stoner not happy

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 1 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>and frankly if I met folk who carried on like a clown all the time and smiled constantly .... I'd thing I was in "gagaland".Then may I suggest staying away from politcians & circus'

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pinky @ Mar 1 2008, 08:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>thats why rossi got on so well with edwards. edwards couldnt win a race and never will.

if horhey was a shir rider like edwards, rossi would ne horheys best friend


Yeah, get all the "shir" riders on Yamahas. Are "shir" riders from an area of Northern Iraq? Do they race to Shirian Law? They sound like the may not get on with the "sunni" riders. If this is the case, given the situation between America and Iraq and present, I'd be very surprised to learn that Edwards was infact "shir."

One last question, why would Rossi "ne" Lorenzo's best friend? I take it this is an abbreviation of "knee" and I'm intrigued as to why Vale would want to to that to a rivals best friend. Is it psychological? Did Stoner knee Uccio at the start of last season? Was Rossi unsure of what someone who would knee his best friend would be capable of on track?

Jeez, this bike racing is getting too confusing for me guys.

Pete

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jazkat @ Mar 1 2008, 01:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i was just saying that alot of people dislike him cos of his attitude not because he is WC, i know he wants to win all the time which is fair but why cant he just smile if hes not at the top and take it on the chin???

Almost all serious bike racers have this attitude, its standard.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Mar 1 2008, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, get all the "shir" riders on Yamahas. Are "shir" riders from an area of Northern Iraq? Do they race to Shirian Law? They sound like the may not get on with the "sunni" riders. If this is the case, given the situation between America and Iraq and present, I'd be very surprised to learn that Edwards was infact "shir."

One last question, why would Rossi "ne" Lorenzo's best friend? I take it this is an abbreviation of "knee" and I'm intrigued as to why Vale would want to to that to a rivals best friend. Is it psychological? Did Stoner knee Uccio at the start of last season? Was Rossi unsure of what someone who would knee his best friend would be capable of on track?

Jeez, this bike racing is getting too confusing for me guys.

Pete
It is getting fairly confusing for me too.

To say stoner is as good as rossi after winning only one world championship is obviously stupid.

However if rossi is now and forever unbeatable and success by anyone now or in the future can only be ascribed to tyres/engine power/ tc / favourable astrology or whatever perhaps motogp racing should be ceased forthwith having already reached its apotheosis. Why is any achievement by stoner uniquely due to an unfair advantage when every bike on the grid is subject to the same rules?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 1 2008, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It is getting fairly confusing for me too.

To say stoner is as good as rossi after winning only one world championship is obviously stupid.

However if rossi is now and forever unbeatable and success by anyone now or in the future can only be ascribed to tyres/engine power/ tc / favourable astrology or whatever perhaps motogp racing should be ceased forthwith having already reached its apotheosis. Why is any achievement by stoner uniquely due to an unfair advantage when every bike on the grid is subject to the same rules?

^+1000

spot on

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 1 2008, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It is getting fairly confusing for me too.

To say stoner is as good as rossi after winning only one world championship is obviously stupid.

However if rossi is now and forever unbeatable and success by anyone now or in the future can only be ascribed to tyres/engine power/ tc / favourable astrology or whatever perhaps motogp racing should be ceased forthwith having already reached its apotheosis. Why is any achievement by stoner uniquely due to an unfair advantage when every bike on the grid is subject to the same rules?

The best post in this entire thread.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 1 2008, 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>To say stoner is as good as rossi after winning only one world championship is obviously stupid.


Hi Michael, I've heard this said many time and I always cringe when I read it. I don't understand why the number of championships won is the standard for saying a rider is "as good" as another. I understand this statement to mean that only when another rider wins the same number of championships can he ever be better. Why? Is it not possible that Stoner is "better" at the craft of racing at the moment that Rossi? Let me put it this way, is Mick Doohan "as good" as Stoner? Well if you mean, do they have the same number of titles, then the answer is "no". But if your intent is to say who is the better rider at the moment, then its Stoner. So why can't we say Stoner is "as good" as Rossi? Afterall, he is the champ at the moment. Stoner devastated the competition this last season, and I'd say nobody is "as good" as him at the moment until some proves they can beat him over a season (regardless of how many previous titles the other riders have).



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 1 2008, 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Why is any achievement by stoner uniquely due to an unfair advantage when every bike on the grid is subject to the same rules?

Your second point is very intriguing. You are so correct; however, we still attempt to equate the rider’s superiority of his craft to the results they achieve. Yet, the reality that there is NOT a level playing field in MotoGP seems to be lost (even more so in this series than other standard bike series). So then why say a rider is “as good” as the other? (I fall into the trap myself). Can their really be a measure of what rider is “better” or “best” when you couple their achievements with the wide-ranging performance of their equipment?

It is common here for people to crap on Nascar, however, they have something that more emulates a level playing field in that their cars are virtually a control spec vehicle. To add to that, there is a series called the IROC race where they prepare a field of identical cars and invite drivers from various racing disciplines (Nascar, Outlaw Sprint car, CHAMP/IRL car, etc., even some Super/Motocross racers have joined in years past). This is the closest you can get to an actual spec car race where the equipment is taken out of the equation (for the most part).


Not sure how old you are, but back in the day (80s) there use to be an “all star” race called the Transatlantic Trophy. Have you ever heard of it? It use to pit the top motorcycle racers of the US vs. UK of the time on fairly spec superbikes. It would be great if someday we get to the point where some smart rich guy can organize an open invitation race with a fully spec/control bike and have the best racers of the day.

Then we can all say who is the best racer of the day.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Mar 1 2008, 07:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Hi Michael, I've heard this said many time and I always cringe when I read it. I don't understand why the number of championships won is the standard for saying a rider is "as good" as another. I understand this statement to mean that only when another rider wins the same number of championships can he ever be better. Why? Is it not possible that Stoner is "better" at the craft of racing at the moment that Rossi? Let me put it this way, is Mick Doohan "as good" as Stoner? Well if you mean, do they have the same number of titles, then the answer is "no". But if your intent is to say who is the better rider at the moment, then its Stoner. So why can't we say Stoner is "as good" as Rossi? Afterall, he is the champ at the moment. Stoner devastated the competition this last season, and I'd say nobody is "as good" as him at the moment until some proves they can beat him over a season (regardless of how many previous titles the other riders have).

Interesting discussion I have to agree that no matter how many titles a rider has done and what they have achieved, there is no reason why another rider cannot be better than them at a given time. However when discussing the merits of riders whos careers are over, it is my belief that it is impossible for any rider to be better than a rider with more world titles than them with no exceptions.

I see no reason why Stoner cannot currently be considered better than Rossi, because he did a better job in 2007.

I also see no way that Kevin Schwantz can be considered better than Freddie Spencer

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Mar 1 2008, 07:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Your second point is very intriguing. You are so correct; however, we still attempt to equate the rider’s superiority of his craft to the results they achieve. Yet, the reality that there is NOT a level playing field in MotoGP seems to be lost (even more so in this series than other standard bike series). So then why say a rider is “as good” as the other? (I fall into the trap myself). Can their really be a measure of what rider is “better” or “best” when you couple their achievements with the wide-ranging performance of their equipment?

Equipment is never going to be equal outside of a total spec series, but i don't think this alters a sense of equality in achievement in the world championship. A rider must take on board career management, meaning that it is their responsibility to use the circumstances to make their way to the best possible teams and equipment. Factory riders aren't drawn out of a hat, they are selected by impressing the right people, taking the right risks and achieving the right things. For this reason i don't believe a rider can be critisized for having the best equipment, as they are responsible for the positiont they find themselfes in by account of their own actions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 1 2008, 07:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interesting discussion I have to agree that no matter how many titles a rider has done and what they have achieved, there is no reason why another rider cannot be better than them at a given time. However when discussing the merits of riders whos careers are over, it is my belief that it is impossible for any rider to be better than a rider with more world titles than them with no exceptions.

I see no reason why Stoner cannot currently be considered better than Rossi, because he did a better job in 2007.

I also see no way that Kevin Schwantz can be considered better than Freddie Spencer

Watch yourself with that quote Tom! I agree with you but the Schwantz thing can hit some raw nerves!


I also have to say that it would take a lot to convince even a long time Rossi fan like me that Rossi was a better rider than Stoner last year.

Will Stoner equal Vale's achievements? Well certainly not in the lower classes, and he has a bit to go on the big bikes.

Pete

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Mar 1 2008, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Watch yourself with that quote Tom! I agree with you but the Schwantz thing can hit some raw nerves!

I know, i'm not trying to start trouble again i just thought it was a good example.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (basspete @ Mar 1 2008, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I also have to say that it would take a lot to convince even a long time Rossi fan like me that Rossi was a better rider than Stoner last year.

This ties in with the second point i made about equipment innequalities. Rossi's decisions got him where he was in 2007, and the risks he took didn't pay off. For that reason he was beaten.

Jumkie, I don't disagree with your comments on either of my points. We have been over this ground in previous discussions. I think anyone who wins a world championship deserves enormous credit, and I gather some rossi fans devalued hayden's achievement in 2006 as they did stoner's achievement in 2007, to the understandable annoyance of hayden and stoner fans. I think the rational attitude as someone said on another forum is that stoner deserves respect, just not as much as rossi at this stage, and I think this is the attitude of the many rossi fans that I respect ; these include roger m, yamacka 46 and babelfish (you probably disagree with the latter). I think this applies equally to hayden. The other point is that even the great vale had to win a first championship before he could win a second, third, fourth or fifth, and I am hopeful stoner has not won his last championship; again the same applies to nicky.

I think you do have to give extra respect to multiple championship winners in general again as was discussed in a whole thread; it argues for an ability to remain focused and hungry over a period of time apart from anything else, and hayden's and stoner's desire for victory contributed to their individual championships I am sure. Usually if riders are good enough they end up with good enough equipment although politics can intrude, and plenty of apparently talented riders have failed to win on what appeared to be the best equipment. I did follow kevin schwantz during his career, but I am not aware of the politics at that time; did he have offers from other teams but place loyalty to suzuki above his world championship prospects?

I think the identical machinery races in all forms are interesting, but mainly show who is best with that type of vehicle, a bit like IQ tests which do correlate with other things but particularly show whether you are good at IQ tests.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 1 2008, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>However if rossi is now and forever unbeatable and success by anyone now or in the future can only be ascribed to tyres/engine power/ tc / favourable astrology or whatever perhaps motogp racing should be ceased forthwith having already reached its apotheosis.

If Pedrosa had won instead of Stoner there would be none of this talk... its largely due to Stoner not winning titles before he entered Motogp.

end of the day he beat rossi, pedrosa and the current WC at the time Hayden


and beat his teammate on the same bike/tire combo by 150+points

won 10 races, worse result was 6th in a wet race where he needed a tire/bike change.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pinky @ Mar 1 2008, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>end of the day he beat rossi, pedrosa and the current WC at the time Hayden


and beat his teammate on the same bike/tire combo by 150+points

won 10 races, worse result was 6th in a wet race where he needed a tire/bike change.
True.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Mar 1 2008, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If Pedrosa had won instead of Stoner there would be none of this talk... its largely due to Stoner not winning titles before he entered Motogp.
Both of those points are utter bollocks IMO

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Mar 2 2008, 08:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If Pedrosa had won instead of Stoner there would be none of this talk... its largely due to Stoner not winning titles before he entered Motogp.

So what about Doohan, Shwantz, Gardner, ..... and a few others ?


On the greatest of all time crap ..... which ain't worth speculating on

Consider this:

A rider comes in and totally wins everything .... but he rides for only a year then retires .... where would you place him?

Stoner won an aweful lot in 07 and matched many records and beat some .... such a performance is pretty "up there". He does have equal all time season best points score don't forget. So what we saw in 07 was a pretty good ride.

well id say stoner is one of the best riders at the moment to and was last season but alot does have to do with the eqipment not just for stoner but for anyone, if rossi had a bike sutied to him better than stoner did then he probably would have won, same goes for stoner if he had suited machinery (like now) he would beat rossi and has..... but personaly i think if rossi had his perfect setup like stoner and stoner had his (like now) rossi would win hands down.

ive come to realise its really hard to say "who is the best" because there are many different factors that can make it win or loose for a rider but i like rossi because he manages to go quick what ever he uses. even if 2 riders had the same bikes it wouldnt mean it would suit both riders, like ducati now, stoner is sutied to the machine the way it is and thats why ducati havent changed the formula to much, why risk it when the bike is near perfect for there rider???, sad thing tho this is melandris downfall its not suited to his style and he has problems adapting.

this is why i support rossi but for many other reasons also, i would say he was the best (as a all rounder) because the way he just is with a bike, even if hes not winning he always seems to squeeze the best out of a bike to the maximum of what it can give even if its not as fast as others, he also adapts very well to what ever he is riding and you cant deny that because even tho he isnt WC he still finishes near the top.

you can quarantee stoner will be strong again cos no dramatic change has been made but other manufacturers are making drastic changes and havent found there riders something as sutied to them as stoner and ducati, when say honda find a perfect setup they probably wont change the formula to much either if they are winning.

its a real hard subject to tread on but can never really say, the problem i have is if a rider isnt suited to a bike or the bike isnt rite for the rider it makes him look bad, take melandri for instance is he good is he not good??, if the tables were turned and melandri was in stoners shoes would we say stoner isnt so good ?? probably but i can quarante most would say melandri is the best rider.....
its all personal opinion and we can never say for sure who is or was the best and thats because a rider may have never been given that perfectly suited bike in his career, but rossi seems to overcome this to a certain degree.

sorry for the essay i hope you can see my point?and hope every can agree with something from my post, but still from my opinion this generation of rider's rossi is best because even if the machine doesnt suit him he still manages to make it work.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jazkat @ Mar 2 2008, 04:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>if rossi had a bike sutied to him better than stoner did then he probably would have won, same goes for stoner if he had suited machinery (like now) he would beat rossi and has..... but personaly i think if rossi had his perfect setup like stoner and stoner had his (like now) rossi would win hands down.

Stoner's first year on the Duc.

Rossi's 4th year on the Yamaha.

And Rossi could not set it up??

And the Yamaha/ Team is the top team out there for as long as Rossi's team was there.

Surely you can see thats a bit of an anomaly?

I would have thought that after 4 years Rossi had the best bike for Rossi ....


Its all just a silly excuse ..... riders age ..... get used to it. Not many riders last at the top as long as Rossi but one does have to look at it as a reason for the decline in performance. Surely all the anomalous excuses you spout would steer you in that direction