Stoner - TC got me out of trouble

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 29 2008, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I can't argue with anything Dani achieves hes done well up until motogp.... so if he wins this year thats fine with me.

If a rider has true talent he should be able to demonstrate it at an earlier age and without a ducati


With every post, you are just making yourself look sillier.
A simple acknowledgment that you posted pieces from an article based on lies would have been enough. Instead of admitting your mistake, you try to justify it.

Predictable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phleg @ Jan 28 2008, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No it wasn't. Stoner had been in 250's previously in 2002, I think.

But I remember he went 250,125,250,moto.

Sorry, it piqued my anorak.
Oops, your anorak is quite right! I'd completely forgotten about that 250 season he had before dropping back to 125s.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 28 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I can't argue with anything Dani achieves hes done well up until motogp.... so if he wins this year thats fine with me.

If a rider has true talent he should be able to demonstrate it at an earlier age and without a ducati


Andrew, what is it about Stoner that seems to scare you so much?

And why must talent (as you put it) be displayed at an early age to make a rider worthy or 'true talent'?

Many riders are late bloomers and really is 21 old?

I mean, if you 'must have' displayed talent at a young age then obviously the likes of Doohan, Rainey, Schwantz, Lawson, Spencer etc etc must just have been lucky because they obviously do not possess 'true talent'?

And given your statements regarding age, does this mean that Bayliss for example does not have 'true talent'?

You seem to be placing a lot of argument on the Ducati argument but hey, as has been argued many times three others had the opportunity and they failed (by comparison).





Garry

Stoner is the second youngest 500/Motogp champion, after Spencer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>He doesn't scare me, hes arrogant that pisses me off for someone who maybe got a lucky ride afterall.... it worked out and now i'm gonna have to watch his arogant lil ... next year



Well in the lower classes theres more riders under 21 winning titles now.



None of those riders entered the World championships in the lower classes.
I know Rainey won the national title which i think is now the AMA.



Its obviously a big disandvantage not coming through the ranks of motogp... Colin likewise.




I don't think Stoner could have done any better than them... the bridgestones where not as competitive as they are now. Even in 2006 they where only able to show promise on 3 or 4 tracks.

Not only Ducati, but Suzuki, Kawasaki have moved forward.


You weren't Iraqi information minister at all were you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>He doesn't scare me, hes arrogant that pisses me off for someone who maybe got a lucky ride afterall.... it worked out and now i'm gonna have to watch his arogant lil ... next year


Has he been arrogant to you or do you get the impression from what you see/read that he is arrogant, as perceptions are often wrong.

That aside, all top flight athletes have a level of arrogance about them, otherwise they would likely not succeeed within their chosen field. To reach the level of a Stoner (or Rossi, Tiger Woods etc) you have to be single minded and focused, often being prepared to be 'dmeanding' and 'conceited' to get what you want. It may not be pleasant but given that top flight sport became business many years ago you have to be an ....... to achieve.
But, there is a big difference between a being ruthless in public and ruthless in private and I have not seen CS display this attribute in public.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well in the lower classes theres more riders under 21 winning titles now.

Which proves what?

There are age limits in the 125cc so the Champions should be getting younger and really, the 250cc champions have always tended to be nearer 20 than 30.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>None of those riders entered the World championships in the lower classes.
I know Rainey won the national title which i think is now the AMA.

So is it only those riders that come up via the feeder GP classes that do not have 'true talent' if they fail to succeed at the top class?

With respect but to me that whole assertion seems ridiculous as if you succeed in any level than you have been a success. But that success does not make you a better rider (or worse) than someone who succeeds at another as each class is different. Certainly, if someone achieves across multiple disciplines or classes than that should definitely weigh in their favour to some degree, but failure to succeed should not prohibit the deserved kudos of another.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Its obviously a big disandvantage not coming through the ranks of motogp... Colin likewise.

Well given that MotoGP is only the four strokes I don't agree, but that is just me letting go of my pet hate as MotoGP is not the 125/250cc classes, they remain Grands Prix.

But I do know what you mean and would say that the early days of four stroke MotoGP have not been kind to those bought up solely on four strokes. This In find interesting given the success in the two stroke era of those not bought up on two stroke racing (ie. MD, FS, EL, WR, KS etc). But I do expect this to change over time although I would also say that cream will always rise to the top no matter their background.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't think Stoner could have done any better than them... the bridgestones where not as competitive as they are now. Even in 2006 they where only able to show promise on 3 or 4 tracks.

Not only Ducati, but Suzuki, Kawasaki have moved forward.

My comments were not aimed at previous years but the three other Ducati riders (well 4 if you include Hoffman) of 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I heard Stoner wanted to ride the bike differently than suggested, ducati saw this was faster and all the development went that direction, meanwhile Capi was stuck with a bike that didn't work for him for much of the season.

I have not hear or read that anywhere other than a few posts on here, so any back up evidence or articles woudl be appreciated, although I seriously doubt it to be the case.

Personally I would expect that Ducati were fully behind Capirex at the season start because he was the #1 rider and expected to succeed. I then expect that they were surprised by CS and given the decision by Ducati to cut Capirex in favour of MM I would say that yes, they would have developped the bike for CS above Capirex. But, this decision would not have been made until around mid year and by then it was obvious that CS had found what he needed whereas Capirex was already struggling.
To me, if what you say is true it was purely a business decision and has nothing to do with CS but likely more to do with poor performance by LC which saw his contract not renewed.




Oops, you had been editing while I was replying so just adding this bit

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Capirossi was doing all the winning in 2006 so he was capable of winning more so with bridgestones improvement in 2007

I do not believe it was the rule changes as he was a 250 champion, Ducati took the decision to go with Stoner simply because he was initially fast... lucky bugger

Well I certainly don't remember Capirex doing 'all the winning' in 2006 but yes he did win. But what does that prove?

As for your last line, well that would be laughable if it were true (and I recognise it as opinion) as no business, no matter who would take a risk of developing a bike purely for a rider who is unproven. The risk both in terms of financial for the team and practical in terms of bike development would mean that any decision of that nature would be considerably to risky, especially for a company such as Ducati.




Garry

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Frizzle @ Jan 30 2008, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You weren't Iraqi information minister at all were you?


tanks, what tanks ?

Andrew when you're in a hole mate you should stop digging and throw away the shovel. Can you hear me down theeeerrrrrreeeeeee..........?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I hope it hits home this time, because its my last contribution to this thread.
We'll miss you

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Stoner never lit the world on fire, until this past season.
According to your standards.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>He did race in 125 in spain with THE top team, and did well, but.... His first year in 125 sucked.

His first year in 250 sucked too. Though at times he was fast. He has complained, as reason for his results of having "lesser equipment". But in 03 he was with a full factory team.

More nonsensical Sport Rider quotes

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And in 125 and 250, there IS a single tire manufacturer. Dunlop. While he did good in 250 with aprillia, he was with a full factory team again - but this time the BEST factory bike, hands down.


Honda's RS 250 is a client bike with factory support, unlike aprillia. The Aprillia wins and attracting top talent is for a reason. Wanna win in 250, you need a factory Aprillia or else superiour talent.

Or have Honda shrink the RS250 to fit your frame and noone elses. Tony Elias and Roberto Rolfo complained about the bike when they first got on it. Something along the lines of WTF? Im going to have to put myself through a hot wash to fit the ...... thing. Wonder why they shrunk it? Sounds familiar...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Stoner complained crashing and lack of results were due to not getting top stuff with the honda LCR; that his bike was not as fast, and his tires were not A type. True. He had a good point.

I'm glad someone did

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What is more, he made a point to say he did not change his riding style (difficult thing to do in a season) - further making the point that his old bike and tires "sucked".

So this is also true?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Now he complains the paddock and press does not acknowledge that he won due to his talent; but fails to see the contradiction. So, before he did poorly because: The bike, the team and tires were ....; but now he has won because he is frucking good.

Isn't this true also? So his bike wasn't as fast and he had crap tyres? True. Good point. Since when has he said is wasn't a team effort? He has consistently complimented the tyres, bike and engineers. He gets pissed with the moron journo's that can't acknowledge that he was the only rider to extract the potential out of the machine in 2007.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Anyway, any top 250 rider could do the same on the duc, unless there is some major change of direction or rules.

Absolutely one of the stupidest comments I've read. 2 former 250 W/champions have struggled with the machine. 1-1.5 seconds a lap slower at this level is ......

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 31 2008, 06:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It IS the bike. But IT is built, by chance or on purpose for a 250GP rider. Ducati would have better hired any 250GP young guns, and see if indeed the bike is "IT" But, it may seem... why bother. Ducati, unlike Honda does want the podium full of their bikes or that the factory bike is beaten. Just ask Barros.

Incopaiereensibleeel. I don't know why you try to justify your comments. Any 'facts' you include don't ever seem tp support your arguments. Stick to this 'Rossi is the best, everyone else is .....'

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (an4rew @ Jan 30 2008, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Now he complains the paddock and press does not acknowledge that he won due to his talent; but fails to see the contradiction. So, before he did poorly because: The bike, the team and tires were ....; but now he has won because he is frucking good.

Anyway, any top 250 rider could do the same on the duc, unless there is some major change of direction or rules. In fact, under a somewhat equal situation, like the last race at valencia, despite having a great EMS launch, Pedrosa - his 250 nemesis, toasted Stoner.

It IS the bike. But IT is built, by chance or on purpose for a 250GP rider. Ducati would have better hired any 250GP young guns, and see if indeed the bike is "IT" But, it may seem... why bother. Ducati, unlike Honda does want the podium full of their bikes or that the factory bike is beaten. Just ask Barros.
Prior to last year everyone that I know of who has won a world championship has been ....... good and had good equipment, so I think it is legitimate to claim to be ....... good if you win one. Of those who have not won world championships, some are probably ....... good and never got a good enough bike, others may be no ....... good .

Call me wedded to aristotlean logic , but you also seem to be maintaining mutually contradictory positions on the two sides of this argument ie that it is legitimate to say that stoner only beat rossi and pedrosa because he had better equipment last year but any losses by stoner cannot be attributed to the same thing. I would have thought ducati producing a better bike than the factory honda or yamaha team is such an unlikely occurrence that it should be applauded, and I don't have much sympathy for riders who have always had the best equipment in the past and are likely to have such equipment again in the future.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vale4607 @ Jan 31 2008, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Incopaiereensibleeel. I don't know why you try to justify your comments. Any 'facts' you include don't ever seem tp support your arguments. Stick to this 'Rossi is the best, everyone else is .....'
Bravo!

I considered responding to an4rew's diatribe but lost the will to live.

Everyone I know of that has won a world championship has been ....... good and had good equipment.

Until another 250 rider actually performs well on a ducati, it is hard to see that there is any evidence for a claim that any 250 rider could ride one to the top of the podium. It is vaguely possible that stoner is doing well because he is better at riding an 800 than a 250 . If you win the olympic 100 metre freestyle, they usually don't refuse to give you the gold medal because the guy who came second has beaten you previously in breast-stroke.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Jan 31 2008, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you win the olympic 100 metre freestyle, they usually don't refuse to give you the gold medal because the guy who came second has beaten you previously in breast-stroke.
That's seriously classic.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Jan 31 2008, 02:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think it is legitimate to claim to be ....... good if you win one. Of those who have not won world championships, some are probably ....... good and never got a good enough bike, others may be no ....... good . how true!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vale4607 @ Jan 31 2008, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Incopaiereensibleeel. I don't know why you try to justify your comments. Any 'facts' you include don't ever seem tp support your arguments. Stick to this 'Rossi is the best, everyone else is .....'well said vale, good on you for bothereing at all.

i told you to throw away the shovel andrew but you can't help yourself,
spouting out more balls. you should take vale's advice,
it'll get you in less trouble. the 250 history lesson ( or rather your take on it )
was paticularly amusing, read up on it, the 2004 season being
another example of a bike being downsized and tailor-made
to suit a particular rider and in an effort to wrestle the 250 title
from aprillia, rolfo even ran a 2003 fairing to help him last
race distance and stop getting cramp in his legs, on the tiny honda,
which had a factory fettled motor, the nsr250 was done away with
after 2001, in case you're interested. it just so happens i'm reading
a lenghty and hugely enjoyable article by sir alan cathcart
from motorcycle racer, jan '05, all about shitheads 04 honda.
it's a great read. you should hear what he says about rossi's 04 m1, in the same mag