Shwantz !? Whats the go??

Rising Sun said:

Schwantz had seen perhaps half the tracks before his rookie season, not all. Pretty much the same as Spies this year. This is Spies' third year as well. He hasn't won anything yet. Schwantz finished 6 points off of 6th place in 1988, the same ranking Spies will likely obtain (unless Hayden finishes better over the last two races).The ranking difference is negilible. Spies has acquitted himself well in his rookie year, albeit unspectacularly; Schwantz made an immediate impact. Spies maybe more disciplined, but he hasn't shown the will to win yet in MotoGP, and he sure as hell hasn't been more dominant, as of now, than Schwantz.

Click to expand...

He finished in 8th place. As to whether the difference between 6thand 8th are negligible - that's debatable.

Still - Schwantz had raced GP bikes at 7 of 15 tracks - which is a distinct advantage.



Spies looks to end up higher in the points (in his rookie year) than Schwantz did with considerably more track time and more exposure to MGP environment.



And given that most people here will agree that the level of competition among the top 5 competitors is at much higher level than what was extant in Schwantz's time - I might not use the word "spectacular" but 11 points higher than the much more experienced former world champion Hayden is impressive. I'm sure if you asked Nicky how he feels about the difference between his placing and that of rookie Spies - he would not characterize it as negligible.

Thanks for your well informed input Sun. Always a pleasure sir. Kesh, I think you also make a interesting point, but really guys, I don't think there is much in all of this. We can split hairs about what is or is not a rookie season, and who was better, etc. BTW, Kesh my man, nothing about riding the Suz can ever be consider a "distinct advantage". I think a word of caution though is many have compared certain up and comers to Schwantz before, and honestly, it never does that person any favors. KS is a stand alone in his own right and has the respect and numbers to back up his own legacy.



In regard to how it sorta relates here (keeping in mind this tangent is simply because of the suggestion that KS may be considering his own legacy coupled with the insinuation of the thread starter) the fact is, KS has a great friendship with Ben Spies. I think Tom nailed what I was trying to say. And I'll add, I read KS comments as like a affectionate mentor figure, you know, like when a dad says to his boy, yo, don't be intimidated by that other kid, tackle his ....

Rising Sun said:

Schwantz had seen perhaps half the tracks before his rookie season, not all. Pretty much the same as Spies this year. This is Spies' third year as well. He hasn't won anything yet. Schwantz finished 6 points off of 6th place in 1988, the same ranking Spies will likely obtain (unless Hayden finishes better over the last two races).The ranking difference is negilible. Spies has acquitted himself well in his rookie year, albeit unspectacularly; Schwantz made an immediate impact. Spies maybe more disciplined, but he hasn't shown the will to win yet in MotoGP, and he sure as hell hasn't been more dominant, as of now, than Schwantz.

Click to expand...

No doubt Schwantz was badass and a legend "in his time". Different time different erra. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if your not factory your not winning. If Spies can be the best of the rest and somtimes beat the factory rides then he has done something special.



BTW he is set to surpass Hohay's point total in his rookie year.

Keshav said:

He finished in 8th place.

Click to expand...

Yes. 8th place, which was 6 points off of 6th place. The difference between finishing 8th or 6th is negligible. The difference between 2 race wins and 0, is not.

Keshav said:

Still - Schwantz had raced GP bikes at 7 of 15 tracks - which is a distinct advantage. Spies looks to end up higher in the points (in his rookie year) than Schwantz did [in his rookie year] with considerably more track time and more exposure to MGP environment.

Click to expand...

I think track knowledge is overrated, and is used as a crutch sometimes. Schwantz's 2 wins (and a podium in Brazil) in 1988 came at tracks he'd never raced at before. (No doubt he'd tested at Suzuka previously, though, I imagine). Look at Stoner at Aragon; he was the only one not to do any riding on the track before the race weekend. Maybe some riders need that crutch, especially at certain tracks that don't suit their style (or bike), but the cream always rises to the top.. hell, Spies' own WSBK championship is proof of that.

Keshav said:

And given that most people here will agree that the level of competition among the top 5 competitors is at much higher level than what was extant in Schwantz's

time - I might not use the word "spectacular" but impressive will do.

Click to expand...

The top 5 from 1988: Lawson. Gardner. Rainey. Sarron. Magee. They compare very favourably with the current top 5; Stoner and Lorenzo sure as hell wouldn't want to race against them.



I don't think Schwantz made his comments about Spies out of any petty jealousy. Spies has taken a somewhat conservative approach to his rookie year, and Schwantz is speculating whether he'll be able to adjust to the next level in 2011. Maybe the way he conceded the corner to Lorenzo on the first lap at Phillip Island prompted the comment...

Jumkie said:

Thanks for your well informed input Sun. Always a pleasure sir. Kesh, I think you also make a interesting point, but really guys, I don't think there is much in all of this. We can split hairs about what is or is not a rookie season, and who was better, etc. BTW, Kesh my man, nothing about riding the Suz can ever be consider a "distinct advantage".

I think a word of caution though is many have compared certain up and comers to Schwantz before, and honestly, it never does that person any favors. KS is a stand alone in his own right and has the respect and numbers to back up his own legacy.



In regard to how it sorta relates here (keeping in mind this tangent is simply because of the suggestion that KS may be considering his own legacy coupled with the insinuation of the thread starter) the fact is, KS has a great friendship with Ben Spies. I think Tom nailed what I was trying to say. And I'll add, I read KS comments as like a affectionate mentor figure, you know, like when a dad says to his boy, yo, don't be intimidated by that other kid, tackle his ....

Click to expand...

You are of course right that this is all about small points to support opposing opinions. It's at some level apples and oranges.

Yes the Suzuki was not the best platform to launch a GP career - however my point had more to do with the advantage of

time spent learning the circuits and getting in gear with the whole GP circus lifestyle.



Certainly no-one here suggests that my intent was to demean KS. He's still my hero, and for sure - was a legend in his time.

Only time will tell... but barring some unthinkable event, I believe Spies is destined to be a bigger star still.

Rising Sun said:

Yes. 8th place, which was 6 points off of 6th place. The difference between finishing 8th or 6th is negligible. The difference between 2 race wins and 0, is not.





I think track knowledge is overrated, and is used as a crutch sometimes. Schwantz's 2 wins (and a podium in Brazil) in 1988 came at tracks he'd never raced at before. (No doubt he'd tested at Suzuka previously, though, I imagine). Look at Stoner at Aragon; he was the only one not to do any riding on the track before the race weekend. Maybe some riders need that crutch, especially at certain tracks that don't suit their style (or bike), but the cream always rises to the top.. hell, Spies' own WSBK championship is proof of that.





The top 5 from 1988: Lawson. Gardner. Rainey. Sarron. Magee. They compare very favourably with the current top 5; Stoner and Lorenzo sure as hell wouldn't want to race against them.



I don't think Schwantz made his comments about Spies out of any petty jealousy. Spies has taken a somewhat conservative approach to his rookie year, and Schwantz is speculating whether he'll be able to adjust to the next level in 2011. Maybe the way he conceded the corner to Lorenzo on the first lap at Phillip Island prompted the comment...

Click to expand...

We are now officially going around in circles. The last thing I'll say is that KS's comments - if entirely of a positive nature - would have been appropriate

if made in private - directly to Spies. That he should make a comment like that to an interviewer - strikes me as arrogant at the very least. It's not the way

one makes friendly critique to someone who falls into a mentee category.

Keshav said:

We are now officially going around in circles. The last thing I'll say is that KS's comments - if entirely of a positive nature - would have been appropriate

if made in private - directly to Spies. That he should make a comment like that to an interviewer - strikes me as arrogant at the very least. It's not the way

one makes friendly critique to someone who falls into a mentee category.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Good point. The worst part was saying "bla bla bla".

Keshav said:

We are now officially going around in circles.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know.



You seemed to have backed away from the idea that Schwantz finished 22nd in his rookie season, and dropped the belief that Spies was clearly more dominant as of now. That looks like a nice straight line to me!



As you say, 7 wildcards vs 4 wildcards, Transatlantic match racing in England and testing in Japan vs a full year in Europe with WSBK and so on and so on are like apples vs oranges on the path from America to GP greatness.

So, I suppose it boils down to this (somewhat loaded question) when assessing the worth of a rookie season:



If you asked a rider--for their rookie season--would they rather rank between P4-P10 with 0 wins, or in P8 with 2 wins, which would they choose, and which would they view as a greater achievement? Aside from things like bonuses and options on contracts (Hello, Dovi!), I imagine most riders--especially those with the belief that they will be championship challengers in subsequent years--care very little about anything other than P1, with only a minor interest in P2 and 3. I'm not saying that a strong top ten result is not impressive, but do you think that Shinya Nakano would rather polish his trophy for finishing 5th in 2002 for his rookie year, or polish the trophy he would have received if he'd won the German GP?

Keshav said:

The last thing I'll say is that KS's comments - if entirely of a positive nature - would have been appropriate

if made in private - directly to Spies. That he should make a comment like that to an interviewer - strikes me as arrogant at the very least. It's not the way

one makes friendly critique to someone who falls into a mentee category.

Click to expand...

For all we know, Schwantz might've expressed such sentiments to Spies in private, but I guess that's neither here nor there for this arguement. As for making these kinds of comments in public; I think that's just Kevin's style. They didn't strike me as arrogant, just a blunt assessment. He made far harsher comments about Stoner last year. Unlike Casey, I'd be surprised if Ben would be fazed by the comments in the slightest (he did have Mladin for a team mate, after all). He might ponder whether there's any truth to the statements, or use them as motivation, or have a laugh about it the next time they catch up; if he takes umbrage, then Rossi and/or Lorenzo will have a field day in 2011 with the press.

Rising Sun said:

Oh, I don't know.

You seemed to have backed away from the idea that Schwantz finished 22nd in his rookie season, and dropped the belief that Spies was clearly more dominant as of now. That looks like a nice straight line to me!



As you say, 7 wildcards vs 4 wildcards, Transatlantic match racing in England and testing in Japan vs a full year in Europe with WSBK and so on and so on are like apples vs oranges on the path from America to GP greatness.

So, I suppose it boils down to this (somewhat loaded question) when assessing the worth of a rookie season:



If you asked a rider--for their rookie season--would they rather rank between P4-P10 with 0 wins, or in P8 with 2 wins, which would they choose, and which would they view as a greater achievement? Aside from things like bonuses and options on contracts (Hello, Dovi!), I imagine most riders--especially those with the belief that they will be championship challengers in subsequent years--care very little about anything other than P1, with only a minor interest in P2 and 3. I'm not saying that a strong top ten result is not impressive, but do you think that Shinya Nakano would rather polish his trophy for finishing 5th in 2002 for his rookie year, or polish the trophy he would have received if he'd won the German GP?





For all we know, Schwantz might've expressed such sentiments to Spies in private, but I guess that's neither here nor there for this arguement. As for making these kinds of comments in public; I think that's just Kevin's style. They didn't strike me as arrogant, just a blunt assessment. He made far harsher comments about Stoner last year. Unlike Casey, I'd be surprised if Ben would be fazed by the comments in the slightest (he did have Mladin for a team mate, after all). He might ponder whether there's any truth to the statements, or use them as motivation, or have a laugh about it the next time they catch up; if he takes umbrage, then Rossi and/or Lorenzo will have a field day in 2011 with the press.

Click to expand...

Sun, by any chance, are you related to Arrabi?

What can I say? The words "Schwantz finished 22nd in his rookie year" were like a red rag to a bull...

Jumkie said:

Sun, by any chance, are you related to Arrabi?

Click to expand...

Heh, I could never write a poem that long, about just one subject. There would have to ten of them...



Unless, of course, it was about Uccio and Rossi--especially for Jane!

Rising Sun said:

Oh, I don't know.

You seemed to have backed away from the idea that Schwantz finished 22nd in his rookie season, and dropped the belief that Spies was clearly more dominant as of now. That looks like a nice straight line to me!



As you say, 7 wildcards vs 4 wildcards, Transatlantic match racing in England and testing in Japan vs a full year in Europe with WSBK and so on and so on are like apples vs oranges on the path from America to GP greatness.

So, I suppose it boils down to this (somewhat loaded question) when assessing the worth of a rookie season:



If you asked a rider--for their rookie season--would they rather rank between P4-P10 with 0 wins, or in P8 with 2 wins, which would they choose, and which would they view as a greater achievement? Aside from things like bonuses and options on contracts (Hello, Dovi!), I imagine most riders--especially those with the belief that they will be championship challengers in subsequent years--care very little about anything other than P1, with only a minor interest in P2 and 3. I'm not saying that a strong top ten result is not impressive, but do you think that Shinya Nakano would rather polish his trophy for finishing 5th in 2002 for his rookie year, or polish the trophy he would have received if he'd won the German GP?





For all we know, Schwantz might've expressed such sentiments to Spies in private, but I guess that's neither here nor there for this arguement. As for making these kinds of comments in public; I think that's just Kevin's style. They didn't strike me as arrogant, just a blunt assessment. He made far harsher comments about Stoner last year. Unlike Casey, I'd be surprised if Ben would be fazed by the comments in the slightest (he did have Mladin for a team mate, after all). He might ponder whether there's any truth to the statements, or use them as motivation, or have a laugh about it the next time they catch up; if he takes umbrage, then Rossi and/or Lorenzo will have a field day in 2011 with the press.

Click to expand...

I was comparing Schwantz's third season to Spies first.



As to apples and oranges - it appears we pretty much agree.



The rest is highly speculative - hence open to endless discussion and tedious nitpicking.

I certainly never suggested that Spies was potentially upset. To keep this dialog going

you seem inclined to introducing new non-issues to debate. For endless discussion (for me)

there needs to be more meat on the bone. I don't see that here.

Keshav said:

I was comparing Schwantz's third season to Spies first.

Click to expand...

At this point in the discussion, I don't know how you can write that. You are either comparing Schwantz's first full season to Spies' first full season (these are known as rookie seasons!), or, if you really must insist on wildcard rides counting as a season, you are comapring Schwantz's third season to Spies' third season. To rename them as you have done, in order to strengthen your argument, is disingenious--and there is no point in continuing any discussion until you acknowledge this.

Rising Sun said:

At this point in the discussion, I don't know how you can write that. You are either comparing Schwantz's first full season to Spies' first full season (these are known as rookie seasons!), or, if you really must insist on wildcard rides counting as a season, you are comapring Schwantz's third season to Spies' third season. To rename them as you have done, in order to strengthen your argument, is disingenious--and there is no point in continuing any discussion until you acknowledge this.

Click to expand...

Not disingenous. I didn't say his 3rd full season. I referred to his third year doing the circuit.

Don't be so pedantic. It doesn't really serve. I already acknowledged this.



And BTW - how can you assert that experience "is a crutch"? That is on the face of it an absurd thing to say.

All riders and respected journos would disagree with you. You debate with real intellectual vigor - but really...

on that point (an important one) I would say you will find yourself in an unsupportable Berry M minority.

just curious....would KS have the amount of practice with the bike and team during his wildcard rides like Spies had for his current rookie season (with extremely heavy support from Yamaha)??



if not them it is really hard to say KS's wildcard rides would count as his rookie season.



Plus....Spies worked his way up the ladder to the premier class....AMA Superbikes (before they were neutered), then WSBK, and finally MotoGP. All bikes were 4 stroke 200hp plus. Spies said himself the bikes are not that different right now other than a bit lighter and better adjustments.



KS came from 4 stroke racing in AMA to 2 stroke 500cc GP racing.....that is quite a learning curve IMO. KS's Suzuki then was probably the equivalent to Spies's Tech3 ride now....so KS winning 2 races is pretty amazing (look at how everyone cheered when Spies got a pole and 2 podiums). In current points KS had 131 point through 15 races not scoring in 4 rounds, Spies is at 152 through 15 rounds not scorning in only 2 races...so with the 500 being a monster and tire tech being trash back then...leaving an extra 50 points on the table is not bad and puts him close to Spies in numbers.



Of course comparing a 1980's 500cc GP season to a 2010 800cc season is really impossible.....

Keshav said:

Not disingenous. I didn't say his 3rd full season. I referred to his third year doing the circuit.

Don't be so pedantic. It doesn't really serve.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty fine distinction. But the fact still remains, why isn't it also Spies' "third year doing the circuit"? Seriously, this is not pedantry; this is you trying to have it both ways--claiming it took Schwantz 3 years to get to eigth in the championship rankings, but Spies only one year to get to a (provisional) sixth. It seems to me to be at the heart of your argument about Spies already having achieved more than Schwantz

Keshav said:

And BTW - how can you assert that experience "is a crutch"? That is on the face of it an absurd thing to say.

All riders and respected journos would disagree with you. You debate with real intellectual vigor - but really...

on that point (an important one) I would say you will find yourself in an unsupportable Berry M minority.

Click to expand...

Yes that was poorly worded. A better way to phrase it would be that too many riders use track knowledge (actually the lack thereof) as an excuse when the results don't come. Barry Sheene often used to moan about riders who were heroes at particular circuits and also-rans at others. The proof of track knowledge not being as important as is often suggested, is everywhere. The history books are full of it. Just to take a handful of American riders: Roberts, Spencer, Schwantz all went to the GP tracks in Europe and won on their first visits. Or to take a more recent example, going the other way, in 2008 on his first visit to Laguna Seca, Dovizioso, riding a satellite Honda beat Laguna-expert Hayden on a factory Honda (both on Michelins) for position. Spies himself did the same thing at WSBK level in his championship year.

FACTORY said:

just curious....would KS have the amount of practice with the bike and team during his wildcard rides like Spies had for his current rookie season (with extremely heavy support from Yamaha)??



if not them it is really hard to say KS's wildcard rides would count as his rookie season.

Click to expand...

One of the British guys might be able to answer this better, but in his 1986 wildcards KS rode the square four RG 500 (which he may have also used in the Transatlantic match races, although I think most of them were 4 stroke events). Practice times on race weekends were a lot longer, though (aah, I remember Thursday practice sessions...) Suzuki was terrible in the GPs that year, only manging 27 points in the constructors championship. His wildcards in 1987 were on the new RGV4 500; Suzuki did even worse in the constructor's that year, finishing behind Elf and Cagiva. But I'm not sure how much factory support Suzuki were giving their full-time riders, let alone a wildcard like Schwantz. I think it's fair to say that Spies got a lot more support with his wildcard rides.



But then, as you say, there is a whole host of reasons why comparing a 1988 to a 2010 season is only a hypothetical exercise.

Rising Sun said:

That's a pretty fine distinction. But the fact still remains, why isn't it also Spies' "third year doing the circuit"? Seriously, this is not pedantry; this is you trying to have it both ways--claiming it took Schwantz 3 years to get to eigth in the championship rankings, but Spies only one year to get to a (provisional) sixth. It seems to me to be at the heart of your argument about Spies already having achieved more than Schwantz





Yes that was poorly worded. A better way to phrase it would be that too many riders use track knowledge (actually the lack thereof) as an excuse when the results don't come. Barry Sheene often used to moan about riders who were heroes at particular circuits and also-rans at others. The proof of track knowledge not being as important as is often suggested, is everywhere. The history books are full of it. Just to take a handful of American riders: Roberts, Spencer, Schwantz all went to the GP tracks in Europe and won on their first visits. Or to take a more recent example, going the other way, in 2008 on his first visit to Laguna Seca, Dovizioso, riding a satellite Honda beat Laguna-expert Hayden on a factory Honda (both on Michelins) for position. Spies himself did the same thing at WSBK level in his championship year.

Click to expand...

But this isn't Spies' 3rd year in MGP. He had I believe two wildcards, His year in WSBK was largely at circuits not used in MGP and was riding not on a MGP bike

but rather on a Superbike utililizing a very different kind of tire.



Yes - inarguably there are some very special riders who for whatever reason - are able to shine at a new track - but they are much more the exception than the rule.



What you said about wins as opposed to overall points standings - sounds very good, and in terms of what is more personally gratifying to a rider - wins are doubtless

the obvious choice. However - to the team and the sponsors (as per Hayden's 2006 year) overall results and reliability are what really matter. Even discounting the two

years before his official rookie year - it took KS 6 years to win the championship. I believe I recall that he had vastly more wins than Rainey - but because of his lack of

consistency and general recklessness - he only ever won the one championship. Tho it goes without saying - I will say it anyhow - that his heart and his style and his

dogged determination in the face of injuries and ...... bikes - are what makes him a legend. Spies is less dramatic - ala Roberts - but will in a quiet Lawson-like fashion

win more championships - IMHO.

I didn't really want to get into comparisons of this sort again, but I feel I must to respond to your points. I'll try to be brief

Keshav said:

But this isn't Spies' 3rd year in MGP. He had I believe two wildcards, His year in WSBK was largely at circuits not used in MGP and was riding not on a MGP bike

but rather on a Superbike utililizing a very different kind of tire.

Click to expand...

When I mentioned a few posts earlier about 7 wildcards (Schwantz) vs 4 wildcards (Spies), they weren't numbers pulled out of a hat. The difference of 3 hardly equates to "2 years", and had Spies taken the ride right in front of him at Assen in 2008, it would have been only 2 less wildcards. Given the difference between support levels for those wildcards, 2 strokes vs 4 strokes, the fact that Spies spent a whole year in Europe in 2009 winning a championship, I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between 1986-1987 and 2008-2009 as to what experiences each rider had behind them going into their rookie seasons (or at least not enough to use as a major point in an argument!). And who knows what kind of tyre issues Schwantz had to deal with in that period?



To put it another way, 1986-1988 Schwantz had 22 GP starts; 2008-2010 Spies will have had... 22 GP starts!



A better comparison for Spies 2010 season are the rookie seasons of Lorenzo and Dovizioso from 2008, at least in terms of points. Spies needs to only 9 points to go past Dovi, which seems likely, but needs 28 to get past Lorenzo's mark (which would require at least a 3rd and a 4th place). The pluses and minuses here are more easily quantifiable: Spies has a lot more experience with bigger bikes and 4 strokes vs the years the other two spent in the GP paddock (and all that entails); a higher degree of difficulty I'd say for Spies, and Lorenzo having ridden a full factory-supported bike is again in Spies' favour--although Dovi's 2008 satellite Honda would be a plus for him against Spies. If I had to rank the three, I'd put Lorenzo first (he was under a lot more pressure in 2008 than Spies this year), Spies second and Dovi third; but all three have had excellent rookie seasons. Will Spies kick on like Lorenzo, or 'stagnate' like Dovizioso?

Keshav said:

What you said about wins as opposed to overall points standings - sounds very good, and in terms of what is more personally gratifying to a rider - wins are doubtless

the obvious choice. However - to the team and the sponsors (as per Hayden's 2006 year) overall results and reliability are what really matter.

Click to expand...

For the championship I agree with you, whole-heartedly, because points are the system we use to determine the winner. P2 and P3 have their lesser prestige, too, and there are always contract considerations. But beyond that--for rookies/riders not in the thick of the championship hunt--I'm not so sure. As an extreme example, what would Rizla Suzuki prefer: Capirossi has an abyssmal 43 points this season, with a best place finish of 7th. His season has been ruined by injury, reliability problems and a bike that's a heap o' ...... He should limp home at Valencia to around 50 points. What if they could've got 50 points with 2 wins? 2 wins and a string of crashes/bike failures/injuries probably still looks a lot more palatable to the team and the sponsors than 0 wins, a string of crashes/bike failures/injuries/and poor finishes--and, perversely, would even show that there is more potential in the bike!



Schwantz's 1988 season is a less extreme example of this, I think. 2 wins, 2 more podiums, 1 fastest lap, a handful of solid top 5/top 10 finishes and some spectacular crashes. I'm sure the sponsors were happy, and the team, too (no doubt they'd've liked less crashes, but it's easier to teach a fast rider not to crash than it is to teach a slower rider to go fast; Revin' Kevin unfortunately being a bit of a slow learner in that department).

Keshav said:

Even discounting the two years before his official rookie year - it took KS 6 years to win the championship. I believe I recall that he had vastly more wins than Rainey - but because of his lack of

consistency and general recklessness - he only ever won the one championship.

Click to expand...

It did take him 6 years to win a championship; he was indeed a slow learner. 1989 could have been his year, with a bit better (and more reliable) bike and if not for too many first lap crashes. But in 1993 Rainey himself said that he knew it would be tough because he saw that Schwantz had finally wised up. As cruel fate would have it they both only crashed out once in that season Schwantz (and Barros) were taken out by Doohan at Donington, and Rainey's life changed forever at Misano. Wayne ended his career with 3 championships, and 24 wins; Kevin 1 championship and 25 wins.

Keshav said:

Spies is less dramatic - ala Roberts - but will in a quiet Lawson-like fashion win more championships - IMHO.

Click to expand...

That he may, the potential is certainly there. As Schwantz ever so bluntly put it, though, he needs to take it to the next level to do it. But at least Kevin did say at the end: "He'll do well."

It seems a bit premature at this point to be comparing Schwantz and Spies early careers, especially since so much has changed. On top of that, rookie seasons are often not totally reliable indicators of future success so this comparison is even less likely to produce a decent prediction to how these two riders careers will compare in the long run. Look at Simoncelli's rookie seaosn in 250, or even Stoner's rookie season compared to Pedrosas in 06.



The thing that has struck me about Spies is that he is such a quick learner, especially of new circuits. For him it seems to make little difference if he knows his way or not. I don't necessarily agree with sun that track knowledge is not so important, i think it changes from rider to rider, as does the significance of adapting to different bikes (think how Foggy always struggled or how many laps Hayden has to do), or the culture change from the GP paddock to any other. But with Ben, he arrived in WSBK last year and was a front runner from the word go, but as he got settled with the team and bike and paddok etc, his didn't make any signifcant improvement. If the same happens in motogp he may well stagnate like Dovi. The other consideration though, are that he's moving up to a factory team so a lot will change there, and that in WSBK his initial position at the start of the season was as a front runner and race winner, and big jumps are hard to make when you are already at the front. Next year chasing the 'aliens' on equal grounds with some experience may well be the challenge Ben needs to raise his game again. So far he has risen to every challenge he's had, so how far that will go is a matter of faith.

Rising Sun said:

I didn't really want to get into comparisons of this sort again, but I feel I must to respond to your points. I'll try to be brief

When I mentioned a few posts earlier about 7 wildcards (Schwantz) vs 4 wildcards (Spies), they weren't numbers pulled out of a hat. The difference of 3 hardly equates to "2 years", and had Spies taken the ride right in front of him at Assen in 2008, it would have been only 2 less wildcards. Given the difference between support levels for those wildcards, 2 strokes vs 4 strokes, the fact that Spies spent a whole year in Europe in 2009 winning a championship, I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between 1986-1987 and 2008-2009 as to what experiences each rider had behind them going into their rookie seasons (or at least not enough to use as a major point in an argument!). And who knows what kind of tyre issues Schwantz had to deal with in that period?



To put it another way, 1986-1988 Schwantz had 22 GP starts; 2008-2010 Spies will have had... 22 GP starts!



A better comparison for Spies 2010 season are the rookie seasons of Lorenzo and Dovizioso from 2008, at least in terms of points. Spies needs to only 9 points to go past Dovi, which seems likely, but needs 28 to get past Lorenzo's mark (which would require at least a 3rd and a 4th place). The pluses and minuses here are more easily quantifiable: Spies has a lot more experience with bigger bikes and 4 strokes vs the years the other two spent in the GP paddock (and all that entails); a higher degree of difficulty I'd say for Spies, and Lorenzo having ridden a full factory-supported bike is again in Spies' favour--although Dovi's 2008 satellite Honda would be a plus for him against Spies. If I had to rank the three, I'd put Lorenzo first (he was under a lot more pressure in 2008 than Spies this year), Spies second and Dovi third; but all three have had excellent rookie seasons. Will Spies kick on like Lorenzo, or 'stagnate' like Dovizioso?





For the championship I agree with you, whole-heartedly, because points are the system we use to determine the winner. P2 and P3 have their lesser prestige, too, and there are always contract considerations. But beyond that--for rookies/riders not in the thick of the championship hunt--I'm not so sure. As an extreme example, what would Rizla Suzuki prefer: Capirossi has an abyssmal 43 points this season, with a best place finish of 7th. His season has been ruined by injury, reliability problems and a bike that's a heap o' ...... He should limp home at Valencia to around 50 points. What if they could've got 50 points with 2 wins? 2 wins and a string of crashes/bike failures/injuries probably still looks a lot more palatable to the team and the sponsors than 0 wins, a string of crashes/bike failures/injuries/and poor finishes--and, perversely, would even show that there is more potential in the bike!



Schwantz's 1988 season is a less extreme example of this, I think. 2 wins, 2 more podiums, 1 fastest lap, a handful of solid top 5/top 10 finishes and some spectacular crashes. I'm sure the sponsors were happy, and the team, too (no doubt they'd've liked less crashes, but it's easier to teach a fast rider not to crash than it is to teach a slower rider to go fast; Revin' Kevin unfortunately being a bit of a slow learner in that department).





It did take him 6 years to win a championship; he was indeed a slow learner. 1989 could have been his year, with a bit better (and more reliable) bike and if not for too many first lap crashes. But in 1993 Rainey himself said that he knew it would be tough because he saw that Schwantz had finally wised up. As cruel fate would have it they both only crashed out once in that season Schwantz (and Barros) were taken out by Doohan at Donington, and Rainey's life changed forever at Misano. Wayne ended his career with 3 championships, and 24 wins; Kevin 1 championship and 25 wins.





That he may, the potential is certainly there. As Schwantz ever so bluntly put it, though, he needs to take it to the next level to do it. But at least Kevin did say at the end: "He'll do well."

Click to expand...

Good post. I've enjoyed our dialog. Overall I don't think we're very far apart on things in general. I would like to continue - not because I have any need to

have the last word - but just for the fun of it, however I'm overwhelmed at work and trying to hustle my ... off to finish fulfilling orders before leaving on

vacation and this is really eating up time at a moment when I'm really under the gun. I'm more than happy if you have the last word. Oh and BTW - welcome

to Powerslide.

Cheers,

K