Tardozzi: Stoner is the best rider in MotoGP

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nghiemlong @ Jan 13 2010, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Rossi is one of the top athlete of the decade, no one can deny it, so why do we need more discussion.

Wow it shows you how lucky we are in MGP then!!

Currently we have Rossi ( athlete of the decade ) and Stoner ( best rider ever ) in MGP

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jan 13 2010, 12:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Wow it shows you how lucky we are in MGP then!!

Currently we have Rossi ( athlete of the decade ) and Stoner ( best rider ever ) in MGP
Yeah right!!! whatever. Somehow your best rider only manage to win 1 championship in 9 year career so far in 125,250 and motogp.Impressive record for best rider in the world.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ptk50 @ Jan 12 2010, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I never claimed that straight line speed was the defining factor - More to the point - the 2007 Duc was carrying more gyroscope magic than any other bike, which allowed Stoner to prevent Rossi from building a clear lead (with a lot less marelli magic) in the twisties and then be able to blast past him on the straight with an undeniably higher top speed. The higher top speed was the critical decisive factor, which when combined with the lead Ducati had in electronics that contributed to Stoner's success.
Ah yes, the old bike that rides itself but only when stoner is on it theory. You guys are in a basically impregnable position regarding tardozzi's comment given that rossi has won the last 2 championships, but apparently you still feel obliged to discredit other riders which is what mainly gets the goat (so to speak) of non rossi fans. Anything that keeps the forum going in the off season is good though, I guess.

As I have said previously, I think it is a bit rich for supporters of a factory yamaha and/or honda rider to complain that the rider who won ducati's single championship had a marked/unfair technical advantage.

double

“Ducati has the best rider in the championship, Nicky Hayden – and I say that with no fear of being misinterpreted.” Jumkie circa 2010

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MdubSTYLIE @ Jan 13 2010, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>He is a few fries short of a happy meal and he has had a pretty good career! Com'on know I kid, I kid. I feel casey is the least in tune with all that it takes and all there is to being a professional motorcyclist. I call him stupid in a "bike smarts" kinda way not that I think he is actually a stupid person.

I think that anyone that races bikes at this level is pretty 'stupid'.
Missing the 'Self Preservation' genes. Particularly the road racing - Isle of Mann style etc

I love to watch, would love to have a ride on a GP bike, but wouldn't even nearly have big enough balls to ride on the limit, or, more to the point, race on the limit.

I'm not specifically a Stoner fan, and I am actually a big fan of Rossi's, but the blind defence of Rossi by the boppers, against anything that even questions him, is priceless.
Rossi is the greatest ever, and his record will probably never be beaten, but I think Stoner is the best right now.
Rossi might find himself running third next year behind Stoner and Jorge.
Maybe fighting with Pedro if Honda get their .... together.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Jan 12 2010, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Here we are up to 5 pages, crash.net is well over 300 posts on the same topic. The thread for Rossi's athlete of the decade topic only just made 2 pages. If the boppers don't watch out they may make Stoner the most bankable rider on the grid
Oddly, crashnet have just started 2 new stoner threads .

Nothing like a bit of Stoner praise to keep the yellow army interested and hence the fan numbers up for dorna

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jan 13 2010, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>“Ducati has the best rider in the championship, Nicky Hayden – and I say that with no fear of being misinterpreted.” Jumkie circa 2010
Nice one.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nuts @ Jan 13 2010, 11:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think that anyone that races bikes at this level is pretty 'stupid'.
Missing the 'Self Preservation' genes. Particularly the road racing - Isle of Mann style etc

I love to watch, would love to have a ride on a GP bike, but wouldn't even nearly have big enough balls to ride on the limit, or, more to the point, race on the limit.
Really competitors don't think this way. Its not stupid, just natural... Not many people would want to be an ice hockey goalie facing a 100mph rock-hard disk, but if you've done it since you were six years old there's no fear, its natural, its just what you do... same with ridin' on the edge.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jan 13 2010, 12:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Gee haven't I seen this type of hocus somewhere before ?

How do you explain that Rossi ran the same electronics, and Capi same electronics same bike same tyres same oils same fuel etc. etc. etc.?
I'm sure you and I have lots of the same electronics inside our computers. So why don't we write the exact same things?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 13 2010, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm sure you and I have lots of the same electronics inside our computers. So why don't we write the exact same things?

Well thats software ..... now you are saying its the software .....

ok ..... if I was to remotely believe you knew a thing about it...... why was Stoners software better?

Someone has made a sweeping statement that the "electronics" were better ( even though they were of the shelf Marelli stuff ), you have come a step closerto validity by attempting to rectify the error in say it is the software.

So with all this conviction that it was the software, by what means or measure was it better?

The silly thing is, in the equation:

Stoner + S(s/w) > Rossi + R(s/w)

The Rossifans ( such as yourself ) have made the blind assumption that:

"Rossi must be better than Stoner!!" therefore S(s/w) must have been better than R(s/w)

Many folks ( eg Tardozzi ) have since come forward to categorically give you their informed decision that you are wrong and that you are misinterpreting evidence .

But no, the fairytales continue

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ptk50 @ Jan 12 2010, 09:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I never claimed that straight line speed was the defining factor -

The higher top speed was the critical decisive factor,



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jan 12 2010, 10:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I made a new years resolution to be nice to the Rossi boppers, but I have decided to extend my goodwill to include idiots. You get a pass.

Sorry, thats gotta be the third pass you've given me this year! But there is a message behind the stiring... Riders like Schwants who are as rapid as anyone but crash too much easily create the perception that they could be the champion most seasons they start, while a 'relatively' slow and steady rider doesn't give that impression so easily (think Nicky).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Jan 13 2010, 12:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well thats software ..... now you are saying its the software .....

ok ..... if I was to remotely believe you knew a thing about it...... why was Stoners software better?

Someone has made a sweeping statement that the "electronics" were better ( even though they were of the shelf Marelli stuff ), you have come a step closerto validity by attempting to rectify the error in say it is the software.

So with all this conviction that it was the software, by what means or measure was it better?

Better or not is completly irelevant to my point. It's widly and well documented that Ducati took home the software development part of their TC controll in 2006/2007, with the help of Ferarri I seem to recall. Ducati did not use off the shelf stuff in 2007, Yamaha did, so the two systems were very different.

Over time things tend to be simplyfied and that is very true regardinng the "electronics", live with it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 13 2010, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Better or not is completly irelevant to my point. It's widly and well documented that Ducati took home the software development part of their TC controll in 2006/2007, with the help of Ferarri I seem to recall. Ducati did not use off the shelf stuff in 2007, Yamaha did, so the two systems were very different.

Over time things tend to be simplyfied and that is very true regardinng the "electronics", live with it.

I think you are making up "fairystories" again. Show me the articles that show these differences and your "recollections" ..... didn't come from the same sleep session your observations of throttle control, and your expertise in Gyroscopes did it?

Wow - 2010 just like every other year. There's been a few witty comments in between 5 pages of ..... Still a few more months till Stoner wins Qatar. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Jan 13 2010, 03:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sorry, thats gotta be the third pass you've given me this year! But there is a message behind the stiring... Riders like Schwants who are as rapid as anyone but crash too much easily create the perception that they could be the champion most seasons they start, while a 'relatively' slow and steady rider doesn't give that impression so easily (think Nicky).
Ok, I'll play ball Tom. Here is what I think is missing in everybody's assessment. I've said this many times, that MotoGP is not to be taken completely at face value in terms of results vs. rider ability. It’s a concept that is lost time and time again; though it’s so obvious, it’s a mystery why this characteristic of the sport always gets lost--its a prototype series where the machine has much to do. I'm one who agrees with Tardozzi in principle, though it’s impossible to prove. So we have what we have here on this thread, as Son of Doohan so eloquently put it "5 pages of ....". Its because many here are simply cheerleading for their rider as a fan as appose to what is the character of this sport combined with rider talent.

All I ask is for people to compare Rossi with those on similar equipment vs. Stoner on similar equipment. This is the crux of evidence where one should look to for some light on this particular subject. Rossi has had to fend off Lorenzo to the point of demanding he be eliminated from the team. Edwards has had a few good seasons on said equipment (very similar to the ebb and flow of Rossi on the tire transition). Even Toesland in his rookie season was decent but didn't back it up while Edwards had a brilliant year. Now compare this to Stoner and other Ducati riders. Stoner stands alone, because frankly he is that good of a rider. It's worth mentioning that the opposition point to the transition year in 07 to say Stoner was aided by a superior machine but these people have yet to explain why this perceived advantage did not carry over to other Ducati riders. Here is what I gather from this; Stoner must be on the very limit to keep up with the Yamahas. Much more so than other brands resulting in some crashes. You look at this and erroneously think, well its because they have some inherent flaw of consistency (as your laughable comparison to Schwantz). I on the other hand think its Stoner riding on the limit on a difficult machine. So I don't think Tardozzi is that far off in saying he is the "best" rider considering that his machine is so difficult to manage yet has still been able to score wins against two excellent riders on excellent Yamahas. Basically, it’s the equivalent of Stoner beating Rossi on a Suzuki or a Kawasaki; would this be impressive? Yes. Would most of us understand the magnitude of the feat? Judging from this thread--no.

Barros Portugese interview from '07 still crosses my mind.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jan 13 2010, 05:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ok, I'll play ball Tom. Here is what I think is missing in everybody's assessment. I've said this many times, that MotoGP is not to be taken completely at face value in terms of results vs. rider ability. It’s a concept that is lost time and time again; though it’s so obvious, it’s a mystery why this characteristic of the sport always gets lost--its a prototype series where the machine has much to do. I'm one who agrees with Tardozzi in principle, though it’s impossible to prove. So we have what we have here on this thread, as Son of Doohan so eloquently put it "5 pages of ....". Its because many here are simply cheerleading for their rider as a fan as appose to what is the character of this sport combined with rider talent.

All I ask is for people to compare Rossi with those on similar equipment vs. Stoner on similar equipment. This is the crux of evidence where one should look to for some light on this particular subject. Rossi has had to fend off Lorenzo to the point of demanding he be eliminated from the team. Edwards has had a few good seasons on said equipment (very similar to the ebb and flow of Rossi on the tire transition). Even Toesland in his rookie season was decent but didn't back it up while Edwards had a brilliant year. Now compare this to Stoner and other Ducati riders. Stoner stands alone, because frankly he is that good of a rider. It's worth mentioning that the opposition point to the transition year in 07 to say Stoner was aided by a superior machine but these people have yet to explain why this perceived advantage did not carry over to other Ducati riders. Here is what I gather from this; Stoner must be on the very limit to keep up with the Yamahas. Much more so than other brands resulting in some crashes. You look at this and erroneously think, well its because they have some inherent flaw of consistency (as your laughable comparison to Schwantz). I on the other hand think its Stoner riding on the limit on a difficult machine. So I don't think Tardozzi is that far off in saying he is the "best" rider considering that his machine is so difficult to manage yet has still been able to score wins against two excellent riders on excellent Yamahas. Basically, it’s the equivalent of Stoner beating Rossi on a Suzuki or a Kawasaki; would this be impressive? Yes. Would most of us understand the magnitude of the feat? Judging from this thread--no.

Excellent

i don't think your concept of machinary playing its part is lost on people at all. You point to a bikes disadvantages being at least partiallly responsible for the 'flawes' we see in some riders, for example Schwantz high crash rate and inconsistency being due to the inferiority of his bike in these areas. Sureley the same logic used negatively could justify a riders strengths being in fact a function of the equipment they are using, such as Stoner's stunning speed? The logic is the same, instead of taking results at face value the observer factors in their perception of the bike when they form an opinion. Since you openly do this how can you critisize people using the same method to conclude that Stoner is not as good as some think?

As for comparing performance of riders with people on at least similar equipment, it seems like a simple enough method, and on the face of it the only fair way of judging things. But i don't think it's that simple at all. Imagine if you will that a few people are organizing a tin opening competition. Now imagine that two people are given a left handed tin opener, one of them is left handed, the other right. The unfortunately right handed person struggles and loses, while the left handed person comes second, losing to another player with an ambidextrous tin opener. Would it be right at that point to claim that the left handed guy was likley the best at opening tins because he did so well with an opener that others have shown to be inferior? Of course not. Nor would you expect the left handed guy's performance advantage over his 'team mate' to remain if they all used ambidextrous equipment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 12 2010, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I see your point and to some degree share your opinion allthough I still regard the 800's as boring compared to 500 and 990. The main reason for this is that despite their peaky engines the character has changed a lot due to electronics. For this reason alone it's not comparable with the 500's. Even if the last 500s were a lot more friendly (I supose we are the only two who remember a unison agreement among testriders and moto jounalists describing the 500's of 2001 as somthing that almost can be compared with a street bike)
The electronics (plus a lot more) enable the riders to ride at their own maximum or something very close with a minimum of risk compared with earlier configurations. They are not only avoiding crashes but they also avoid the smaller mistakes and allmost incidents. People used to say that you could expect about 100 near calls for each real crash That are still true on natinal and club level. In MotoGP this number has changed dramatically with the new bikes.
Nowdays highsides are more often than not done off the power into turns, like Stoner and Lorenzo at LS. That says a lot about how things have changed.
I hope that the change to 1000cc and possible limitations on electronic input can lessen the influence of the new electronics but until then I agree with those saying the 800 formula (including the electronics) were a misstake.
Excellent post