The Untouchables

Povol, even before Oxley's point about Valencia being a narrow one line it was common knowledge. Its a stadium track, unique on the calendar, and Arrabi, who I consider as much of an authority for GP has any one, has on more than one occasion described Valencia as unique for having a razor thin race line (he also pointed out Catalunya as being a difficult place to pass, but I'll shelve his reason for the sake and scope of this particular discussion). However, I'd like to point out, in 2013, even if the RCV was the dominant machine, it sure looked like Lorenzo had Valencia covered that year. So to further advance your point, even in a year where the RCV combined with Marquez was a force to be reckoned, even still Lorenzo and his M1 so clearly dominated Valencia, that if we want to make the long bow comparison year to years, to make some point about Marc's dubious failure to pass Lorenzo, it still doesn't hold up to scrutiny. And as you say, it appears that the M1 was really dialed in this year, well at least in the hands of Lorenzo. .... the M1 was so good even Rossi won on it.

Oxley's point is rather impossible to misunderstand. He was simply making the point it's a place particularly difficult to pass, especially for the lead. But as I said in a previous post, this particular characteristic make the mechanics of a pass 'for the lead' (that is against the fastest guy at the moment) particularly rare. This is the backdrop in which Marc's "failure to pass" is being questioned by the masses who accuse him of protecting Lorenzo. The thing is Povol, not just blowhard "sportman" MXers are convinced Marc was guilty of not attempting a pass, .... even Colin Edwards did. Of course, Edwards has a business dependant on Rossi’s good graces, but still you get my point. Honestly I don't know how Rossi's accusations had so much power. I've pondered it over and over, and I've conclude it's just human nature. But as I said in a previous post, let's be clear: the ONLY reason Marquez's integrity is being questioned is because Rossi tainted the perception. Its why Marc appears like the perpetrator at Sepang, when in fact Rossi had the greatest motive to slow the Spaniard down! The perception is ... backwards. Its why your challenge of asking people to produce a time stamped statement that they were on to Marquez before the Sepang Thursday presser is so poignant. Its why I challenged all comers to reveal their suspicion in the thread 'Case for Marquez'. To date, not one, NONE have materialized. I've not read anyone link, nor any journalists or expert, former racer, etc. Not even Race Direction who are in the business of scrutinizing for this sort of thing. Surely if Rossi noticed it Race Direction did too. Or at very least some journalists would have editorialized some sliver of a statement that they were on to Marquez's shenanigans. Its the only reason, thee only reason Marquez's integrity and actions at Valencia are being second guessed.

Keshav said:

Absolutely not. I can see Marquez sandbagging but Pedrosa, never. I feel like I've said it a thousand times - I am neither a fan of Rossi or Marquez. I never read the Oxley article. The only thing I've read or mentioned that was authored by him was a quote from him introduced to the discussion by JPS.

Click to expand...

I think it was assumed by everyone since you participate so avidly in the forum and have done in this thread that you had read the Oxley article which was linked to in this thread (by J4rn0 actually, who is hardly a Rossi hater and commended the article as an even-handed take) and had been linked to previously in another thread.

For your information he is Rossi's handpicked biographer and the article was largely supportive of Rossi, with the inclusion as an apparent statement of fact the lack of passing at the front historically at Valencia, proffered in support of a contention that Valencia is a one-line track where it is difficult to pass.

It doesn't matter if he read Oxley's article or not, which I don't believe for a second, he was shown at least a dozen times the quote from Oxley explaining the difficulties of passing at the front at Valencia. Now that he has seen the light, all of a sudden he is crayfishing on his intent. Dude has multiple personality disorder or some .....

It was generally agreed upon by most every one that that 2015 incarnation of the Yamaha M1 was a bike that managed to become the equal of the RCV. Each bike had their strong points and weaker points highlighted at different circuits. Valencia was just one more indicator of the M1's improvements relative to past years. Not totally shocking if you accept the fact that the Yamaha factory effort has enough resources and knowledge to improve their bike...and no one questioned the M1 being a better bike than the RCV at many circuits this year.

birdman said:

Ok no conspiracy, what we saw at Valencia was a fair dinkum no holds bared race where each participant finished in the order dictated by doing the best they could. No problem.

Oh wait a minute....................................Marquez held back? He sandbagged? You mean he could have actually gone faster, won the race? Oh dear. And Pedro was faster too you say, could have finished second, but he let Marquez beat him? What on earth? Would these actions have altered the championship standings? By golly, that sounds like match fixing at the least, if not conspiracy. We got a problem here folks.

How about Marquez ran the race in the way he thought gave him the best chance to win at the minimum risk to himself and his competitors. Alas it didnt work out, as Lorenzo is a strong frontrunner. Less dramatic than sandbagging, and no conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Again another strawman argument. I said if there'd been another lap. That's IF - I believe Pedrosa could have passed Lorenzo. And I never implied Pedrosa let Marquez beat him. Why do you so tirelessly insist that I argue about things I didn't say?

And since when do the fiercest competitors in the highest form of bike racing become legends and win races (let alone championships) by taking the minimum amount of risk? On what planet is that "racing"? Members on this forum who insist that Marquez was merely being conservative in his efforts are the same ones who are always praising riders who give "110%" That's what made Stoner a legend. Riding past the limits of a wildly idiosyncratic machine, continually on the edge of crashing is what made hims such a heroic figure in racing.

Hopefully - this will be the last post by you asking me to refute things I did not say. And if it's not - understand that life is just too short to waste refuting things one did not say. So if I don't reply to any more of your posts it's because you're continuing to rehash the same old stuff, which doesn't gain merit simply by virtue of volume.

Keshav said:

Again another strawman argument. I said if there'd been another lap. That's IF - I believe Pedrosa could have passed Lorenzo. And I never implied Pedrosa let Marquez beat him. Why do you so tirelessly insist that I argue about things I didn't say?

And since when do the fiercest competitors in the highest form of bike racing become legends and win races (let alone championships) by taking the minimum amount of risk? On what planet is that "racing"? Members on this forum who insist that Marquez was merely being conservative in his efforts are the same ones who are always praising riders who give "110%" That's what made Stoner a legend. Riding past the limits of a wildly idiosyncratic machine, continually on the edge of crashing is what made hims such a heroic figure in racing.

Hopefully - this will be the last post by you asking me to refute things I did not say. And if it's not - understand that life is just too short to waste refuting things one did not say. So if I don't reply to any more of your posts it's because you're continuing to rehash the same old stuff, which doesn't gain merit simply by virtue of volume.

Click to expand...

Rossi could have won the championship by beating Lorenzo at any of the last 3 races. He failed to do this, he didn't win the championship, end of story.

I am not sure why you or anyone else needs to concentrate on what MM may or may not have done in those races; as Kroptokin more or less said, if Rossi needed to subcontract beating Lorenzo to MM or Pedrosa, that was rather his problem, and not of any relevance to Jorge's eventual championship win that I can see.

povol said:

It doesn't matter if he read Oxley's article or not, which I don't believe for a second, he was shown at least a dozen times the quote from Oxley explaining the difficulties of passing at the front at Valencia. Now that he has seen the light, all of a sudden he is crayfishing on his intent. Dude has multiple personality disorder or some .....

Click to expand...

This is an insult frequently repeated by narrow minded persons with no intellectual curiosity, incapable of escaping a singular outcome in a debate that is multifaceted.

Keshav said:

This is an insult frequently repeated by narrow minded persons with no intellectual curiosity, incapable of escaping a singular outcome in a debate that is multifaceted.

Click to expand...

As I have said, maybe MM elected not to make a desperate lunge and risk taking Lorenzo out after being admonished about doing same, maybe he didn't want Rossi to win the championship after all the argybargy. Only he will now how hard he tried as Matt Oxley said, and you certainly don't know. Even if he didn't want Rossi to win the championship because he doesn't like Rossi, so what?

michaelm said:

Rossi could have won the championship by beating Lorenzo at any of the last 3 races. He failed to do this, he didn't win the championship, end of story.

I am not sure why you or anyone else needs to concentrate on what MM may or may not have done in those races; as Kroptokin more or less said, if Rossi needed to subcontract beating Lorenzo to MM or Pedrosa, that was rather his problem, and not of any relevance to Jorge's eventual championship win that I can see.

Click to expand...

Rossi winning the championship is really of no consequence to me. I simply offered an opinion and for suggesting a possibility that was not in concordance with the monolithic Group-Think on PS - I have been insulted and lambasted and reviled. There seems to be no room for friendly, spirited debate on this forum anymore. If you don't agree with the Big Three - you are labeled crazy or a liar. It's become very 1984-ish around here.

Keshav said:

Again another strawman argument. I said if there'd been another lap. That's IF - I believe Pedrosa could have passed Lorenzo. And I never implied Pedrosa let Marquez beat him. Why do you so tirelessly insist that I argue about things I didn't say?

And since when do the fiercest competitors in the highest form of bike racing become legends and win races (let alone championships) by taking the minimum amount of risk? On what planet is that "racing"? Members on this forum who insist that Marquez was merely being conservative in his efforts are the same ones who are always praising riders who give "110%" That's what made Stoner a legend. Riding past the limits of a wildly idiosyncratic machine, continually on the edge of crashing is what made hims such a heroic figure in racing.

Hopefully - this will be the last post by you asking me to refute things I did not say. And if it's not - understand that life is just too short to waste refuting things one did not say. So if I don't reply to any more of your posts it's because you're continuing to rehash the same old stuff, which doesn't gain merit simply by virtue of volume.

Click to expand...

Oh dear.

There's no such thing as a rider giving 110%. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. You're either on the limit at 10/10ths, being over the limit at the proverbial 110% or 11/10ths, means you've crashed. Riding past the limit is just a hyperbolic way of saying the rider is doing something you didn't think was possible...but if he is doing it, it means the machine can do it. If you put Stoner on one of the non-Honda/Yamaha bikes, you'd likely be amazed that the machine was capable of even churning out those times. What it means is that the guys riding them every weekend aren't capable of extracting the very best out of it.

Stoner was great because he knew how to extract every last bit out of a given machine. But he also was one of the smartest riders I've ever seen. Yes he made some audacious overtake maneuvers such as the one through the Laguna Seca kink heading into turn 1 on Lorenzo, which for my money is one of the most insane overtakes I've ever seen given the nature of the bump there, at those speeds. But he was safe to ride against since he was FAIR.

Point is, even the most daring SUCCESSFUL overtakes are the product of calculated gambles given the enormity of what can unfold if the overtake goes wrong.

How this all factors in with Marc Marquez is that while his style was certainly explosive, and he made some audacious overtakes --which were also products of leaving it up to the other rider to decide whether they wanted to have a crash or not-- he was also crashing quite a bit attempting this this year. That in turn was putting a lot of guys at risk, and it wasn't amusing to watch one bit. The second half was marked by a very real absence of his battering ram approach to overtaking, or trying force moves that had no chance of sticking. He actually took a mature approach for most of the second half. He was far more consistent. Instead of trying to create something that doesn't exist, he took the approach real racers take; work with what is given and accept some days you might not have the look so just take the sure points.

Being dangerous is not being heroic. Being heroic does not require being dangerous. Simoncelli got endless .... thrown his way quite fairly because of his penchant for trying moves in disappearing windows...sort of like the overtake attempt on Dani at Le Mans that had NO CHANCE of ever sticking. Dani wound up with a broken collarbone because of another rider doing dangerous .....

What it basically strikes me as, is that you'd rather have seen MM take his usual battering ram approach and potentially have him cost JL the title just for the sake of getting your ........ overtake attempt.

michaelm said:

As I have said, maybe he elected not to make a desperate lunge and risk taking Lorenzo out, maybe he didn't want Rossi to win the championship after all the argybargy. Only he will now how hard he tried as Matt Oxley said, and you certainly don't know. Even if he didn't want Rossi to win the championship because he doesn't like Rossi, so what?

Click to expand...

No argument there. I don't claim to "know". But there's no harm in discussing the possibility and no reason for members to evince such sustained hostility toward another member for simply advancing an idea.

JPSLotus said:

Oh dear.

There's no such thing as a rider giving 110%. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. You're either on the limit at 10/10ths, being over the limit at the proverbial 110% or 11/10ths, means you've crashed. Riding past the limit is just a hyperbolic way of saying the rider is doing something you didn't think was possible...but if he is doing it, it means the machine can do it. If you put Stoner on one of the non-Honda/Yamaha bikes, you'd likely be amazed that the machine was capable of even churning out those times. What it means is that the guys riding them every weekend aren't capable of extracting the very best out of it.

Stoner was great because he knew how to extract every last bit out of a given machine. But he also was one of the smartest riders I've ever seen. Yes he made some audacious overtake maneuvers such as the one through the Laguna Seca kink heading into turn 1 on Lorenzo, which for my money is one of the most insane overtakes I've ever seen given the nature of the bump there, at those speeds. But he was safe to ride against since he was FAIR.

Point is, even the most daring SUCCESSFUL overtakes are the product of calculated gambles given the enormity of what can unfold if the overtake goes wrong.

How this all factors in with Marc Marquez is that while his style was certainly explosive, and he made some audacious overtakes --which were also products of leaving it up to the other rider to decide whether they wanted to have a crash or not-- he was also crashing quite a bit attempting this this year. That in turn was putting a lot of guys at risk, and it wasn't amusing to watch one bit. The second half was marked by a very real absence of his battering ram approach to overtaking, or trying force moves that had no chance of sticking. He actually took a mature approach for most of the second half. He was far more consistent. Instead of trying to create something that doesn't exist, he took the approach real racers take; work with what is given and accept some days you might not have the look so just take the sure points.

Being dangerous is not being heroic. Being heroic does not require being dangerous. Simoncelli got endless .... thrown his way quite fairly because of his penchant for trying moves in disappearing windows...sort of like the overtake attempt on Dani at Le Mans that had NO CHANCE of ever sticking. Dani wound up with a broken collarbone because of another rider doing dangerous .....

What it basically strikes me as, is that you'd rather have seen MM take his usual battering ram approach and potentially have him cost JL the title just for the sake of getting your ........ overtake attempt.

Click to expand...

Giving 110% is merely an expression. You know it as well as I do. The remainder of your post is just more rehashing of the same old straw man arguments - which I can't be arsed to reply to for the millionth time.

Keshav said:

No argument there. I don't claim to "know". But there's no harm in discussing the possibility and no reason for members to evince such sustained hostility toward another member for simply advancing an idea.

Click to expand...

There is sustained hostility, including from me when I have no intrinsic animus against you, because yet another championship not won by Valentino is being debased, this time with Valentino's direct involvement. I have no problem acknowledging his 7 or 9 championships, all richly deserved imo, this type of discussion only occurs when he doesn't win, even when he is 36.

michaelm said:

There is sustained hostility, including from me when I have no intrinsic animus against you, because yet another championship not won by Valentino is being debased, this time with Valentino's direct involvement. I have no problem acknowledging his 7 or 9 championships, all richly deserved imo, this type of discussion only occurs when he doesn't win, even when he is 36.

Click to expand...

If Marquez had passed Lorenzo - with Dani positioned as he was - Lorenzo would still have won the championship. Surely Lorenzo will sleep well at night regardless of some harmless discussion about what MM might or might not have done. If anyone is having a hard time sleeping at night it's Rossi.

Keshav said:

Giving 110% is merely an expression. You know it as well as I do. The remainder of your post is just more rehashing of the same old straw man arguments - which I can't be arsed to reply to for the millionth time.

Click to expand...

You talk about riding past the limits of the machine specifically.

No such thing is possible.

The laws of physics prohibit this.

Basically you have argued that because MM chose to take the minimum amount of risk so as not to crash out of the Valencian Grand Prix, and instead wait to try and make his move on the very last lap as he did in Phillip Island, this is not racing according to you.

No, it is racing.

It's just not the racing YOU think should be occurring.

Which goes back to my whole point much earlier that the fans have taken it upon themselves to determine what MM should or should not have done based on nothing more than 1) the ramblings of a deranged lunatic aka Valentino Rossi and 2) what they would have liked to have seen.

Keshav said:

If Marquez had passed Lorenzo - with Dani positioned as he was - Lorenzo would still have won the championship. Surely Lorenzo will sleep well at night regardless of some harmless discussion about what MM might or might not have done. If anyone is having a hard time sleeping at night it's Rossi.

Click to expand...

If Jorge was still going to win the championship, why didn't MM pass Jorge if he could have done so easily with little risk then? He is certainly not a Jorge fan, nor someone who doesn't like winning races. You also said earlier in this thread that if Jorge hadn't had the helmet issues and had hence presumably done better in the races where he supposedly had those problems (his choice and his problem regardless imo) his championship would be more definitive/less questionable. I repeat, he won the championship because he was faster and better in the last 3 races of the championship, which count the same as earlier races.

We are getting close to "Happy Days" territory btw.

Intermission time!

Let's go to Jimi Hendrix for a live rendition of Purple Haze!

Look at the skill...look at him playing with his teeth!

michaelm said:

We are getting close to "Happy Days" territory.

Click to expand...

I love that show. And if u must know this thread makes me happy for the gems I read, some of which restore my faith in man, which gets torn down completely by about noon almost every day. So please sir, continue.

Jumkie said:

I love that show. And if u must know this thread makes me happy for the gems I read, some of which restore my faith in man, which gets torn down completely by about noon almost every day. So please sir, continue.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the episode where Fonzie can't say he was wrong, rather than the "jumped the shark" thing which has entered the vernacular, although perhaps the end of the 2015 season in its totality approaches that territory.

JPSLotus said:

You talk about riding past the limits of the machine specifically.

No such thing is possible.

The laws of physics prohibit this.

Basically you have argued that because MM chose to take the minimum amount of risk so as not to crash out of the Valencian Grand Prix, and instead wait to try and make his move on the very last lap as he did in Phillip Island, this is not racing according to you.

No, it is racing.

It's just not the racing YOU think should be occurring.

Which goes back to my whole point much earlier that the fans have taken it upon themselves to determine what MM should or should not have done based on nothing more than 1) the ramblings of a deranged lunatic aka Valentino Rossi and 2) what they would have liked to have seen.

Click to expand...

Again - you're being over literal. It's just an expression.

Discussing possible outcomes has for years been a part of the discussion on this forum. We all have preferences regarding what we consider good racing or what would make the most interesting outcome as per Mike's mention of "what if" Lorenzo didn't have the helmet ....-up. It's all just harmless speculation and hardly anything worth hurling insults and working up to frothing mouth hostility over. Speculation and the offering of differing opinion is about 60% of what goes on here.