- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,451
- Location
- The North!
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 3,075
- Location
- Living the dream in Scotland
Pete!
Have mercy on my sides man lol
ps check your pm's
Will do mate
Pete
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Location
- home
Well, it's good to have you around to judge the relevance of my posts and their internal logical consistency. Thanks!
Now I'll explain my original post for you in some detail, as it's point seems to have been lost on you. Rossi was asked why Stoner was able to win races and even a championship on the Ducati, while he could (so far) not. To which he replied that this was in part down to Stoner's 5 year experience on that bike. An argument which I've seen him make before and have found rather bewildering. Hence my post, in which I sarcastically asked if Rossi would rather have us compare their respective first seasons on the Ducati. A somewhat loose reductio ad absurdum, if you will.
To which you replied: 'The blinding error in your logic is that stoner 2007 was 10 times better than stoner 2010 and Rossi is riding a bike closest to stoner 2010.'
From which I concluded that you believed I was in fact really advocating that the Stoner 2007/Rossi 2011 comparison was the most sensible one, rather than having a dig at a what I perceive to be a rather self-serving logic that Rossi seems to be invoking. Which in turn lead me belief that you had taken little time trying to understand my initial post, but are very quick to point out perceived 'blinding errors' in logic[sup]1[/sup]. Hence my somewhat snippy 'No ...., Sherlock!' to the exceedingly obvious statements in your reply.
I thought that perhaps this would help you realize that I was in fact not trying to compare Stoner's 2007 to Rossi's 2011, perhaps even that I wasn't concerned so much with any comparison between the two at all, but was reacting to what I believe to be an unconvincing argument with humorous implications that Rossi seems to be growing fond of. Unfortunately, you didn't get the hint, at least that is what I infer from your next reply: 'So to keep spelling it out for you, the comparison is fairest if comparing 2011 to 2010 not 2007.' Yeah, no .... indeed.
As a disclaimer, you may want to argue (and I believe that is what you are trying to do) that Rossi is making his argument only for the special case of his current season versus the end of Stoner's last season (i.e. when he was [almost]winning on the Ducati) and saying that Stoner performed better compared to himself now because he had a five-year experience advantage on the bike. To this, I say: a) he was asked about why Stoner could win races and a championship on that bike while he cannot, which quite clearly to me indicates that the context pertains to Stoner's success on the Ducati on the whole
Now woody, you may believe this or not, but I wasn't trying to pick a fight here. I think that although I find you're posts are often quite biased and defensive, I don't think they are any worse in that respect than my own, albeit we support different riders. I know that you are definitely someone that at least tries to be objective, and would rather discuss the racing than the drama. It's just that when I get the sense that someone is getting wound up over my posts without taking the trouble of at least trying to understand them, I can get a bit short in my answers.
Note[sup]1[/sup]: Yes, the irony in relation to my initial post is not lost on me here.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 958
Peace mate. Yes I can be a little biased in some of my posts and I don't pretend to be otherwise. Not a fan of any excuses from Rossi when it comes to why he's not as quick as stoner on the ducati. I do think Rossi is giving it 100% though - the bike just doesn't work for him although it is looking like they are closer after this weekend.
First Curve and now you! It might have taken years of evidence and mountains of words from many like the keyboard king(monsieur J), but it has finally happened..............a bit of common sense from a few diehard boppers. (If only we had the same success with the climate change story, the planet , or should I say a planet habitable for humans, may still possibly exist by 2100). Ah well, I can only dream.........................
Sorry, I conflated yours and woody's posts since you were arguing along similar lines, and agreeing with each other.
"I do think that Stoner wouldn't be leading the championship if Pedrosa hadn't had his altercation with Simoncelli . Pedrosa has outpaced Stoner when he has been fit" is what he said.
My point still applies in relation to what you have been saying in a more measured fashion though . Surely the starting position should be to credit riders for their performances rather than finding reasons why they didn't really win, which is where all the rancour comes in this debate.
For my attitude to bias, see stiefel's excellent most recent post.
For my attitude to pedrosa, see my reply to pete. I take no joy in being proven correct, but I said before the season that it is fairly pointless to speculate about what would happen if pedrosa had an injury free season, since it now appears unlikely he will ever have one. He has gone past the point of being unlucky, through no fault of his own he appears to be physically fragile. Along similar lines as I also said to Pete if mick doohan hadn't crashed in 2002 he may well have won 7 championships and could then be rated valentino's equal. He did and he can't, however.
Even if some riders are unlucky as is obviously the case, winning 29 races and perhaps as appears increasingly likely a second premier class championship is well beyond the point of being attributable to good luck just as with rossi's (much) greater achievements. That you are, temporarily or otherwise, prepared to say valentino has been lucky doesn't strengthen your argument, particularly since in my opinion there has been very little luck involved in his career.
I agree we are unreasonable .......s. No matter how politely and calmly you explain the obvious truth that stoner only wins because of bike advantages and luck, we will continue to disagree
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 3,075
- Location
- Living the dream in Scotland
I agree we are unreasonable .......s. No matter how politely and calmly you explain the obvious truth that stoner only wins because of bike advantages and luck, we will continue to disagree.
Pure gold mate!
Thanks. I don't disagree with mackie about the obvious truth that valentino would be competing for podiums/ wins if he was on a factory honda or still on a factory yamaha though.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
I agree we are unreasonable .......s. No matter how politely and calmly you explain the obvious truth that stoner only wins because of bike advantages and luck, we will continue to disagree.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,061
- Location
- home
No worries. Glad there's no bad blood.
Bunyip: To be fair, woody has been quite cynical about Rossi's excuses already very early in this season and has been able to see the humorous side of some his public remarks. So in that sense, I was feel a little guilty for reacting so unkind.
As for Rossi and Ducati being closer, I'm not yet convinced. The BBC commentators were very positive about him reducing the gap to the winner down from 30 seconds to 12 seconds, as was Rossi himself. I don't know how meaningful this is. In Laguna, the 10th place rider was 1 minute and 09 seconds back from the race winner, in Brno just 37. I write this to illustrate that overall the deviations in Brno were much smaller. More sobering, in Qatar and Portugal Rossi was a little over 16 seconds behind the race winners. In reality, it was only from Silverstone onwards that Rossi was going from finishing a long way back to finishing a huge way back.
Also, if we want to take race finishing times as an indicator (which I'm not sure is a good idea in the first place, but you have to start somewhere I guess), I think it would make sense to compare Rossi on the gp11.1 to Hayden on the gp11. I'm not sure anymore when they started to be on those bikes respectively, I think it was Mugello? If so, I don't see much of a trend of improvement.
It is also not the first time that Rossi has been close to Spies this season, it's not even the first time he was within visual distance of Lorenzo.
I'm mostly a bit doubtful because years of supporting that other guy on the Ducati has thought me that Ducati often moves in cycles of one step forward-one step back. Rossi is very positive, he's saying they did not cure the understeer but they did improve stability under braking. I'm not sure, but I think I have heard him say almost the exact same thing once or twice before this season.
I do hope they get him and Hayden fighting with the Dovi-Sic-Spies group on track and the Spies-Sic-Pedrosa group in the championship.
I agree we are unreasonable .......s. No matter how politely and calmly you explain the obvious truth that stoner only wins because of bike advantages and luck, we will continue to disagree.
At what point have I stated that Stoner only wins because of Bike advantages and Luck? I have stated the improved nature of the current Honda, and Casey's relative luck with injury in argument against mostly silly bias towards with the statements
that have reflected that Stoner is the only reason for Honda's success this season, yes he is a big part of the reason but credit must also go to his team, the engineers and management of HRC. I have never
said that these are the only reasons for Stoner's success. The fact that I have only stated that Stoner is an exceptional rider and not a god seems to be the issue, seems its impossible to be a fan whilst pointing out any imperfections to the disciples-- Sounds familiar
Many rossi fans also attributed the success in 2004 to Rossi, whilst he was a big part of the reason credit must also go to the team, the engineers and the management of Yamaha Racing.
The fact that some Stoner fans are so paranoid about any critic, or even a vague reference to the great package he has this season, that comes Casey's way usually determines your extremely presumptuous and
unreasonable argument. Much like the obsession with Rossi which has led to similar ridiculous levels of adoration. Considering most of the Stoner criticism is/has come from the latter
similar behavior from the Stoner side seems even more bewildering.
The last time I checked this is Motoracing which involves essential hardware. Why can an observer (and a fan of Casey, though I find it disturbing that I have to continually highlight this) not point out the fact that Stoner has an incredible bike this season,
has had relatively good fortune with injury, whilst possessing an incredible talent and using it to its full potential towards winning the world title?
For are these not always the main contributing factors to any Motogp world title victory?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- Dont Know
Get over it Mackie. Stoner was lucky, move on.
Hayden was faster than Rossi on the GP11.1 at Brno. Very interesting. I put forth an opinion that if Ducati would have backed Hayden and based development on him the way they are with Rossi, Hayden be would battling it out for podiums every weekend.
Rossi is not in an ideal position to be leading development on the Ducati at this point due to 1. his early season injuries and 2. to lack of experience riding it. He needs time just to figure out a new style other than his Yamaha based one. It seams a normal rider takes about a season just to get used to the way the Duc feels.
Hayden has more experience with the quirky nature of the bike. Ducati are failing to make use of all their resources as usual. If Hayden was actually the lead rider...........................................................??????????????????????????
Mackie, come out, be proud , you are obviously primarily a rossi fan (not that there is anything wrong with that ), just as I am a stoner fan. This does not stop you from being a knowledgeable and genuine fan of the sport in general.
I obviously exaggerated for effect, as rossi fans with perhaps more sense of humour than you detected. On a fan forum we are almost by definition all biased, and I am sure my unconscious bias is even greater than the bias I know I have.
What annoyed me, and annoys me in general when debating people, with a couple of your posts was a fairly definite assumption that while others are biased you are not and just happen to be in possession of the absolute truth. Even explaining your points politely and in a calm manner does not necessarily make them correct.
From my obviously hopelessly biased point of view stoner fans requiring you to acknowledge stoner as rossi's equal would constitute requiring you to worship him. Objecting to you trying to qualify his success by insinuating (rather than saying it outright like woody) that pedrosa would be beating him if not for bad luck with injuries is not imo. I also object to the suggestion, more subtle from you than many, that success for him and him alone needs to be qualified because of the quality of his equipment. I have followed the sport since wayne gardner's salad days and this seems to be something which only applies to stoner, not to mick doohan, and not to valentino for most of his career until rossi fans started to attribute stoner's 2007 championship entirely to a huge bike advantage, and some retaliation started, given that valentino until this current year has always had at least very good equipment. Most of that even wider than is the case for the 2011 honda body of opinion about the huge and easily employed advantage stoner had in 2007 seems to now have been proven wrong anyway.
Again, if someone has won 29 races and one , perhaps soon to be two, world championships, surely he should be credited as a starting point rather than looking for reasons his success is less meritorious than it appears to be.
Btw, I would say only one of all valentino's wins, let alone championships, requires any qualification, and that is the jerez gibernau last corner torpedo race. His laguna seca 2008 win was possibly the most meritorious win of all, which is not the same as saying stoner had no right to be pissed off about nearly being taken out.
I obviously exaggerated for effect, as rossi fans with perhaps more sense of humour than you detected. On a fan forum we are almost by definition all biased, and I am sure my unconscious bias is even greater than the bias I know I have.
What annoyed me, and annoys me in general when debating people, with a couple of your posts was a fairly definite assumption that while others are biased you are not and just happen to be in possession of the absolute truth. Even explaining your points politely and in a calm manner does not necessarily make them correct.
From my obviously hopelessly biased point of view stoner fans requiring you to acknowledge stoner as rossi's equal would constitute requiring you to worship him. Objecting to you trying to qualify his success by insinuating (rather than saying it outright like woody) that pedrosa would be beating him if not for bad luck with injuries is not imo. I also object to the suggestion, more subtle from you than many, that success for him and him alone needs to be qualified because of the quality of his equipment. I have followed the sport since wayne gardner's salad days and this seems to be something which only applies to stoner, not to mick doohan, and not to valentino for most of his career until rossi fans started to attribute stoner's 2007 championship entirely to a huge bike advantage, and some retaliation started, given that valentino until this current year has always had at least very good equipment. Most of that even wider than is the case for the 2011 honda body of opinion about the huge and easily employed advantage stoner had in 2007 seems to now have been proven wrong anyway.
Again, if someone has won 29 races and one , perhaps soon to be two, world championships, surely he should be credited as a starting point rather than looking for reasons his success is less meritorious than it appears to be.
Btw, I would say only one of all valentino's wins, let alone championships, requires any qualification, and that is the jerez gibernau last corner torpedo race. His laguna seca 2008 win was possibly the most meritorious win of all, which is not the same as saying stoner had no right to be pissed off about nearly being taken out.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,631
- Location
- Earth
Are you suggesting that Rossi fits the "normal rider" status, because we are constantly reminded of his achievements to date. So to be fair if its about 1year for a "normal rider" how long for a 9 time world champion with JB and co to adapt to it ??????????
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- Dont Know
Well if you put it that way it should have taken 80 sec
After one ride at Valencia it should have been clear to Ducati it was not going to be the a magical dream combination with Rossi that they wanted. So if they have been running around paying all the attention to Rossi, making him bike updates and going round in circles looking at Delta box frames, meanwhile ignoring Hayden who has more experience, then they are a bunch of idiots in my book. They should be concentrating MORE on Hayden to develop, while Rossi concentrates MORE on getting his head around the Ducati.
Does anyone know if Hayden set the Brno test time on the new GP11.1 or the old bike. If its the new one I'm impressed, he's faster than Rossi and its his first day on it.
Primarily I'm an observer of the sport and a fan of all of them. I find that the bias that exists in some outweighs any ability to be logical, not saying that my opinion is fact, but facts brought up in my opinion are indeed that. The constant
detraction of Rossi primarily here, and on some other sites, is primarily rubbish and this needs to be pointed out. I would be doing the same if it were Jorge, Dani, Ben and of course Casey.
Obviously you were hoping to piss on the Rossi fans that seem to be an incredible annoyance to you, so much so that you are inventing views for people like myself, as you did reply to me.
Which points do you feel aren't correct? Lets just work with the above then, do you feel that Casey made his own luck during his hide-side in Germany and through talent managed to prevent any serious injury to himself? Unlike Rossi's highside last season
where he ran out of talent, or like Dani's injury this season, where he and Marco Simoncelli ran out of talent together? Or Like Jorge's crash in 2008 which broke his ankles? In all of these instances the riders missed several rounds and therefore their ability to
compete for the championship. Admit it, Casey has been lucky when crashing.
Or the point about machinery, Do you feel that if Casey were on say, the Yamaha or the Ducati again, or the Suzuki, that his riding prowess would overcome all obstacles and he would still be leading the world championship?
My point is he has brought consistency and speed to the Honda camp, moreso than any of the current 'Honda' riders however the bike has improved since last season and is the best machine in the paddock at present.
And I'm sure you'll have no problems with my other point, which involves Casey's talent, but I'm sure this isn't the one you were referencing above.
At no point have I mentioned anything about Stoner or Rossi being equals or not, so I don't know what you are talking about here, once again you are so paranoid you seem to be inventing things.
And at no point did I insinuate that Pedrosa would be beating Stoner if it was not for his injuries, at the time I was stating that Dani was faster currently at Brno (before the race) and that his style seemed
to be suiting the Honda better at that particular point in time last weekend, as Dani was consistently over half a second quicker. If Dani was not injured this season who knows how he would go. The fact of the matter is
Dani has beaten Stoner this season, and Stoner has beaten Dani more. One of them has been injured seriously twice. Who knows what would have happened.
The fact is that the 2011 Honda has provided an advantage to Stoner, he is the only one using it properly and is therefore the best of the Honda riders, and the field. Just as the 2002 Honda provided an
advantage to Rossi, who was able to best use it, just as the 2010 M1 was for Jorge and he was the one who was able to best use, just as the 2007 Ducati was for Stoner and he was the one who was best able to use it it and so on.
The rider needs the right equipment, you do not walk all over this field without the right bike.
I'm not saying that his success is less meritorious than it appears at all, your paranoia is clouding your judgement, Credit must be given where credit is due, and my argument was and is with overly bias Stoner Fans not
accepting the fact that others are also contributing to these wins. Just as others have always contributed to anyones wins in the history of the sport.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,467
- Location
- Dont Know
There were actually a lot of riders who had problems and crashed in Germany due to cold temperatures and bad tyres. Rossi was one of those that crashed. He was injured, but didnt break his collar bone like Pedro. Therefore I am outraged there is no 9 page thread on how lucky Rossi was. Why dont people read my posts, fully understand them, appreciate me, and reply how clever I am? I'm really pissed now its all your fault Michaelm I just read an earlier thread where you claimed Doohan was better than Rossi. Thats just not on.
Michaelm - going to PI this year?
Michaelm - going to PI this year?
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
I must say, I have thoroughly enjoyed this exchange between Mackie and Michaelm. In particular, Michaelm, man dude, you've been a bit of a pit-bull, albeit, a very clever, witty, and calculating pit-bull. You continue to be diplomatic, but with a bit of edge, I like it. And Mackie, you've also been very clever yourself, a bit more shifty and tricky to pin down. I haven't quiet figured you out Mackie, but my first impression was one I originally had with J4rno, that is to say, as subtle as he was, I still detected a certain familiar bias (yes, of course, we all have them). I think that's what Michaelm has detected too, and he's locking horns with you. Its been quite enjoyable reading the back and forth. Please, continue.
