As Talpa says, much comparison of would he, could he, will he is futile, but it can make for good discussion and fun so here goes.
V, you placed the following comment so I thought that I would just reply for funs sake and to keep the thread alive a bit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VHMP01 @ Oct 30 2009, 03:03 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The only evidence (other than greatly respected opinions as you mention)
is that Stoner did not do well in a Honda back in 2006.
Added Note: And the 800cc Honda has been developed around and with Pedrosa in mind I suppose.
Not sure what criteria you use for determining that Stoner did not do so well as for mine (and I believe others as well) he achieved a high level of success for a first year MGP Rookie.
- He finished 8th in the championship with 119 points including 7 non-pointscoring rides (generally accidents, although one DNS due to accident)
- He finished above Elias, Hopkins, Vermuelen, Tamada, Gibbers, Nakano, Carlos Checa and others (have not checked for their individuals history or season record for comparison).
- The LCR team finished in 8th in Team Standings (of 11 listed) which placed them above Tech3 Yamaha, Konica Honda and Pramac Ducati. Not impressive until one recalls that they were a single bike/rider team (as was Konica Honda with Tamada) competing against the two rider teams (of which Tech3 and Pramac were part).
The above of course refers to 2006 results only as that was the lone year on the Honda.
On top of this being the first year for the rider in the class, it was also the first year for the team in MGP and it is commonly accepted that their level of equipment was not that of the top privateer teams and was classed as tier 2/3 in terms of supply from both Honda and other suppliers (ie. Michelin etc).
So for mine, to say that he did not do well is whilst a matter of personal opinion a bit of a misnomer as he did quite well when all factors are looked at and exceeded many more seasoned competitors or better equipment.
Now a slight aside.
One of the most common criticisms of Stoner's 2006 was his constant crashing (a fair call), and many credit the Bridgestone with being a large part of his success (whether fair or not, it is recognised). So, shy is it that people will not accept that the Michelin possibly was the reason or a large contributor (along with riding style - push the front) for many of his accidents in 2006?
As for the comment that the Honda has been developed around Pedrosa, no doubt that is fair and accepted.
But as we know, some guy called Rossi move from a high performing factory and took another bike from a different manufacturer to the title by developing the bike further (opinions vary about how bad the bike was - not for this debate), so why could another rider not do the same with Honda?
And for the record, I actually believe that the top 4 are clearly that, the best 4 in the game at the moment (wanted to use the word today, but we have seen what happens when it is used -
)and could likely swap to another bike and be as successful as they are on their current steeds. The only bike I am not convinced about is swapping to the Ducati but I am not sure why, although I tend to think that all riders would adjust eventually (ie. across a season) with the possible exception of Pedrosa (just supposition)
Gaz
Bunyip does not seem to read or acknowledge Facts put in front of him in clear white paper, and comes with pretentious silly statements.
