Jum, you and I are not going to agree. I understand your point and there is certainly some truth in it, the package is important, definitely, but we differ in degree. To see the difference the package makes, look at the difference between Stoner and Dovizioso (and Pedrosa, once he returns to full fitness later this year). There's consistently half a second or more between them, despite the two of them being on identical packages. I contend that that is what makes alien status. You disagree. That is fine.
And no, I shan't be visiting the US this year. Hopefully in '12 though. Probably better, 'cos you'd beat me up for wearing my #26 fan shirt....
Got it, matter of degree. I can live with that. Notwithstanding, the only one I've said is an "alien" if anyone is, (as you've read me say in several posts now) is Stoner, so your above example doesn't speak to what I've contended at all. There still leaves "some truth" to the points I've proposed.
To clarify, you think "aliens" exist because they dominate by wide margins, and those margins would still exist ‘regardless’ of what they raced on, where as I think the top four are "front-runners" similar to other series (that is they would commonly win), where we disagree is the difference in margin/magnitude of victory & domination. I say the margin can be accounted for as a matter of package, you say it’s a matter of some supernatural unexplainable talent. Neither of us are saying they are not the ones who would normally win, I’m saying the magnitude of that margin is related to the fact they have the best package hence the perception they are supernatural, so given a more level playing field, they would not look so extraordinary, and the mid-packers could actually mount challenges and occasionally win. Where you say they would win ‘every time’ because they possess some illusive factor and should be perceived ‘utterly out of this world’ i.e. Aliens.
It doesn't seem enough to say, 'put them on said machine and I THINK the following would happen absolutely. My posts are lengthy because ‘I’ can NOT get away with simply saying "put them on Ninja 250, Superbikes, Vespas and the "aliens" still gap everybody by a 'wide' margin. Again, ‘I’ can’t get away with it; perhaps YOU can by virtue of being infinitely closer to the principals and having an admittedly special purview, believe me, I accept this. So to counter your advantage, I must propose several LOGICAL reasonings for my own speculations. Hence the many examples I proposed that support my point of view. And as you can see, I propose many backed up with details and circumstantial evidence (after all, we are BOTH still ‘speculating’ are we not?)
But even then, for an enthusiastic laymen as myself, there is still some standing if I use sound logic and point to some ‘actual precedent’ (beside the fact that I present several examples previously to support my contention, here is one more). As I pointed out, even actual competitors (Rossi) and super respected principal actors (Burgess) "thought" (and put on record) their best and educated estimation, and were WRONG! I would say even ignoring the 'LOGIC' over what they ‘speculated’ to be true. As you say, I've made several points, however, most of it has been countered with 'well they are just special, I'm sure of it'. I imagine, utilizing the same speculative logic, it must have been easy to discount Melandri & Hayden on Ducati; after all, they're as special as Dovi (I concede for the purpose of this point); that is until Rossi tried. Only now, can we see that this reputable ‘speculation’ (possibly as reputable as yours before-hand) was totally shatter post-hand. And so no the experts must rationalize with disqualifying Ducati. It appears a “disqualification” of Ducati in hindsight is in order. Do you follow what I’m saying in regards to our debate?
Had I been generously paid to make a case to Rossi ‘why he should not got to Ducati’ before he made the decision, I am utterly confident that I could have made a logical case (which might have for a moment) giving him momentary pause to ponder. If only he could have detached himself from the emotion and ego and preconceived notions and only looked at the LOGIC. I may have saved him from the months of struggle and questioning of his undisputed legendary status (do I sound arrogant, perhaps, or maybe just confident in the logic). But had he taken the advice such a presentation would have offered, his fabled status would have remained in unquestionable tact. That is, if he had taken a closer look at the logic. I never believed he would have moved to Ducati, and I was on record as saying he would be so stupid if he did, I thought it was just negotiation leverage, similar to the one Lorenzo used.
But then came the announcement, he signed. Since day one, I was certain this arrangement would fail, and particularly for me, because I knew this spelled detriment to Hayden (perhaps its this that made me more apt to detect the pitfall that I was convinced Rossi would encounter). And for a Hayden apologist (as my logic has been frequently discounted) its probably this very “fixation” that allowed me to see a bit more clearly the reality of Ducati. This may sound very arrogant, saying this, that a mere laymen could offer such advise to the very Standard of the sport. However, was I right? I can confidently say, YES! But I also know it wasn’t because I had some crystal ball, but rather because both being a ‘Hayden apologist’ and being very opinionated on the sport (which this forum allows me this outlet) requires me to be very careful to use sound logic to propose my opinions. Before-hand it was mere speculation, right? Its only when we have the reality that we all know the score.
You have your educated guess that “aliens” exist, and I have to scour for Earth for logical evidence to support my claim (since I’m a laymen). May I be so bold as to say, there is a lesson to be learned here. As I have had to humbly learn it myself.
Do you think I could have convinced Rossi not to move to Ducati? Seriously, do you think if I had sat down with the guy, and presented an extensive case using sound logic and a body of evidence that indicated Ducati would be a bad move for him, do you think I would have convinced him? We merely write posts here on the fly, but on occasion, I have had to write book size proposals providing solid rationales. So do you think I could have mounted a comprehensive enough presentation to convince Rossi not to go to Ducati? Well I’m confident that I could have produced such a case, but I doubt I would have convinced him. Because of several reasons, one of which he was too close to the whole deal.
The beauty of this fun little debate we had is that we will never know, advantage you. By the same token, we could have gone our whole lives sure that Rossi would have remained an “Alien” on Ducati as he did on a Yamaha and Honda before it, but now we know the score. Anyway, if you got to the bottom of my essay, thanks for reading! I never get when people ..... about racing opinions’ on a racing forum (I get the bitching about useless non-related posts). Its why we coming here. To preset, exchanges, and share opinions and rationales on the subject (aside from the friendly banter and outright tribalism.) Hope you enjoyed another chapter in the ongoing Hayden apologia.
(Pedro tshirts are welcome, I have a model of his bike that sits right next to Nicky's in my garage.)
ani luv u hat.jpg]
