Hi Bikergirl. Hope you have been doing well.
I’ve been away for a bit and have been reading a few old threads. It seems I missed the Rossi-Bridgestone debate when it was hot. So I’ve gone back to check out some of the posts and found this one. I certainly don’t want to go back to the days where you were one click away from adding me to your ignore button, so I will tread lightly. I have grown to appreciate your posts and would rather disagree to the threshold of staying off your ignore button list.
Anyway, I have been debating this issue with a few sparing partners on another thread. It seems there is a shortage of members willing or able to debate this issue, especially some of the ones jumping to agree with you here on this very thread. It seems I disagree with your analysis of this issue more than I agree, so I am compelled to reply to some of the things you said here.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
What a bunch of
sad pathetic full of sour grapes individuals this site seems to be attracting of late.
This is a very intriguing statement. Perhaps we should go back to the days
when <u>Hayden bashing</u> was the norm, eh?
If ever this sentence needed to
be uttered, it would have been last year. When some of ones jumping to your side on this Rossi-bridgestone debate like this very thread (
mainly Rossi fans) where the ones
who set the bar of what a
"sad<u> pathetic</u> full of <u>sour grapes</u> individuals" they exemplified. What a paradox! But lets not rehash old battle wounds shall we, and let me stick to this more recent debate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
While you all sit there and gripe about Rossi I wonder how many of you
were watching Motogp in 1996 when he started out.
I'm not sure so sure this is
significantly relevant. Even a fairly savvy person could catch up with the
pertinent history of Rossi's careerr and the
history of the sport. They could make a fair assessment of the situation. Is it really necessary for someone to have been watching since 1996 to make
worthwhile commentary? This reminds me of a
<u>tactic </u>used before by members who
downplayed opposing opinions. They use to use the quip of saying the information was
"Googled". This somehow
discredited the opinion because it wasn't obtained by personal knowledge. I really wonder just how much personal knowledge anybody has here on this forum that is enoughto be an
authority of opinion? For the most part, we all get our knowledge from watching the sport, as well as second hand accounts, videos, books, columns, periodicals/magazines, year-end-reviews, etc. Oh and Google too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
And I can't help but wonder, as Krazy91 pointed out,
how many of you would actually
even know about or be interested in Motogp had not
Valentino turned it into the massive crowd puller it is
today. Because kid yourselves not, the
<u>man is largely responsible for today's popularity of what you call your favourite sport.</u>
This is an interesting point, one of which would be extremely difficult to prove
in context. What I mean is put this in the perspective of how the
world has changed in the last 10 years, I doubt we could credit the sport's popularity solely or
mainly to Rossi. Keep in mind how the mass media, has proliferated, increased communication, and sophisticated
modern marketing. Sure, most Rossi fans would like to think its just Rossi, but the fact is the popularity of this sport could have been as great or greater in-spite of Rossi. In fact, I could make the case that the
sport’s appeal has suffered a bit, and perhaps would have been more popular, had Rossi not been the predominant champion so many years in a row. Keep in mind that many have
discounted this sport as solely a
European phenomena. Think of very popular sports in other continents that haven't spanned across the globe. I could see how you might think that it all had to do with Rossi as you put it;
"the man has been largely responsible for today's popularity" but you have a
European perspective; just as much as if I would have said,
Lance Armstrong, "the man is largely responsible for today's popularity" of the Tour de France around the world. I wonder what a Frenchman would think of this statement, knowing the long and illustrious traditions of the Tour de France. Yes, during Lance's run, it became
more popular here in the States, as I suspect Rossi's run has
created a great popularity in Europe, but to attribute it
predominantly to one man considering how the
world has changed, is a bit
narrow minded, or perhaps a case of Rossi-tinted glasses. Yes, Rossi has many MotoGP fans around the world, and I suspect, Lance Armstrong has fans around the globe too. Well the fact of the matter is there has been an
exponential increase in the outlets of communication, which have been
carefully and tapped by the clever and sophisticatedly
marketing machine of the modern era. If anything can account for the increased in popularity in my opinion, it is this and not Rossi, the man.
But more to your point that you attempted to make here with this part of your post: Your suggestion that the
"popularity" has some relevance rationale to the
preferential treatment of Rossi getting the Bridgestones. In other words, that his
“popularity” and ability to
“pull in crowds” some how
earns him a privileged standing. Especially in the
decision making of the
governing bodies who’s purpose is to maintain a just and equitable authentic competition. (Otherwise, why would you mention his popularity in this context?) Well it is here that your position of the Rossi-Bridgestone debate begins to
lose its credibility. If the sport is to be a
contest first, and a business and spectacle second, then having Rossi get special treatment in the decision making of the governing body is
absolutely detrimental to the sport. After all, championships are not bestowed as a
popularity contest. The series of events that surrounded this Rossi-Bridgestone tire issue suggests that
Rossi is regarded with special
exclusive and privileged status. Now consider the
perspective of other competitors. These are the guys that are suppose to be honest
challengers and rivals, for them as well as spectators like me, this event has
diminished the integrity of the sport.
Even more intriguing is why some fans fail to see that MotoGP can enjoy all three aspects of the sport, that is an
authentic competition, a successful business, and an exciting spectacle. And it can do this without making a certain rider have special treatment.
Simply because one participant rides to the pinnacle of the sport doesn’t mean that person has earned favored status within the competition, why, because its
contrary to the tenants of how they got to the top in the first place.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
So what if he got the stones? For ....'s sake they're just another part of the bike. NOBODY peeped on here last year when
Marco kicked up a fuss and
switched to Bridgestones. Why? Oh yes...because all the ones around here kicking up a stink probably hadn't heard of Motogp last year!
The
elements of the controversy surrounding Rossi's "switch" to Bridgestone’s are not present in Marco's case. He is a rider who switched teams, whose
new team contracted with Bridgestones. Your point here has as much relevance and controversy as saying Stoner "switched" to Bridgestones from last year (or bikes for that matter.) This point doesn't
even merit a discussion in this context, however, I will address it briefly. Marco on the Bridgestones is entirely a different situation than Rossi now on the Bridgestones because though he may have had a minor voice in the matter, it wasn't a "switch" of the likes of Rossi this year. Marco's employer team is who contracted with the tires. They also contracted Marco the
rider to use them,
oh, and they did this at a time when Bridgestones were considered the inferior product, lest you forget Michelin's dominance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
And as for all the Australian
flagged members
suddenly on this site, where were you when Casey was crashing every other race
last season huh???
As in the fans base of any sport, many
fans wax and wane (increase and decrease) depending on the
new champ. It seems that five years of Rossi fans (who undoubtedly came on-board the fan-wagon back when he
started to win titles) are starting to
ebb on the shore (decrease) and
Casey fans are in flow. It’s really a natural occurrence. It may appear that Rossi fans have been here perpetually (the suggestion of course is that they are
somehow more entitled) because after-all Rossi has been wining for many years. But his fans will begin to wane into the distance eventually. But it seems they aren’t going away without a fight, even if it’s
to debate indefensible positions. (I say that in the nicest and well-intentioned feelings as possible. Like I said, I’d rather avoid anybody's ignore button, especially yours).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Why should Valentino get onto a bike with a
shattered wrist only to have it die on him half way into a race?
That's a good question. Perhaps
Toni Elias with a
broken femur or
Marco Melandri at Laguna could shed some light as to why they have saddled a bike after such
painful injuries. As I remember it, Rossi t
ook the start of the race, I'm assuming its because he felt
good enough to finish the race. Perhaps he is human after-all (or perhaps he
pussied out). Who knows?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
The man won 5 world
championships, not counting the 2 in the lower classes, something that I've yet to see any other rider on the current grid do. If Motogp is your sport, then the
very least Rossi deserves is some respect. If
Stoner can list him amongst his
heros, then surely
his opinion is <u>more worthy</u> than that of anyone on here.
Sure Rossi deserves some respect. Certainly
not just
by virtue of his titles, but perhaps as a person. However, in the theme of your post, this suggests that his opinion, as you say is
"more worthy" than any of ours? Well I think you are right in some respects, but I disagree in others. Why, because Rossi is a complex persons who's
opinions may not be consistent with the values I admire about the sport. Therefore, as a fairly intelligent person, I think my opinion is at least
equally valid.
Think of it this way. Certainly I respect my
doctor's opinion (
no pun intended) but despite his many years of medical training and experience, I sometimes will do a little research myself and ask for second opinion. Is this showing
disrespect to my doctor? Why would this not be a valid form of evaluating Rossi’s opinion and making up my own mind by evaluating the public events to form my
personal opinion? As you say, and Casey has admitted to being a Rossi fan himself, yet he has offered his opinions, which have been
contrary to Rossi's many times this year. If he can do it, why can't other Rossi fans have different opinions, as well as non-Rossi fans as myself? Is this "disrespect"? Well, I’m of the opinion that it is not.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
If my
car new broke down twice in its first few months I would stamp my foot and cry and feel more than justified in doing so.
There are so many reasons why your point
over simplifies and does not depict the reality surrounding Rossi switching to Bridgestones. This is a racing environment we are talking about. First off, this is a very high level of racing. The more complex and specific an element of racing is constructed, the more
susceptible it is to adverse problems. On top of that, there is that
element of happenstance in the special
arena of racing. It is so unlike a car that is designed for long-term reliability, not to mention the practical reasons people use a car. Racing is a totally
different entity, which demands working within parameters at highly critical but not always reliable tolerances.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
So why is he such a
prima donna for
demanding machinery that is actually competitive and that actually works?? It's his career at stake. With 5 world championships under your belt, you would be pretty demanding too, I can assure you, and probably far less humble about it.
Well fist off, he is and
was on "competitive" machinery "that actually works". Your suggestion here that he was on such a terrible package is a bit
mendacious and simply false. He was on a
better than average, if not second best package this season. This better than average packaged afforded him the
second most wins. He should have come in 2nd in points had he not had that
phantom bike issue in Motegi. So lets
dispel this notion that he was on such a
horrible package shall we--the fact is the
results totally indicate that he was on a
good package. Perhaps some bad luck coupled with
rider error was more to blame than the your statement that he was on sub-par machinery.
As to your point that he has
earned the right to "demand" competitive machinery without the judgment of being labeled a
"prima Donna" deserves a closer look. Yes, I agree with you, he does have the right to demand competitive equipment. Yet, so
do all the competitors on the grid. And
they all have the right to demand it equally--this point seems to get lost, over and over again in this debate! However, when
ONE of the competitors is
given exclusivity by virtue of their
popularity, or number of
titles won, and
threats toward demands; then yes, that rider has then become a
"prima Donna." by definition.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bikergirl @ Nov 5 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]98909[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Shame on some of you for saying you love this sport!
Wow, what an
intriguing paradox; your last statement is breathtaking. It was short and powerful, but I may add, superficial, unsound, but most of all
absurd. I could write a book on this last statement of yours alone. But who would read it? So I will be brief, but hopefully clever in it its brevity.
Shame on you for using this debate to chastise those differing opinions, who love for Rossi eclipse their "love for this sport."
Disclaimer: I respect your opinions Bikergirl, though I may disagree with many of them, but consider it a compliment to yourself that it was your post that I chose to expound the other side of this intriguing debate. It’s not that important in the scope of life, I know, but I had the time and inclination. Not to mention a real shortage of Rossi apologists to debate-lately.
