<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Feb 26 2008, 10:33 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I hate to speak from the book of
Jumkie but lets actually look at the word i am alleged to have defined wrongly.
"Direct comfrontation" is the defition.....
Hi Tom, not sure if I welcomed you back on the forum, but nice to see you back.
Now back to the debate. First of all, I'm not sure why my name would be thrown into the mix (maybe as the definitive arbiter or simply for street cred)
so I suppose it was meant as a compliment . Second, as far as the definitions of
contest, they are in
“direct competition” as Tom says in the sense that they battle/struggle/dispute/contest against each other for the
championship; however, the colloquial use of the term
"head to head" (which is what is being debated) is used as Yamaka stated, therefore he is correct.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Feb 26 2008, 02:12 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think that the latter definition is the one most people consider in a racing environment. A synonym for head-to-head often given is "neck-and-neck", which used often in horse racing. As these are synonyms, you can see why most people think that the race must be close, rather than just on the same course under the same rules.
You are correct.
To add to this:
I think the point being missed here is the
idea of magnitude for this “head to head” situation to exists throughout the race. Certainly at the
beginning of the race (grid), almost all riders are "neck and neck". So they start off this way. So
how much of the race must they be battling in
close quarters? If you recall Mugello 07, Rossi came up from behind to win. Was this “head to head”? How about Portugal 06 when Elias won with the smallest time margin ever, should Elias and Rossi be considered “head to head”? (
Before you answer, keep in mind that Elias was not challenging for the lead until the last few laps). In Valencia 06, the
championship was on the line and Hayden vs Rossi can be characterized as
“head to head/neck and neck” for the championship. But the race itself lacked this sense; though it is hardly Hayden's fault that Rossi crashed and did not challenge in a "head to head"/"neck and neck"
race battle, at least at the grid, it did in fact
start this way (at least for a moment). However, the championship was decided by a few points, and as a
championship, there was in fact a battle that could be characterized as a "head to head" battle--considering that Hayden came into Portugal in the lead, left in deficit to Rossi, then regained the lead in points for the title. In one race, does the close racing have to start from the beginning and continue until the end of the race for it to be considered “head to head”? I suppose this is the subjective part of the argument, and certainly a spectrum of debate is in order here. But in terms of the
colloquial sense, then the riders must be battling, preferable trading positions, until the end of the race to be considered a
“head to head/neck and neck” contest.
Case closed.
and now its time to take candy from a baby...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Feb 26 2008, 11:30 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>At least you got one thing right. This is so
far fetched that it DO sound like Jumkie
It must be killing you to find yourself in the disadvantaged condition of having weak debating skills. My advice is, don't take on ill-conceived positions/standpoints because your opinion and defense of them will always be faulty and force you to resort to ......... Since you never concede after totaly being shown otherwise, as you have not on so many issues from imaginary tire issues to defending the political under-dealings of Yamaha/Honda’s latest proposal, then I suggest you either read a book on how to carry on a successful and meaningful debate (perhaps a book on logic) or just stop taking on pathetic positions and opinions.
