<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Dec 15 2008, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You see how you twist things? This is why it’s impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you. You are either dense or you do it on purpose. (I think both).
Tom, do you understand the difference between not having as much commitment to win and not wanting to win? Am I really suppose to carry a conversation with somebody who can't reasonably distinguish between the two? If I believed you just don't understand, I might be more patient to clarify, but I have a hunch you just do it to troll and get a reaction (and with the added benefit of having an ally).
Nobody is saying they are NOT wanting to win, but their level of commitment is lacking when compared to other teams. I think Gaz pretty much nailed it when he points to the higher ups of the company, but I would take it further and say, it is a problem at the ground racing line level as well. The team of individuals on the racing line for the most part all have a healthy commitment and want to win. However, 'wanting' to win is not enough. There must also be sound principle and practical steps to achieve this goal. Have you ever heard of the sports cliché often spoken of the winners; "They just wanted it more."? Well this is unquantifiable to be certain, but it’s a very real phenomena. But the team as part of a greater entity is lacking in their commitment to win evidenced by their sub par results over their history and considering their resources available. It just can't be that Honda & Yamaha have more money, put also that they implement it with the mindset that winning is the only option.
You ask how you can "quantify" commitment. I'm assuming you are asking a rhetorical question; one that can be easily answered by examining the input and output as a function. We can see the output of Suzuki, which has scarcely and rarely won titles and podiums. How about the input? Suzuki is not some small company; they are a rather large conglomerate. They are present in many other forms of motorcycle racing and some have been very successful (AMA & WSBK). So what is the problem at the MotoGP level? This is what we are talking about here Tom. And one reason I am proposing is that they do NOT have the same level of commitment to win. They have not taken the resources available and successfully competed at this level where they have had success in other series. I understand that prototype racing pose a unique set of budgetary obligation, but the endeavor of racing at this level is not unique. The enterprise of racing is fairly standard, even in a non-standard series as is prototype racing. So from my limited vantage point, I propose that their is a element of commitment that is not being matched in relation to more successful teams.
Consider for a moment the privateer that was Team KR. They pretty much lived and breathed racing. They retooled every aspect of their machine. Redesign chassis, designing their own exhaust. Trying different engines, even designing their own power plant, etc., and doing it with limited resources. Here is a team whose life was about the enterprise of racing competition. Even though they lacked results, we all knew they had outstanding commitment to winning and competing. It is this element that seems to be missing with MotoGP team Suzuki. It’s this mindset, that you find in companies like Yoshimira or Ferrari (as an example) who are in the business to compete.
Interesting. Unlike everyone else here you don't believe that Suzuki simply don't spend enough to win at motogp, i too don't believe that motogp is simply a spending competition.
I don't agree though with your qaulification of Suzuki's lack of commitment. I would suggest rather that they simply do not have the knowledge, experience and understanding that the teams ahead of them have. They probably want it just as much, perhaps even more than the successful teams, they just are yet to arrive at a solution where they achieve the ultimate goal. I'm not someone (as you know) who buys into all the racing cliches and considers them to be "truths". Suggesting that a competitor "just wanted it more" is simply a way of accounting for a superior performance while avoiding the fact that you don't know exactly what that competitor did differently to those who they defeated. I actually think Suzuki's commitment to GP seems admirable. Firstly they have been involved in motogp for long enough (even with their relatively low success rate) to show they are commited. Also their results in the 4 stroke era have been increasingly positive, and have shown a general upward trend since 2002. I think that serves as evidence of their commitment to improving over time, and taking a measured approach.
Tom, do you understand the difference between not having as much commitment to win and not wanting to win? Am I really suppose to carry a conversation with somebody who can't reasonably distinguish between the two? If I believed you just don't understand, I might be more patient to clarify, but I have a hunch you just do it to troll and get a reaction (and with the added benefit of having an ally).
Nobody is saying they are NOT wanting to win, but their level of commitment is lacking when compared to other teams. I think Gaz pretty much nailed it when he points to the higher ups of the company, but I would take it further and say, it is a problem at the ground racing line level as well. The team of individuals on the racing line for the most part all have a healthy commitment and want to win. However, 'wanting' to win is not enough. There must also be sound principle and practical steps to achieve this goal. Have you ever heard of the sports cliché often spoken of the winners; "They just wanted it more."? Well this is unquantifiable to be certain, but it’s a very real phenomena. But the team as part of a greater entity is lacking in their commitment to win evidenced by their sub par results over their history and considering their resources available. It just can't be that Honda & Yamaha have more money, put also that they implement it with the mindset that winning is the only option.
You ask how you can "quantify" commitment. I'm assuming you are asking a rhetorical question; one that can be easily answered by examining the input and output as a function. We can see the output of Suzuki, which has scarcely and rarely won titles and podiums. How about the input? Suzuki is not some small company; they are a rather large conglomerate. They are present in many other forms of motorcycle racing and some have been very successful (AMA & WSBK). So what is the problem at the MotoGP level? This is what we are talking about here Tom. And one reason I am proposing is that they do NOT have the same level of commitment to win. They have not taken the resources available and successfully competed at this level where they have had success in other series. I understand that prototype racing pose a unique set of budgetary obligation, but the endeavor of racing at this level is not unique. The enterprise of racing is fairly standard, even in a non-standard series as is prototype racing. So from my limited vantage point, I propose that their is a element of commitment that is not being matched in relation to more successful teams.
Consider for a moment the privateer that was Team KR. They pretty much lived and breathed racing. They retooled every aspect of their machine. Redesign chassis, designing their own exhaust. Trying different engines, even designing their own power plant, etc., and doing it with limited resources. Here is a team whose life was about the enterprise of racing competition. Even though they lacked results, we all knew they had outstanding commitment to winning and competing. It is this element that seems to be missing with MotoGP team Suzuki. It’s this mindset, that you find in companies like Yoshimira or Ferrari (as an example) who are in the business to compete.
Interesting. Unlike everyone else here you don't believe that Suzuki simply don't spend enough to win at motogp, i too don't believe that motogp is simply a spending competition.
I don't agree though with your qaulification of Suzuki's lack of commitment. I would suggest rather that they simply do not have the knowledge, experience and understanding that the teams ahead of them have. They probably want it just as much, perhaps even more than the successful teams, they just are yet to arrive at a solution where they achieve the ultimate goal. I'm not someone (as you know) who buys into all the racing cliches and considers them to be "truths". Suggesting that a competitor "just wanted it more" is simply a way of accounting for a superior performance while avoiding the fact that you don't know exactly what that competitor did differently to those who they defeated. I actually think Suzuki's commitment to GP seems admirable. Firstly they have been involved in motogp for long enough (even with their relatively low success rate) to show they are commited. Also their results in the 4 stroke era have been increasingly positive, and have shown a general upward trend since 2002. I think that serves as evidence of their commitment to improving over time, and taking a measured approach.
