hesitate for a second to say yes. I don't believe there's any written-in-stone, count-by-numbers standard that you could get 80% of people to draw a consensus on. It's so largely an emotional thing. The Boogey Man is a legend. Barry Sheene may not seem legendary to Americans - but trying selling that to the Brits. Legends are IMHO built up over a period of time and become larger than the actual man or event in the telling of the tale. I've never believed you could quantify this status by means of statistics. If Nicky Hayden is memorable to all his many fans decades from now - it's not so much because he was a giant among racers - but because he will be remembered for winning against Rossi (in his prime) whilst being the parts-donkey at Repsol. Everybody loves an underdog. He'll be long remembered for his good spirit, and his aw shucks politesse and his work ethic and not least, the controversy he engendered and the sheer amount of time the Valeban spent trying to vilify him and discredit his championship.

JPSLotus said:

......
No one would even question Kevin Schwantz being a legend in spite of bagging his lone title in less than ideal circumstances. Titles are one measure, but I think you have to consider the overall contribution to the sport as a whole whether the rider was liked by the fans/media/Dorna or not.

Click to expand...

Heck, Stoner has twice as many wins as Schwantz. And even if he didn't, you have to consider the Rossi relationship. For no other reason, he should be a legend just for the following quote and looks:
"Obviously your ambition outweighed your talent"

JPSLotus said:

Not really understanding the 3 title thing Gaz. It's an arbitrary number based on nothing, especially factoring in that you said Schwantz is a legend. He has 1 title, that was only won when his main rival had a career-ending injury. Yet Stoner who delivered 2 titles, including the only title ever for Ducati is not worthy of legend status because he has 2 rather than 3. I just find it strange that the most talented rider of the last 2 decades with 2 titles, and scores of wins doesn't meet your standard, especially when one considers he remains the only rider to ever win a GP race with a carbon fiber chassis. For that matter, do you not consider Barry Sheene a legend because he only has 2 titles?

Click to expand...

Wrong, suggest you check again.

Have never said Schwantz (actually have always stepped around him due to the reverence that some hold) as my train of thought goes along with yours as to the circumstances involved in winning the title.

3 to me shows longevity and consistency of achievement which to me can readily define a legend.... simple.

I believe you can win 1 due to circumstance, two due to coincidence but three is something altogether.

As for Stoner, my assessment falls back to the unfulfilled component of my statements as he easily had the talent to win many many more titles, but chose not to do so. If I were to anoint any legendary status to Stoner it is not of the riding variety due to his big FU to the establishment but sadly, the DORNA status is not about FU's.

Sheene is a tough one for me as I did not see enough of him but generally nope (sure he is a British legend though) and I say that as a great fan of the guy post retirement for what he gave to Australian bike racing and the doors he opened for the likes of McCoy etc.

JPSLotus said:

Death is an inevitable part of life and I don't see any reason to not have that discussion. If people are offended/bothered by such a discussion, I really don't care, nor do I see any reason to not discuss it.

Click to expand...

Agreed but if it is to be discussed to me create a separate topic (non-morbily of course) as we all got to see again (unfortunately) last year the impacts that death can have on the sport and the followers

Jumkie said:

Mamola had the bad luck of coming up short to true Legends.

Click to expand...

Thus why I call him the Pedrosa of his era (although not necessarily with a Puig pulling the strings), or is Dani the Mamola of his era?

Gaz said:

Wrong, suggest you check again.

Have never said Schwantz as my train of thought goes along with yours as to the circumstances involved in winning the title.

3 to me shows longevity and consistency of achievement .... simple.

I believe you can win 1 due to circumstance, two due to coincidence but three is something altogether.

As for Stoner, my assessment falls back to the unfulfilled component of my statements as he easily had the talent to win many many more titles, but chose not to do so. If I were to anoint any legendary status to Stoner it is not of the riding variety due to his big FU to the establishment but sadly, the DORNA status is not about FU's.

Sheene is a tough one for me as I did not see enough of him but generally nope (sure he is a British legend though) and I say that as a great fan of the guy post retirement for what he gave to Australian bike racing and the doors he opened for the likes of McCoy etc.





Agreed but if it is to be discussed to me create a separate topic (non-morbily of course) as we all got to see again (unfortunately) last year the impacts that death can have on the sport and the followers

Click to expand...

Whoops, my apologies misread the names in your post!

I do still stand by the assessment of Kevin Schwantz being a legend. He never had the fortune of having the best bike on the grid, yet was able to go head-to-head with those who were on superior machines. Of course not over the full course of a season. I'm not stating this as an American with stars and stripes in my eyes, but Schwantz rode like a man possessed. Something you don't see out of a lot of riders. For me the moment that sums up Kevin Schwantz perfectly was at Hockenheim in 1991. That last lap when coming down to the stadium section at what, 300+km/h wheel-to-wheel with Wayne Rainey and outbraking Rainey who had drafted him out of the chicane and was past. I swear to ....... christ, that bike was at the absolute grip threshold under braking, with the rear tire doing everything it could to swing out from behind Schwantz. I give lots of praise to Rossi for how great a late braker he is --in fact one of the best the sport has ever seen or will ever see-- but I'm not entirely sure he could have pulled off the maneuver that Schwantz did in 1991. And then even after the overtake, he is on the ragged edge through the stadium section before they enter the final corner, and even then, coming out, he manages to keep that bike from high-siding him right before the line when he gets on the throttle. You can see that bike tries to spit him clear off the ....... thing.

I cannot buy 3 titles as being the number, nor can I even buy 2 titles as being necessary for legend status. Forget Dorna's ........ as they have less than altruistic reasons for creating all of that. But I look at Legend status as the same as a Hall of Fame. Even with 1 title, I defy anyone to tell me that Kevin Schwantz is not worthy of being named a Legend. That dude was not someone you could take your eyes off of on the track and he could win on that RGV500. FFS, in 1991, Schwantz outscored every other Suzuki on the grid combined 204-133...not that there were a lot of Suzuki's but the next highest scoring RGV500 was in the hands of the Belgian Didier de Radiguès (last Belgian to win a grand prix!) who scored 105 points.

Regarding Stoner and his early retirement, one member put it to me one night in a phone convo that really put it into some sort of perspective. People are too hung up on what he left on the table instead of giving him accolades for what he did. Think about it, he basically gave the middle finger to Dorna/FIM/fans/media who were riding Rossi's .... to no end, and in the process coming up with ........ rule changes that IMO were aimed at hurting Stoner specifically. We should laud the man for being willing to walk away from it all when it's nearly impossible for men 10 years older to be willing to walk away from it. He chose to play his own game and to sing his own tune instead of turning into some sort of shill for Dorna and the rest of the hacks. That to me is deserving of being called a Legend. Yes he could have won more titles, but he called ........ on the whole thing and walked away without regrets. That all factors into the overall picture. And plus as Jum said, winning on the Ducati GP7 alone is legend status...considering no one can win a title on any of their ....... bikes in GP. The one detraction from Stoner to be fair, is that I still feel he left that 2012 title on the table tire debacle and all. After the surgery the only race he bothered to put a modicum of effort into was Phillip Island before he ...... off.

The Stoner stuff with Ducati is what was remarkable, and until someone else wins a title on a Ducati does set him apart. Winning races on that diabolical 2010 attempt to make a frameless Ducati L90 bike into a Yamaha to suit his replacement for the following season rather than him was even more impressive if anything.

Like JPS I think if he had shown the focus he did in 2007 and 2011 he still had a good enough bike to win in 2012 regardless of Dorna turning that championship into a handicap event; it definitely wasn't a set weights event. It is hard to think he would have done other than waltz it in with the bike designed and developed under the original regulations and with the original spec tyre, an opinion Dorna would seem to have shared, but maybe he would have crashed at Indy anyway, and while he was still well in the title then he had made errors in preceding races which didn't occur in his 2 title years.

While a 3rd title would have absolutely cemented his status I am still happy as a fan with what he did achieve, and for him to have retired when he did if that was his choice for the reasons he did. As a fan I treasure nearly every race from when he got on the Ducati forward,!he was always thrilling to watch in almost any given race with that out there so spectacular riding style.

JPSLotus said:

Regarding Stoner and his early retirement, one member put it to me one night in a phone convo that really put it into some sort of perspective. People are too hung up on what he left on the table instead of giving him accolades for what he did. Think about it, he basically gave the middle finger to Dorna/FIM/fans/media who were riding Rossi's .... to no end, and in the process coming up with ........ rule changes that IMO were aimed at hurting Stoner specifically. We should laud the man for being willing to walk away from it all when it's nearly impossible for men 10 years older to be willing to walk away from it. He chose to play his own game and to sing his own tune instead of turning into some sort of shill for Dorna and the rest of the hacks. That to me is deserving of being called a Legend. Yes he could have won more titles, but he called ........ on the whole thing and walked away without regrets. That all factors into the overall picture. And plus as Jum said, winning on the Ducati GP7 alone is legend status...considering no one can win a title on any of their ....... bikes in GP. The one detraction from Stoner to be fair, is that I still feel he left that 2012 title on the table tire debacle and all. After the surgery the only race he bothered to put a modicum of effort into was Phillip Island before he ...... off.

Click to expand...

Thus my FU comments and something that despite the derision he has copped shows me that he has ethics and is something I will never begrudge the guy. He said he would leave the sport and did leave which cannot be said of many others within the sphere of the sport.

As for three, it is just my number for the reasons mentioned and also as mentioned I am a hard prick when it comes to judging the 'legends' of sports (not just Bikes), and it is this harshness that I know will not resonate well with many.

I fully recognise that which he achieved, .... it, got involved in way to many discussions not to realise that what he did was remarkable and certainly as an Aussie supporter, it was 'legendary' to see him stick it to the man so to speak.

But for mine, the term legend is all to often thrown around (in a global sense) just as the term Hero is way to over-used in the sporting sphere to describe athletes FFS (not sure if so widely used in US but over here they call footballers, cricketers etc heroes ... all ........ to me).

IMO only, but I believe that if he wanted to continue he would have more titles, but I also am glad that he retired when the fun ran out as for me that is infinitely more admirable than is staying for adulation.

As I have said a few times, he is an Aussie Motorcycle Racing legend yes but on the global scale, not so sure when I assess against my criteria, but I also fully understand that we each have our own criteria.

Gaz said:

Thus my FU comments and something that despite the derision he has copped shows me that he has ethics and is something I will never begrudge the guy. He said he would leave the sport and did leave which cannot be said of many others within the sphere of the sport.

As for three, it is just my number for the reasons mentioned and also as mentioned I am a hard prick when it comes to judging the 'legends' of sports (not just Bikes), and it is this harshness that I know will not resonate well with many.

I fully recognise that which he achieved, .... it, got involved in way to many discussions not to realise that what he did was remarkable and certainly as an Aussie supporter, it was 'legendary' to see him stick it to the man so to speak.

But for mine, the term legend is all to often thrown around (in a global sense) just as the term Hero is way to over-used in the sporting sphere to describe athletes FFS (not sure if so widely used in US but over here they call footballers, cricketers etc heroes ... all ........ to me).

IMO only, but I believe that if he wanted to continue he would have more titles, but I also am glad that he retired when the fun ran out as for me that is infinitely more admirable than is staying for adulation.

As I have said a few times, he is an Aussie Motorcycle Racing legend yes but on the global scale, not so sure when I assess against my criteria, but I also fully understand that we each have our own criteria.

Click to expand...

Thing is Gaz, we're not just throwing the term legend around here. I'd like to think that you think more highly of us, since after all, you're choosing to post here too.

We're discussing it purely in the realm of grand prix motorcycle racing, nothing to do with a global scale even though it is a global sport. Being well-known is not the same as being a legend just to throw it out there. It's like the case of Max Biaggi. Well known and all of that, but never won .... title wise in the 500cc world championship or the MotoGP championship. That's not a legend.

Yeah it's probably an ultimately pointless discussion, but it's still a fun one to have.

JPSLotus said:

Thing is Gaz, we're not just throwing the term legend around here. I'd like to think that you think more highly of us, since after all, you're choosing to post here too.

We're discussing it purely in the realm of grand prix motorcycle racing, nothing to do with a global scale even though it is a global sport. Being well-known is not the same as being a legend just to throw it out there. It's like the case of Max Biaggi. Well known and all of that, but never won .... title wise in the 500cc world championship or the MotoGP championship. That's not a legend.

Yeah it's probably an ultimately pointless discussion, but it's still a fun one to have.

Click to expand...

JPS, My thoughts aren't going to change (had this very discussion when CS was inducted as my thoughts have not changed) as it is just my thoughts on the matter but as I have said, I also fully know that many have a different opinion and that is what makes the place what it is.

See I will differ with Biaggi if we are to use DORNA criteria (although I do consider him a 250cc great).

Yes Biaggi won nought in 500/MotoGP titlewise but he did win 4 x 250cc titles and on the DORNA list we have people with less titles (in total) and some who never competed in the top category of their day. So based on that, should he be there and if not, why not?

See, my issue (I suspect) is the word Legend as I will honestly say that were it DORNA Hall of Fame and not DORNA Legends I would be all for CS being part of it given his achievements.

As for the word, it is being thrown around here in the discussion sense of DORNA Legends so in that aspect we differ, but yes I do have people in here who I respect opinions even though we may differ and just as I will not change their mind on some things, they will not change mine no matter how much we may all try

Sure to some (many?) I may be wrong but I will happily stand there and accept that the opinions differ

Gaz said:

Thus why I call him the Pedrosa of his era (although not necessarily with a Puig pulling the strings), or is Dani the Mamola of his era?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't compare Mamola to Pedrosa at all. Full disclosure, I'm a bit biased on Pedro, but I certainly have lost a bit of the negative reaction I used to have and have appreciated some of his race wins, some quite memorable. Then again, I'd recommend a revisit to some of Mamola's wins that are available on classic year reviews, which I've watched with admiration. Pedrosa has spent his entire career at HRC, in that time three of his teammates have won the title, for a total of 5 titles whilst Pedrosa has been on the same machine (or better 06). Randy Mamola was on a Suzuki, one year for HRC, then Cagiva and Yamaha. No way I'd rate Randy Mamola's runners up equal with Pedro's. Mamola never had a machine designed in its inception around him, I'd make the case Pedrosa has, and still didn’t win it in 07. I'd describe Mamola's runners up quite the feat considering what he rode, whilst I'd describe Pedrosa's runners up quite the choke considering what he rode. It's a fair discuss though, and it's difficult to standardize what constitutes a "Legend". What about say Max Biaggi? While I'm at it, I'd say anybody who has won more than 5+ races on a Suzuki, whilst the factory Hondas and Yamahas were on the grid, deserves some form of special recognition because it speaks to the parity (anyone with a decent knowledge of the sport should know thus). I you win a title on a Suzuki, that's something trulynoteworthy.

Jumkie said:

I wouldn't compare Mamola to Pedrosa at all. Full disclosure, I'm a bit biased on Pedro, but I certainly have lost a bit of the negative reaction I used to have and have appreciated some of his race wins, some quit memorable. Then again, I'd recommend a revisit to some of Mamola's wins that are available on classic year reviews. Pedrosa has spent his entire career at HRC, in that time three of his teammates have won the title, for a total of 5 titles whilst Pedrosa has been on the same machine (or better 06). Randy Mamola was on a Suzuki, one year for HRC, then Cagiva and Yamaha. No way I'd rate Randy Mamola's runners up equal with Pedro's. Mamola never had a machine designed in its inception around him, I'd make the case Pedrosa has, and still didn’t win it in 07. I'd describe Mamola's runners up quite the feat considering what he rode, whilst I'd describe Pedrosa's runners up quite the choke considering what he rode. It's a fair discuss though, and it's difficult to standardize what constitutes a "Legend". What about say Max Biaggi? While I'm at it, I'd say anybody who has won more than 5+ races on a Suzuki, whilst the factory Hondas and Yamahas were on the grid, deserves some form of special recognition because it speaks to the parity (anyone with a decent knowledge of the sport should know thus). I you win a title on a Suzuki, that's something trulynoteworthy.

Click to expand...

IMO only Jums, but Pedrosa's problem (and let us be honest, the kamikaze was an inopportune racing incident), but the issue most had with Pedrosa was more the svengali like Puig.

Dani seems to have really come out of a shell since Puig removed himself from the picture and I suspect that Dani may well be 'everybodys second favourite' at the moment.

IMO here Jums, but Mamola will go down as one of the best riders to have not won the championship (Biaggi is probably a better match but I exclude Biaggi due to the 4 x 250cc titles)

JPSLotus said:

He never had the fortune of having the best bike on the grid, yet was able to go head-to-head with those who were on superior machines.

Click to expand...

When you search "classic" MotoGP battles, inevitably we will run across Laguna Seca 2008. In this sense, the word "classic" denotes something extraordinary, similar to this discussion here, the debate of what constitutes "legend". Would we describe the LS08 battle as "legendary"? Probably, and I wouldn't expect much debate, however, just like this discussion, it merits thought regarding the statistics on their face. I say this because we may be tempted to say, as many have concluded, Nicky Hayden was unworthy of such a lofty merit. But as I suggest, looking a bit deeper into the 2006 achievement given the season, I'd make the case it was extraordinary. I bring up LS08 because without scrutiny, it appeared as through Stoner and Rossi battled straight up. Only a few fans recognize the gross disparity between the weapons of the to combatants. Rossi had a pistol at his disposal whilst Stoner had a knife. Had Rossi battled for the lead in an epic battle on a Ducati against Stoner on the Repsol Honda (which none of us could imagine) that would have been extraordinary! And if I may make a parallel, It's similar to my point I make about Mamola, that being not all records and performances are created equal. That Stoner battled on a Ducati for the lead against Rossi's Yamaha is extraordinary. That Rossi battled against a Ducati for the lead, on a short track favoring the weapon, Yamaha, with better handling, absent a long straight nullifying the legs of a pig Ducati, well, one should get a different perspective of which performance was the noteworthy one on that summer day in 08.

Jumkie said:

When you search "classic" MotoGP battles, inevitably we will run across Laguna Seca 2008. In this sense, the word "classic" denotes something extraordinary, similar to this discussion here, the debate of what constitutes "legend". Would we describe the LS08 battle as "legendary"? Probably, and I wouldn't expect much debate, however, just like this discussion, it merits thought regarding the statistics on their face. I say this because we may be tempted to say, as many have concluded, Nicky Hayden was unworthy of such a lofty merit. But as I suggest, looking a bit deeper into the 2006 achievement given the season, I'd make the case it was extraordinary. I bring up LS08 because without scrutiny, it appeared as through Stoner and Rossi battled straight up. Only a few fans recognize the gross disparity between the weapons of the to combatants. Rossi had a pistol at his disposal whilst Stoner had a knife. Had Rossi battled for the lead in an epic battle on a Ducati against Stoner on the Repsol Honda (which none of us could imagine) that would have been extraordinary! And if I may make a parallel, It's similar to my point I make about Mamola, that being not all records and performances are created equal. That Stoner battled on a Ducati for the lead against Rossi's Yamaha is extraordinary. That Rossi battled against a Ducati for the lead, on a short track favoring the weapon, Yamaha, with better handling, absent a long straight nullifying the legs of a pig Ducati, well, one should get a different perspective of which performance was the noteworthy one on that summer day in 08.

Click to expand...

Great take on Laguna 2008. For some reason everyone thinks Rossi was the underdog that year and at that circuit. Nothing supports it as you correctly mention. If anything, the biggest travesty at that race was Rossi had to use chickenshit blocking moves to hold onto the lead.

How it dovetails with 2006 is interesting because the wrong assumptions are drawn. How he managed to win the title in spite of HRC actively sabotaging him for the entire season really doesn't get much play in the mainstream. That was what changed my whole thought about that season was realizing the constant testing of new parts on his bike, and how insanely difficult it has to be to be in an actual title battle while having to deal with inconsistency after inconsistency with the bike.

Don't see how using a legitimate racing tactic is a 'chickenshit' move. What was he supposed to do? Let Stoner clear off into the distance.

Duplex.

Daniboy said:

Don't see how using a legitimate racing tactic is a 'chickenshit' move. What was he supposed to do? Let Stoner clear off into the distance.

Click to expand...

Braking at an inappropriate time with the deliberate intention to make another rider take evasive action is illegal. The beef is .... why Dorna exhonerates rossi at such times. It is a chickenshit move underaken by someone who does not have the talent to race cleanly and correctly.

Had anybody else done it they would have been pilloried and penalized.

The spectators would have seen a race not a ..... hiss like rossis tactics were.

Daniboy said:

Don't see how using a legitimate racing tactic is a 'chickenshit' move. What was he supposed to do? Let Stoner clear off into the distance.

Click to expand...

Stoner had no complaint either, he said he wasn't paying attention and thinking of the next place where he could attempt a pass when he put the bike down.

He also did say that it would have been in his best interests to crash into Rossi and take them both out, which he could easily have done, but perhaps by contrast with Rossi earlier in the race elected to avoid collision.

I, unsurprisingly to you no doubt, otherwise agree with JPS, it looked like a classic confrontation of bikes with different characteristics ridden to their limits by the two best riders of the day on a track layout which gave both bikes a chance.

It was still obviously a classic race at this remove in time, with the difference that the apparent half a second a full lap advantage the Ducati had was very probably a half second or more a lap deficit for anyone else riding that Ducati, including Rossi.

BarryMachine said:

Braking at an inappropriate time with the deliberate intention to make another rider take evasive action is illegal. The beef is .... why Dorna exhonerates rossi at such times. It is a chickenshit move underaken by someone who does not have the talent to race cleanly and correctly.

Had anybody else done it they would have been pilloried and penalized.

The spectators would have seen a race not a ..... hiss like rossis tactics were.

Click to expand...

So when you rear shunt someone on the road it's their fault, I'll have to come to Oz and get a big insurance claim in that case.