Rossi vs Stoner part II

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jazkat @ Feb 7 2008, 03:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i have given stoner credit here about 10 times.

the times the yam broke down and times the tyres gave in were a big loss in valuable points if that hadnt of happend who knows.


Come on man - you give him virtually no credit ever and use excuses to downplay his ability.
Without Ducati you say Casey would be nowhere, but without Casey Ducati would not have won any of the titles they won in 2007 and they won the lot.
There is only 1 rider on the grid in your books and that's fine, but I don't understand the need to downplay other riders abilities or achievements. We have 3 motogp champions lining up on the grid at Qatar in 2008. If Dani wins in 2008 and it's quite possible, we will have 4 motogp champions. Surely that's good for the sport?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nomad @ Feb 6 2008, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't exactly call 2007 a fair fight, would you? Rossi's Michelin's were woeful for most of the season, and the one time he had consistent tires he started 11th on the grid and went on to win the race, over taking Stoner in the process. I find this thread pretty funny. Stoner has won 1 championship, Rossi has won 7. No contest in my book.
and for me that's proof vale has not "lost it", just had a below par package.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Frizzle @ Feb 6 2008, 10:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Come on man - you give him virtually no credit ever and use excuses to downplay his ability.
Without Ducati you say Casey would be nowhere, but without Casey Ducati would not have won any of the titles they won in 2007 and they won the lot.
There is only 1 rider on the grid in your books and that's fine, but I don't understand the need to downplay other riders abilities or achievements. We have 3 motogp champions lining up on the grid at Qatar in 2008. If Dani wins in 2008 and it's quite possible, we will have 4 motogp champions. Surely that's good for the sport?

what are you onabout???

i could fill a whole page with the credit comments i gave when he won the championship, i wasnt sour or anything???

honestly id say about 10-15 times ive gave credit once or twice in the last week???

TOTALLY SORRY ROG I PRESSED THE WRONG REPLY BUTTON EDIT UR POST LOL, IT MUST HAVE PRESSED THE WRONG ONE COS I DIDNT HAVE MY ROSSI GLASSES ON

edited

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jazkat @ Feb 7 2008, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>what are you onabout???

i could fill a whole page with the credit comments i gave when he won the championship, i wasnt sour or anything???

honestly id say about 10-15 times ive gave credit once or twice in the last week???

TOTALLY SORRY ROG I PRESSED THE WRONG REPLY BUTTON EDIT UR POST LOL, IT MUST HAVE PRESSED THE WRONG ONE COS I DIDNT HAVE MY ROSSI GLASSES ON


its easy to be domminating when you have the best equipment and the machine suits you.............

and i believe rossi could win on the duke hopefully something that will be seen in the future.

on equal machinery stoner would never beat rossi, without the ducati stoner is a crash test dummy and what a dummy he is...........

if stoner wasnt on a duke last season ....would he.....be......world champion
nope.

could stoner have one the title on the yamaha ......no way in hell

if rossi had the advantage casey had last season he probably would have one every single race.

stoner is a good rider and very fast but you clowns are acting like he is a chosen one.


ummmm that rider aids are getting to advanced and making noob riders look good and like they have been doing it for years..............lol


Here is 3 posts of yours from this thread alone.
Any time you have grudgingly given him any credit it has been followed by the word but - followed by an excuse that reasons he didn't win because he has ability it's because of all other factors.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Feb 6 2008, 09:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And so how has winning affected Rossi's "head"? As I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have yet to see a post race celebration to the magnitude of Rossi's "look-at-me" productions.

You haven't watched him very long, have you? I also think you are of those that dosent recognize 250 and 125cc championships as true world championships, yes? In that case we can surly say that his celebrations started long before his "true" championships. Give the guy some credit, for better or worse he is pasionate about his racing, and he do love to win and the will to put behind it. Like it or not but he is showing genuine happines and in the past he was little more than a kid that loved to have and make some fun. No we can't have that kind of showing off, better call it showing off and his victories going to his head.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Frizzle @ Feb 6 2008, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>its easy to be domminating when you have the best equipment and the machine suits you.............

and i believe rossi could win on the duke hopefully something that will be seen in the future.

on equal machinery stoner would never beat rossi, without the ducati stoner is a crash test dummy and what a dummy he is...........

if stoner wasnt on a duke last season ....would he.....be......world champion
nope.

could stoner have one the title on the yamaha ......no way in hell

if rossi had the advantage casey had last season he probably would have one every single race.

stoner is a good rider and very fast but you clowns are acting like he is a chosen one.



ummmm that rider aids are getting to advanced and making noob riders look good and like they have been doing it for years..............lol


Here is 3 posts of yours from this thread alone.
Any time you have grudgingly given him any credit it has been followed by the word but - followed by an excuse that reasons he didn't win because he has ability it's because of all other factors.


yep and thats correct maybe i was a bit hasty with the crash test dummy part so we can leave that one out, so you personaly think that if he wasnt riding the duke he would still be champion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nomad @ Feb 6 2008, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Excuse me, but how dare you tell me to go educate myself in relation to MotoGP. I have been watching the top class since the early nineties. Witnessing Doohan win all his titles, with a hand operated rear brake. Now that was class.

I do find it funny however, that you tell me to go educate myself, when you mention that Honda and Yamaha have traded titles year in year out in the modern era. Strange comment to make seeming the last time Yamaha won a world title before Rossi moved there was in 1992 with Wayne Rainey. The following year it was a Suzuki with Kevin Schwantz, and then it was Doohans run of five on the Honda. Then Suzuki and then Honda again all the way up to Rossi on the Yamaha in 2004. Yamaha were hardly trading year in year out with Honda now were they. Please check your own facts before slating other people, FOR THEIR OWN OPINION. After all, isn't that the point of these threads? to offer your own opinion?

Ok, first of all Nomad, welcome to this site.

If I had a nickel for every time I hear somebody say something to the effect like, "I've been watching MotoGP since the first time chariot races started in Rome bla bla bla..." as if this somehow gives people a more accurate perspective. Well, I Google all my information, so I guess I must be wrong (inside joke with Pete).

Anyway Nomad, calm down. Lets take a closer look at what you said, since you've been "personally watching" MotoGP since dirt was created. I first responded to your "opinion" that this years was "not fair" for poor Rossi due to "woeful" tires. (I had heard them called many things this season, but I think "woeful" is a first). And to give some credence to your assertion, you site the time Rossi comes from behind to win a race. Well, I could easily say that in that case, the Bridgestones failed to last the entire race as much as you want to claim that the Michelins were decent. So then how do you explain the other 3 wins by Rossi? Oh, did he do it on "woeful" tires then too? Please man, we have heard this argument about tires a plethora of times, and by some die-hard members like Babel, and really it has failed to hold water. Sure there were times that Bridgestone dominated the podium, but so did Michelin on a few, and if you consider the races that the top Michelin contenders were either taken out by DePuniet/Elias or self attrition like self-crashes (Hayden, Pedrosa, Rossi) and engine failures (Hayden, Rossi) then the tire picture would have been much different. Not to mention, since I'm sure you paid attention that 2 of the 3 top final championship-standing riders were on those "woeful" Michelins. Ah its so easy to poke holes in the argument that" "Stoner won because of his tires/Rossi lost because of his "woeful" tires, bla, bla, bla..." So in my first reply, this was my point.

Now lets take a look at your very weak rebuttal:

You took issue with me saying that Yamaha and Honda have been trading championships in the modern era. Keep in mind, I said this because of the other insinuation that Ducati catapulted Casey; conversely, that the Yamaha was to blame for Rossi's poor performance. Well, lets take a look and see from those pesky facts to see who is more right.

Lets say for the sake of argument we go back a nice round number of years, 30. That takes us back to 1978 and rightly so because after all, that is when King Kenny Roberts won his three championships (on a Yamaha). I could easily make the argument that this was the ushering in of the "modern era" because of the improvement in development to machines, gear, equipment, and safety made by Kenny Roberts Senior.

Ok then, lets see what I said. I said that Yamaha and Honda traded championships year in and out. You disagreed. Let see what actually happened since 1978. In that time, Suzuki won 4 titles. Yup that's right only four in 30 ....... years. The last two were in 1993 & 2000, before that you would have to go back to 81,82. So that means between 1982 and 1999 (let me help you with the math here) that means only ONCE did a non-Honda/Yamaha have a title in <u>17</u> ....... years! That is it, ONCE, in 1993. (And it took an extraordinary man like Kevin Schwantz, in an extraordinary circumstance to achieve that ONE exception). Other than these exceptions Honda and Yamaha have traded titles. That means that other than that, and until Ducati won this year, in the last 30 years, with little exception, the ONLY name you have seen attached to a title has been Honda/Yamaha. Do you think I’m still wrong in saying that they “traded titles”? Please man; you need to get up pretty early to dispute the overwhelming facts with me.

Keep in mind, I said this because I was making the point that Rossi was not on a “....” bike when he won those 5 titles, because after all, he was on a Honda/Yamaha—the most dominant brands in MotoGP/500 in the modern era! He was simply on the best machine and the best tires in the modern era. Oh, did that sting a bit? Well, that’s the same ...... insinuation people have been making about the sole Ducati title that Stoner won, and you threw your hat into that mix.

Here is a happy face for you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mekizo @ Feb 6 2008, 07:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>.... this is stupid, is stoner was on a yamaha he would crash all the time
the only reason hes not crashing as much as he used to is coz of the ducati's
great electronics package......

basiclly stoner was a decent individual but the fame and fortune whent straight to his head and now hes a cocky little .... tard... .... the bloke never even won a 250cc championship
Is adriana your ex-girlfriend or something?

All these guys have egos, it goes with the territory. I agree that stoner does not have the charm, and indeed probably not the intellect of rossi but in interviews in the australian press that I have seen heard or read even this year he has been nothing but humble. Even when he was about to win the championship he said in the sydney newspapers that his success was stunning and unexpected to him, and that he had been looking for top 5 at best. I thought the world championship t shirt mentioning valentino as one of his heroes was classy too.

I think he is uncomfortable with the overseas press and sometimes is not very adroit with his responses to leading questions, and he is also sometimes trying to play mind games as they all do at times, including valentino. I think he also got annoyed at one stage that the european press was giving him little or no credit, as did his fans including me. The latter situation has well and truly now been redressed by the over the top attitude of some stoner partisans. You can be a stoner fan and say that he had a great season and deservedly won the championship without denigrating rossi at all, and I personally don't think it is appropriate to compare him with an all-time great like rossi at this stage.

That said I think stoner and the ducati are a perfect match, and the yamaha seems to have been setup to play to totally different riding strengths, and I doubt the ducati would suit valentino as well but as I have said before if anyone could adapt to it, it would be him. I think that stoner and ducati may retain just enough edge for this year's championship, but I see things as being much more difficult after this. Rossi will always be a chance as long as he keeps throwing his leg over a bike.

As for the poll I did not vote because I am heartily sick of the topic, but at this stage valentino has won championships on 5 different bikes and stoner only on one, suggesting that valentino at the very least is more versatile. However given where they are in their respective careers it might be a good idea to consider the question in 5 or 6 years rather than now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Feb 7 2008, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>
Ok, first of all Nomad, welcome to this site.

If I had a nickel for every time I hear somebody say something to the effect like, "I've been watching MotoGP since the first time chariot races started in Rome bla bla bla..." as if this somehow gives people a more accurate perspective. Well, I Google all my information, so I guess I must be wrong (inside joke with Pete).

Anyway Nomad, calm down. Lets take a closer look at what you said, since you've been "personally watching" MotoGP since dirt was created. I first responded to your "opinion" that this years was "not fair" for poor Rossi due to "woeful" tires. (I had heard them called many things this season, but I think "woeful" is a first). And to give some credence to your assertion, you site the time Rossi comes from behind to win a race. Well, I could easily say that in that case, the Bridgestones failed to last the entire race as much as you want to claim that the Michelins were decent. So then how do you explain the other 3 wins by Rossi? Oh, did he do it on "woeful" tires then too? Please man, we have heard this argument about tires a plethora of times, and by some die-hard members like Babel, and really it has failed to hold water. Sure there were times that Bridgestone dominated the podium, but so did Michelin on a few, and if you consider the races that the top Michelin contenders were either taken out by DePuniet/Elias or self attrition like self-crashes (Hayden, Pedrosa, Rossi) and engine failures (Hayden, Rossi) then the tire picture would have been much different. Not to mention, since I'm sure you paid attention that 2 of the 3 top final championship-standing riders were on those "woeful" Michelins. Ah its so easy to poke holes in the argument that" "Stoner won because of his tires/Rossi lost because of his "woeful" tires, bla, bla, bla..." So in my first reply, this was my point.

Now lets take a look at your very weak rebuttal:

You took issue with me saying that Yamaha and Honda have been trading championships in the modern era. Keep in mind, I said this because of the other insinuation that Ducati catapulted Casey; conversely, that the Yamaha was to blame for Rossi's poor performance. Well, lets take a look and see from those pesky facts to see who is more right.

Lets say for the sake of argument we go back a nice round number of years, 30. That takes us back to 1978 and rightly so because after all, that is when King Kenny Roberts won his three championships (on a Yamaha). I could easily make the argument that this was the ushering in of the "modern era" because of the improvement in development to machines, gear, equipment, and safety made by Kenny Roberts Senior.

Ok then, lets see what I said. I said that Yamaha and Honda traded championships year in and out. You disagreed. Let see what actually happened since 1978. In that time, Suzuki won 4 titles. Yup that's right only four in 30 ....... years. The last two were in 1993 & 2000, before that you would have to go back to 81,82. So that means between 1982 and 1999 (let me help you with the math here) that means only ONCE did a non-Honda/Yamaha have a title in <u>17</u> ....... years! That is it, ONCE, in 1993. (And it took an extraordinary man like Kevin Schwantz, in an extraordinary circumstance to achieve that ONE exception). Other than these exceptions Honda and Yamaha have traded titles. That means that other than that, and until Ducati won this year, in the last 30 years, with little exception, the ONLY name you have seen attached to a title has been Honda/Yamaha. Do you think I’m still wrong in saying that they “traded titles”? Please man; you need to get up pretty early to dispute the overwhelming facts with me.

Keep in mind, I said this because I was making the point that Rossi was not on a “....” bike when he won those 5 titles, because after all, he was on a Honda/Yamaha—the most dominant brands in MotoGP/500 in the modern era! He was simply on the best machine and the best tires in the modern era. Oh, did that sting a bit? Well, that’s the same ...... insinuation people have been making about the sole Ducati title that Stoner won, and you threw your hat into that mix.

Here is a happy face for you.


Ouchey Belted with facts.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Feb 7 2008, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Is adriana your ex-girlfriend or something?

Funny you should say that ....

I live somewhat nearby to Stoner's place of residence, in his younger years. My son was working at a place a few months back and was discussing his interests with another young fellow ..... motorbikes came up ... then motogp .... then Casey Stoner ...... at which time the other guy said .... I have a mate who hates Casey Stoner!! .... when questioned why the mate said ..... because he reckons Casey stole his girlfriend!! ..... but he did go onto say the "jilted-guy" actually is now quite jovial about it .... so I suspect there is no real animous ( Thats pre-Adrianna though )

Where are you from Mekizo?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Feb 7 2008, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>
Ok, first of all Nomad, welcome to this site.

If I had a nickel for every time.........

...... into that mix.

Here is a happy face for you.

Whats the big idea making sense like that!! .... there is no place on a public forum for making sense!!

Great posts Jumkie! But you appear to have WAY too much spare time. haha.

It is essentially impossible to fully rate each rider against the other(s) unless you agree to a certain set of criteria. Otherwise you get a rough idea, but not necessarily totally accurate. Perhaps between seasons there could be a series of events where all riders race on a particular bike with the same tires, in turn, with, say a week or two to get used to the package. Week 1, we see Stoner + Rossi race each other on Yamahas, week 2 on Ducatis, then Hondas, Suzukis and later Kawasakis. Then tally up vicories or best lap times and declare the winner.
But that will never happen, so the best we can do is compare riders on the same bike-tyre package.
Sooooooo, Rossi is better than Edwards, Stoner better than Capirossi and Melandri etc etc. But are they always each getting the best stuff?? I believe, as per ducati policy, that Stoners teammates get the same stuff, BUT I have heard from reliable sources that Edwards didn,t always get the same spec engine or the tyres he wanted on race day (Michelin or Rossi wanted to see how the alternative choice tyres would perform.) There is A LOT OF POLITICS in motogp, as to who gets the best stuff. Stoner in the first half of 2006 rode brilliantly on a 3rd string Honda, until the Honda and Michelin heirarchy denied him tyres/parts that Pedrobot got. Only then did he crash a lot. No, this is not a conspiracy theory, but most likely the truth. That first half-season convinced me he was a future championship contender. So Stoner excelled on a 3rd rate Honda and on the Ducati...........seems to me to be at least as versatile as Rossi. (But then I,m a little biased?).. I truly believe that Stoner would be a LOT closer to Rossi on his Yamaha than Rossi would be to Casey on his Ducati. SO, basically Jazcat .....you got it wrong. haha. But we will probably never get to find out.

They are both great riders, and if it leads to great close racing, then we should all be happy.
I,m just a little fearful (For Rossi fans) that Casey will again be a bit too fast in 2008.

PS> Lorenzo, Dovisioso and De Angelis look like adding a lot of interest to the pointy end of the field. (From 3rd or 4th position though). Dovisioso could be a real dark horrse for rookie of the year. Toseland wont shine this year- too many tracks to learn. Maybe 2009??


Jumkie.......keep up your reasoned sensible posts to keep the bigots at bay.........

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Frizzle @ Feb 6 2008, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ouchey Belted with facts.
No ..... And I could have added that the two Suzuki wins of 1993 & 2000 have been debated as "flukes". In 1993, Wayne Rainey had that career ending injury; otherwise it is conceivable that again that year a Yamaha would have taken the title only to then see a Honda string of wins with Doohan. In 2000, another title that has been debated as a "fluke" (a transition year of engine configurations and multiple winners) was sandwiched by two Honda titles no less (1999 & 2001). So had these two Suzuki titles NOT happened (and its quite conceivable that they may not have occurred), then we would have seen a string from 1982 to 2006 (let me help you with the math) that is; <u>25</u> damn years that titles were exchanged by <u>ONLY</u> a Honda/Yamaha! That's breathtaking, and this guy disagreed with my statement that ONLY these two brands have overwhelmingly traded titles??? Wow, maybe he needs to take a closer look, eh.

As they say, facts are a mothafuker.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bunyip @ Feb 6 2008, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Great posts Jumkie! But you appear to have WAY too much spare time. haha.
Actually, I don't have "spare" time, I just procrastinate everything else. Its my disease really.

Thanks Bunyip. I was going to mention Stoner's start to the 2006 season. Considering that he wasn't on the number 1 factory Honda with the best team and mechanics in the paddock he actually did better than Rossi did when he started in the senior class.
Stoner Scored pole position in the second race he contested and barely lost the 3rd race to Melandri who was on a (arguably) better Honda and was in his 4th year of MotoGP and had come 2nd in the Championship the year before.
He then ended up crashing, a lot. But he complained that they wouldn't set the bike up the way he wanted. Even worse, I have heard (can't site definative source), that the team would sometimes change some setting on the bike, between practice and the race, without telling him.

That's why Casey said he was so pleased to be with Ducati as they listened to him. And that's why Ducati said that Casey is a genius. Because he knows how to set the bike up. Probably comes from having to work on and set his own machinery up. I am only assuming that because i don't think he came from a particularly affluent background.

Rossi, on the other hand, has always had the top gear and team, and with his talent has therefore usually been the fastest guy out there.
But then again, the only time the fastest rider has not won the championship is when he has thrown it away, or had some bad luck. Think Schwantz in 1989 and Doohan in 92/3. Maybe a couple of other years for Schwatnzy actually.

Anyway, that's my 2 bobs worth for the benchracing for now.

I say the poll is unfair.

If it is same bike and same tyres it must be a time trial and that means the poor bugger going second gets used tyres.

Totally unfair.







Garry

There is an existing mechanism for assessing the ability of riders. It is called the motogp world championship. At the moment rossi has five premier class titles, a legendary achievement. Stoner and hayden have one each, both very significant achievements. Why not see how they go in this and future years? Rossi's place in bike racing history is secure. Equally however, I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss stoner's championship as lucky, due to the bike etc until there is evidence this is the case, such as him not performing well and going back to frequent crashing in this and subsequent years.

It is a stupid topic but I may as well throw in my two cents worth;

IF you want to compare Rossi and Stoner, you can ONLY compare them after their first two seasons in the premier class ... and that is all we can compare them on (as Stoner has only been there for two years) then their achievements are equal ... after two years they both had one premier class title! As other posters have stated ... if we are all here in a few more years we can make further comparisons! As at today ... we can't!

As for championships ... Valentino has five in eight years, Nicky has one in five years and Casey one in two years! Everyone else has sweet .... all!

As Jumkie says … drop the seven titles for Valentino ........! (He has five in eight years and that is a very enviable conversion rate and is better than the other two 2008 contracted riding champions) If we go down the seven titles for Valentino path then Pedrosa has three, Edwards two, Lorenzo three, Toseland two, Vermuelen one, blah, blah, blah!… WRONG! They have NONE like all the other riders on the grid (excluding the aforementioned riders). This is MotoGP and that is ALL that counts! I’d like to see someone try and argue that Max Biaggi wouldn’t trade his four 250 titles for one 500cc/MotoGP title … that would be a pointless discussion!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (krusty @ Feb 7 2008, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It is a stupid topic but I may as well throw in my two cents worth;

IF you want to compare Rossi and Stoner, you can ONLY compare them after their first two seasons in the premier class ... and that is all we can compare them on (as Stoner has only been there for two years) then their achievements are equal ... after two years they both had one premier class title! As other posters have stated ... if we are all here in a few more years we can make further comparisons! As at today ... we can't!

As for championships ... Valentino has five in eight years, Nicky has one in five years and Casey one in two years! Everyone else has sweet .... all!

As Jumkie says … drop the seven titles for Valentino ........! (He has five in eight years and that is a very enviable conversion rate and is better than the other two 2008 contracted riding champions) If we go down the seven titles for Valentino path then Pedrosa has three, Edwards two, Lorenzo three, Toseland two, Vermuelen one, blah, blah, blah!… WRONG! They have NONE like all the other riders on the grid (excluding the aforementioned riders). This is MotoGP and that is ALL that counts! I’d like to see someone try and argue that Max Biaggi wouldn’t trade his four 250 titles for one 500cc/MotoGP title … that would be a pointless discussion!
I obviously agree with you.

To argue by analogy, which is admittedly not intellectually rigorous, consider hewitt and federer who are contemporaries as tennis players. Hewitt beat federer most of the time when they were younger, and I think won his 2 grand slams before federer won any. So does this mean he is not better than hewitt now? Hewitt had a reliable game which was more instantly successful, federer played closer to the edge and needed more time to perfect his game. Pedrosa and stoner may be similar. On the other hand, pedrosa may win the next 3 or 5 world championships and stoner's world championship may prove to be an artifact of the rule changes as the stoner detractors say. However, this has not happened yet.