This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rossi making moves against Jarvis

J4rn0 said:
Thank you for illustrating my point, albeit unaware probably.
Do you know for sure that Pedrosa is a lesser rider than Rainey, Schwantz etc.?
And how can anybody know that? One could argue that he would have easily beaten them, if they were still racing in 2006... But would that prove anything?
As I said, all these speculations are futile. :)
Click to expand...
And my point obviously eluded you.

Title wins are the true currency for these guys, with getting more wins in any given year very secondary imo; Valentino for instance in 2007 once the title was decided concentrated on developing the Yamaha to win the 2008 title rather than finishing second ahead of Dani Pedrosa. Lawson, Rainey, KRSR, Sheene and Schwantz all won premier class titles against everyone who turned up to race them which Dani has never managed to do.

If you want to look at race wins in a season, I give you 2014 in any case, a season in which it seems unlikely that MM’s Honda was as superior to the opposition as Valentino’s Honda was in 2002.

As I said earlier in the thread, if MM wins this year imo that makes him Rossi’s equal over the first 6 years of their premier class careers, each with 5 titles out of a possible 6. I personally give extra credit to MM for winning the title as a rookie, but give Rossi extra credit for winning 5 on the bounce, which MM had every opportunity to accomplish but couldn’t manage. It is rather convenient to make 100 race starts the cut-off and contend Valentino had more titles then, as the article states; he had 5 out of 6 of course but was on the way to 5 out of 7 then 5 out of 8.
 
Last edited:
michaelm said:
Yes, and Dani Pedrosa is Eddie Lawson’s equal and better than Rainey, KRSR, Sheene and Schwantz because he has won 31 races.
Click to expand...

J4rno's point was if you compare VR and MM over their first 100 races, rather than simply tallying race wins.
 
RCV600RR said:
J4rno's point was if you compare VR and MM over their first 100 races, rather than simply tallying race wins.
Click to expand...

See my next post, the 100 race start criterion is imo a convenient cut off which suits the purpose of the author of the article, and others such as age can be used to favour MM. As I already implied in a post with which you apparently agreed titles are the currency for guys of this calibre, and I will consider them equal for the first 6 years of their premier class careers if MM wins the title this year.
 
michaelm said:
See my next post, the 100 race start criterion is imo a convenient cut off which suits the purpose of the author of the article, and others such as age can be used to favour MM. As I already implied in a post with which you apparently agreed titles are the currency for guys of this calibre, and I will consider them equal for the first 6 years of their premier class careers if MM wins the title this year.
Click to expand...

In fairness to the author:

1. MM did just complete his 100th race, so the comparison was timely; and
2. Age is a bit unfair, because in Rossi's era there were fewer races per season, so MM would've contended more races.

But I think we both agree on the conclusion.
 
RCV600RR said:
In fairness to the author:

1. MM did just complete his 100th race, so the comparison was timely; and
2. Age is a bit unfair, because in Rossi's era there were fewer races per season, so MM would've contended more races.

But I think we both agree on the conclusion.
Click to expand...

Sure, I don't think we basically disagree. While race wins are also everyone's aim I do think tactical considerations etc can affect number of race wins in a season, as can calibre of opposition, bike and tire factors etc, whereas title wins are a more binary/fundamental measure imo.

I agree using age slants things the other way, which I intended to imply in my initial post on this thread. No doubt the number of race wins is a credit to Rossi, although Ago's win rate in the years when the MV Augusta had no Japanese factory opposition may have been even higher. My point was mainly against the contention in the article that Rossi had more title wins after 100 premier class race starts, which is true enough, but he had also completed 6 full seasons and was half-way through a 7th, a non title winning season as it happens. No matter how good MM is there was no possibility of him completing 6 full seasons within 100 race starts obviously.
 
Last edited:
Ago went like 5 seasons winning every race he finished. Conditions change and must be accounted for especially when the aim of the series runner is to eliminate advantages to a great degree. That MM is winning as much as he still is, is a huge testament to his talent given the conditions that he is competing in.

I've always thought a really good h2h comparison for Rossi was how he stacked up against Doohan in their 5 championship years. Both had similar advantages, though Doohan never had an advantage like the v5 Honda and had similar competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
p4p1 said:
Ago went like 5 seasons winning every race he finished. Conditions change and must be accounted for especially when the aim of the series runner is to eliminate advantages to a great degree. That MM is winning as much as he still is, is a huge testament to his talent given the conditions that he is competing in.

I've always thought a really good h2h comparison for Rossi was how he stacked up against Doohan in their 5 championship years. Both had similar advantages, though Doohan never had an advantage like the v5 Honda and had similar competition.
Click to expand...

Lol.
He got the V5 Honda ride because he was that damn good, not the other way around.

If that bike was so amazing, why didn’t the 83737 people Honda put on it since 2004 never manage to do what Rossi did on it?
 
synn said:
Lol.
He got the V5 Honda ride because he was that damn good, not the other way around.

If that bike was so amazing, why didn’t the 83737 people Honda put on it since 2004 never manage to do what Rossi did on it?
Click to expand...

I think the main issue is the 2002 season, when except for his Japanese team-mate everyone else was literally riding a different class of bike. No doubt Rossi was on the bike because he was the best rider rather than the converse, but Barros didn’t do all that badly when he finally got on the V5 Honda at the end of that season.
 
michaelm said:
And my point obviously eluded you.

........
Click to expand...

Your point is clear as usual, but it cannot be really taken as it is, because you keep ignoring the fact that Rossi did make a switch from Honda to Yamaha within those first 5 years, whereas MM -- during his 6th HRC year -- has signed another 2 years contract with the world's most coveted ride.

Had MM moved to Ducati in 2017, and then won 2017 and 2018 on it, you would be completely right. The offer was there (and I can tell that Marc is still Ducati's main target), but he left that challenge to Lorenzo.

Wins and titles are numbers and I tend to accept them without discussion, and move on. Makes life easier. But since people here love so much to speculate, then fancy what Rossi' statistics would be (and how different and probably more boring MotoGP history would have been) if he had remained on the 'unbeatable' HRC machine for 8 years, as Marc is going to do?

Do you think he would have ever lost the 2006 title? And probably the 800cc formula would never have happened, so there would not have been the Ducati-Bridgestone exploit with Stoner, and Rossi would have probably continued taking 2007, 2008, 2009.... I reckon in 2010 Lorenzo on the Yamaha would have finally seriously challenged Rossi anyway. In 2010... and we will never know what would have happened.

In this vein, it's interesting to note that Stoner might never have had his golden MotoGP chance if Rossi had stayed with Honda. So this Rossi might not have been such a plague for our beloved sport after all! Apart from his fans of course... ;)

PS: Also, let us not forget that Rossi wasn't with HRC in his first 500cc season, unlike MM. Only the bike was factory. The rider HRC was listening to was their #1 rider, Criville, who got everything wrong -- so having that factory bike was not such an advantage! In the second half of the season they began listening to Rossi and Burgess a little more, and results came fast. Had Rossi been in Criville's place, he would probably have won the title in his rookie season.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
michaelm said:
My point was mainly against the contention in the article that Rossi had more title wins after 100 premier class race starts, which is true enough, but he had also completed 6 full seasons and was half-way through a 7th, a non title winning season as it happens. No matter how good MM is there was no possibility of him completing 6 full seasons within 100 race starts obviously.
Click to expand...

Yes, can't argue with that.
 
J4rn0 said:
Your point is clear as usual, but it cannot be really taken as it is, because you keep ignoring the fact that Rossi did make a switch from Honda to Yamaha within those first 5 years, whereas MM -- during his 6th HRC year -- has signed another 2 years contract with the world's most coveted ride.

Had MM moved to Ducati in 2017, and then won 2017 and 2018 on it, you would be completely right. The offer was there (and I can tell that Marc is still Ducati's main target), but he left that challenge to Lorenzo.

Wins and titles are numbers and I tend to accept them without discussion, and move on. Makes life easier. But since people here love so much to speculate, then fancy what Rossi' statistics would be (and how different and probably more boring MotoGP history would have been) if he had remained on the 'unbeatable' HRC machine for 8 years, as Marc is going to do?

Do you think he would have ever lost the 2006 title? And probably the 800cc formula would never have happened, so there would not have been the Ducati-Bridgestone exploit with Stoner, and Rossi would have probably continued taking 2007, 2008, 2009.... I reckon in 2010 Lorenzo on the Yamaha would have finally seriously challenged Rossi anyway. In 2010... and we will never know what would have happened.

In this vein, it's interesting to note that Stoner might never have had his golden MotoGP chance if Rossi had stayed with Honda. So this Rossi might not have been such a plague for our beloved sport after all! Apart from his fans of course... ;)

PS: Also, let us not forget that Rossi wasn't with HRC in his first 500cc season, unlike MM. Only the bike was factory. The rider HRC was listening to was their #1 rider, Criville, who got everything wrong -- so having that factory bike was not such an advantage! In the second half of the season they began listening to Rossi and Burgess a little more, and results came fast. Had Rossi been in Criville's place, he would probably have won the title in his rookie season.
Click to expand...
I remember all that of course, and winning a title on a 500 does have extra merit for a traditionalist such as I am, and Criville was indeed terrible and on the wrong track that year, and out of the premier class soon after. I also think prime Rossi would possibly have won on the HRC bike in 2015, he wouldn't have taken most of a season to realise he couldn't win every race on that bike.

Still, as they say if ifs and buts were crackers and nuts every day would be Christmas, I think the Furusawa designed Yamaha was a pretty good bike, not that winning on it straight out of the box was at all negligible, and if the 2006 bike was imperfect Rossi and Burgess have to bear some of the responsibility for that, particularly if they are to be acclaimed as great developers and set up guys in other years. I also think no assumptions should be made about Nicky's 2006 championship, he rode a great season on a bike more suited to him with his origins in superbikes, and in a year when the bikes and tires were likely as even as ever had been the case, as there being 7 different race winners illustrated.

See my later post in any case, my main argument was not against the superior number of race wins but the superior number of titles, given it was simply not possible for MM to have completed 6 full seasons within 100 race starts, and I think there is a fair chance MM will have 5 titles at the completion of his 6th season just as Rossi did, and he still has a chance of winning 6 out of 7 which Rossi didn't do.
 
michaelm said:
I think the main issue is the 2002 season, when except for his Japanese team-mate everyone else was literally riding a different class of bike. No doubt Rossi was on the bike because he was the best rider rather than the converse, but Barros didn’t do all that badly when he finally got on the V5 Honda at the end of that season.
Click to expand...

Barros outscored Rossi the 4 races he was allowed to ride the RC211V with 2 wins a second and a third.
 
michaelm said:
Still, as they say if ifs and buts were crackers and nuts every day would be Christmas, I think the Furusawa designed Yamaha was a pretty good bike, not that winning on it straight out of the box was at all negligible, and if the 2006 bike was imperfect Rossi and Burgess have to bear some of the responsibility for that, particularly if they are to be acclaimed as great developers and set up guys in other years.
Click to expand...

The engine blew twice (LS and Le Mans) while leading, and Elias took him out in the first race. There's possibly 50-75 points down the drain between those three events. It may have been an imperfect bike, but the bike-rider package was still clearly strong enough to win the championship with some margin in 2006.

Nicky did have to deal with the Pedrosa torpedo and HRC giving him the weird Evo bike with its annoying starting issues, however.
 
povol said:
Barros outscored Rossi the 4 races he was allowed to ride the RC211V with 2 wins a second and a third.
Click to expand...

Barros has been a great rider, albeit lacking in consistency. I must say he impressed me even more that year when racing the NSR 500 against the RC211V, and he didn't win another race or two on the two stroker only because he was regularly passed on the straights... For the record, the 4 races in which he outscored Rossi (and everybody else...) happened when Rossi had already won the title, so it wasn't really the hottest part of the season competition-wise. But kudos to him, it's never easy.

I don't understand what 'allowed' means, -- you guys always make it sound like there the whole world is busy favoring Rossi, which is ridiculous because Honda after those good results was ready to give Barros an RC211V for the next season, but he chose to take Yamaha's money instead, and next year disappeared from the podium entirely. I personally think Barros lacked the consistency to really challenge for the title, on any bike, but he could have made 2003 more interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
michaelm said:
I remember all that of course, and winning a title on a 500 does have extra merit for a traditionalist such as I am, and Criville was indeed terrible and on the wrong track that year, and out of the premier class soon after. I also think prime Rossi would possibly have won on the HRC bike in 2015, he wouldn't have taken most of a season to realise he couldn't win every race on that bike.

Still, as they say if ifs and buts were crackers and nuts every day would be Christmas, I think the Furusawa designed Yamaha was a pretty good bike, not that winning on it straight out of the box was at all negligible, and if the 2006 bike was imperfect Rossi and Burgess have to bear some of the responsibility for that, particularly if they are to be acclaimed as great developers and set up guys in other years. I also think no assumptions should be made about Nicky's 2006 championship, he rode a great season on a bike more suited to him with his origins in superbikes, and in a year when the bikes and tires were likely as even as ever had been the case, as there being 7 different race winners illustrated.

See my later post in any case, my main argument was not against the superior number of race wins but the superior number of titles, given it was simply not possible for MM to have completed 6 full seasons within 100 race starts, and I think there is a fair chance MM will have 5 titles at the completion of his 6th season just as Rossi did, and he still has a chance of winning 6 out of 7 which Rossi didn't do.
Click to expand...

Over 100 races it makes sense counting only wins and podiums of course, which is more than sufficient for such a comparison. Moreover, one title more or less doesn't matter for people who have so many :)

Furusawa himself said he made all key design choices based on Rossi's input. We can say the two worked well together, which is what they also said many times. Would Furusawa have designed a winning bike for Biaggi as well (or any other rider of that time), and beaten Rossi on the HRC? I really doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
RCV600RR said:
The engine blew twice (LS and Le Mans) while leading, and Elias took him out in the first race. There's possibly 50-75 points down the drain between those three events. It may have been an imperfect bike, but the bike-rider package was still clearly strong enough to win the championship with some margin in 2006.

Nicky did have to deal with the Pedrosa torpedo and HRC giving him the weird Evo bike with its annoying starting issues, however.
Click to expand...
This is the fundamental thing with which I take issue, and what started me posting on the internet in the first place. Whoever wins the title almost invariably should be credited for doing so, 15 or more races is a fair number over which luck usually evens out. I have always been happy to acknowledge all of Rossi’s titles, it is the claiming of titles won by other riders by his fans with which I take issue, particularly when there is talk of those other riders having “advantages”.
 
Last edited:
J4rn0 said:
Over 100 races it makes sense counting only wins and podiums of course, which is more than sufficient for such a comparison. Moreover, one title more or less doesn't matter for people who have so many :)

Furusawa himself said he made all key design choices based on Rossi's input. We can say the two worked well together, which is what they also said many times. Would Furusawa have designed a winning bike for Biaggi as well (or any other rider of that time), and beaten Rossi on the HRC? I really doubt it.
Click to expand...

I actually tend to agree with you about titles, but you should perhaps tell Valentino who has seemed awfully keen to win the 8th title. Ago’s 8th was particularly meritorious, but I don’t think you will get many arguments even from the “haters” on here that he is Rossi’s superior overall.

My understanding of the 2004 Yamaha was that Honda wouldn’t allow Rossi to test till relatively late, at which time Furusawa had already designed the bike, but that he presented Rossi with options particularly engine wise from which Rossi obviously chose the correct one. I don’t think Biaggi was as good as Rossi so the Yamaha would have needed to be better than the Honda for him to win on it, which I doubt it was.

My argument is for MM being Rossi’s early career equal in any case, not his superior, and I do think control tires and a control ECU etc do come into it when race winning rate is concerned, while Doohan during his 5 title run is a more like for like comparison as someone has said; again I wouldn’t use the aforementioned Ago’s winning percentage in his halcyon days to compare him with Rossi.
 
Last edited:
michaelm said:
This is the fundamental thing with which I take issue, and what started me posting on the internet in the first place. Whoever wins the title almost invariably should be credited for doing so, 15 or more races is a fair number over which luck usually evens out. I have always been happy to acknowledge all of Rossi’s titles, it is the claiming of titles won by other riders by his fans with which I take issue, particularly when there is talk of those other riders having “advantages”.
Click to expand...

I think your point is a non-sequitur. I didn't say Hayden shouldn't be credited for his title (he's my favourite rider...).

Rather, you said that Rossi has to take blame for the 2006 M1's poor development. My response was that the 2006 M1 wasn't actually a bad bike when it worked. He had three DNFs which had nothing to do with Rossi's development, without which there's a solid chance he'd have won the title. None of those assertions are contentious.

Anyway, as I've stated many times, I don't think the rider wins or loses anything by himself. It's the rider-tyre-bike-team package that wins or loses. It's a team sport. That year, the Hayden-Michelin-RC211V-Repsol team package was superior to the Rossi-Michelin-M1-Camel team package. We can debate whether the rider outperformed or underperformed other elements of the package (which is basically the purpose of this forum), but that misses the point of the sport; it's not a one-make cup. It's the test of every element of the package - the rider's skills and fortitude, the team's unity and skills, the ability of the factory to respond quickly and well to feedback, etc., and that's why we love it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Recent Discussions