<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Oct 1 2009, 01:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think we agree more than you think, but perhaps I wasn't clear. Yes, I agree, Stoner's work ethic is respectable. I just think that Hayden has a reputation of hammering out problems by sheer laps and long hours. Stoner perhaps doesn't have to do this since he is able to work through issue more quickly.
Actually Jum, this is an interesting point and possibly one for another discussion although I fully expect the usual suspects to jump onto this post, but here goes.
The work ethic side and discussions are of interest as we (the public) judge only by what we see on television or read in media reports, which of course often have their own bias or agenda.
Hayden rightfully is very well regarded because he puts in endless hours of ontrack work and basically acts as somewhat of a 'work mule', a very admirable trait and one that I suspect is highly regarded across the entire paddock. Sadly, I also feel it has hamstrung him a little as some seem to judge him more by this then his actual on-track skills and sometimes I do wonder if this 'over training' (just to borrow a curren buzzword) in practice may be detrimental to his racing.
On the other side we have the much criticised Stoner who has always tended more towards shorter practice runs but with a consistency in times when ontrack and amount of laps involved in these runs. Subsequently he often pulls far less laps in practice than some competitors and for that people see this as a poorer work ethic.
Yet, as many within the racing world will attest, both approaches could well be perfect depending on the aim of the session/practice and the rider involved.
But we the public are not privy to what may occur when teh doors are pulled down, to how much time the riders spend with their engineers, building relationships of trust, to even being there when the techs are working feverishly to get the bike right for the rider. All these are 'work ethics' of the kind that many forget about and one that we simply do not know how each rider (not just NH or CS) tackles that scenario.
Ah well, time for the responses.
Gaz
Actually Jum, this is an interesting point and possibly one for another discussion although I fully expect the usual suspects to jump onto this post, but here goes.
The work ethic side and discussions are of interest as we (the public) judge only by what we see on television or read in media reports, which of course often have their own bias or agenda.
Hayden rightfully is very well regarded because he puts in endless hours of ontrack work and basically acts as somewhat of a 'work mule', a very admirable trait and one that I suspect is highly regarded across the entire paddock. Sadly, I also feel it has hamstrung him a little as some seem to judge him more by this then his actual on-track skills and sometimes I do wonder if this 'over training' (just to borrow a curren buzzword) in practice may be detrimental to his racing.
On the other side we have the much criticised Stoner who has always tended more towards shorter practice runs but with a consistency in times when ontrack and amount of laps involved in these runs. Subsequently he often pulls far less laps in practice than some competitors and for that people see this as a poorer work ethic.
Yet, as many within the racing world will attest, both approaches could well be perfect depending on the aim of the session/practice and the rider involved.
But we the public are not privy to what may occur when teh doors are pulled down, to how much time the riders spend with their engineers, building relationships of trust, to even being there when the techs are working feverishly to get the bike right for the rider. All these are 'work ethics' of the kind that many forget about and one that we simply do not know how each rider (not just NH or CS) tackles that scenario.
Ah well, time for the responses.
Gaz
