USA Today Nicky Hayden Article

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 9 2007, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As far as Nicky proving himself because he was awarded a championship ..... it was NOT enough. Why? Because he NEVER beat the previous champion. To be the man you must beat the man which as of this writing has never happened. Yes, he scored more points but that's not beating someone that's surviving a battle with less wounds.
I do recall Nicky having Valentino well covered at Laguna until Rossi's Yam pissed itself and (as was mentioned by RisingSun in an ealier thread, thanks for reminding me) he tried his best to keep his violently ill M1 on the racing line. That doesn't count despite Hayden had Rossi soundly beaten because ultimately Rossi DNF'd, right?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 9 2007, 02:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How do figure? Every other rider on the grid does'nt have MOTOGP WORLD CHAMPION as a title so they obviously aren't worthy. Just tell me that you believe a world championship will ever be decided like that again. What if the World Series was played and team A lost to team B but team A was handed the trophy because they scored more runs the entire season? I know that's apples and oranges but think about it for a second.
If anyone thinks that it dosn't matter then just why is there so much discussion about it?
It's NOT about the players as much as it's about the game.

SS
First of all, let's use sports that the entire world watches, not just our Yankee "World Series" examples. Because the rest of the world is quite accustomed to such situatiosns. In your example, team A wins a championship because they won the most games in the regular season. So the playoffs were just a formality then? Does MotoGP have playoffs? Where one round is worth more than the entire season? They should, Rossi could win it then all his bad luck and miscalculations could go by the wayside.

A better example would be the recent UEFA Champions League Round of 16 where Valencia advanced past Inter Milan. The teams drew 2-2 in Milan and drew again 0-0 in Valencia, no one won, the aggregate score was 2-2. But Valencia advanced based on the fact that they scored more away goals than Inter.

.... happens, deal with it.

PS http://www.motogpforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/.....gif Inter, Disciples. Valencia, Hayden.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 9 2007, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I do recall Nicky having Valentino well covered at Laguna until Rossi's Yam pissed itself and (as was mentioned by RisingSun in an ealier thread, thanks for reminding me) he tried his best to keep his violently ill M1 on the racing line. That doesn't count despite Hayden had Rossi soundly beaten because ultimately Rossi DNF'd, right?
First of all, let's use sports that the entire world watches, not just our Yankee "World Series" examples. Because the rest of the world is quite accustomed to such situatiosns. In your example, team A wins a championship because they won the most games in the regular season. So the playoffs were just a formality then? Does MotoGP have playoffs? Where one round is worth more than the entire season? They should, Rossi could win it then all his bad luck and miscalculations could go by the wayside.

A better example would be the recent UEFA Champions League Round of 16 where Valencia advanced past Inter Milan. The teams drew 2-2 in Milan and drew again 0-0 in Valencia, no one won, the aggregate score was 2-2. But Valencia advanced based on the fact that they scored more away goals than Inter.

.... happens, deal with it.

PS http://www.motogpforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/.....gif Inter, Disciples. Valencia, Hayden.
Yes ..... and I am but, but ...... is so much fun. At 8:00 am EST tomorrow the fun begins and we get hear excuses about why Rider A or Rider B didn't do well.

I like yer UEFA example although I think it has something to do with soccer.

SS

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 9 2007, 06:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As far as Nicky proving himself because he was awarded a championship ..... it was NOT enough. Why? Because he NEVER beat the previous champion. To be the man you must beat the man which as of this writing has never happened.
Hey maybe we should give Elias the 06 championship.


Or maybe we should just throw points out all together and have it all come down to one race. My vote is for Valencia. (Since Rossi has a tendency of losing focus and went gravel surfing in the middle of the event).

Lets just continue to apply the rules of other sports to try and come up with a rational reason why Rossi should have won the 06 title.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 9 2007, 03:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Show me?

SS

Well, as mentioned before, Kevin Schwantz has often won more races than the eventual championship winner, but you don't seem to be calling Wayne Rainey an unworthy champion. What about 1992 when Doohan pretty much had Rainey beat in every single race except the ones affected by "bad luck". Your standards would suggest Rainey never really did enough. Then there is Alzamoras title, which he did an excelent job of earning. And if you want to go national there is B Bostroms AMA superbike title.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 9 2007, 05:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well, as mentioned before, Kevin Schwantz has often won more races than the eventual championship winner, but you don't seem to be calling Wayne Rainey an unworthy champion. What about 1992 when Doohan pretty much had Rainey beat in every single race except the ones affected by "bad luck". Your standards would suggest Rainey never really did enough. Then there is Alzamoras title, which he did an excelent job of earning. And if you want to go national there is B Bostroms AMA superbike title.
Actually the only year in which Kevin won more races than the Champion was in 89 and that didn't even involve Wayne. Come on Tom .... at least try to make it interesting. BTW in 89 Kevin had 6 wins and Eddie only had 4 which was twice as many as Nicky had in 06 and Eddie had 3 more podium finishes than Nicky's 10 in 06. Mick won 2 more races than Wayne in 92, I hardly call that "every single race".

Rainey, Schwantz, Lawson and Doohan were all winners ..... even though Kevin only won 1 title he'll never be known as a 1 hit wonder Champ because he beat the other guys to the checkered flag on the track when they were on the track together.

Simply put, you don't understand my standards enough to even challenge them.

Who's this Alzamoras guy, someone who like Nicky (if he doesn't start winning) will be remembered as a 1 hit wonder World Champion who won a few races in his career and averaged high top 10 series finishes in his career?

SS

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 9 2007, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Actually the only year in which Kevin won more races than the Champion was in 89 and that didn't even involve Wayne. Come on Tom .... at least try to make it interesting. BTW in 89 Kevin had 6 wins and Eddie only had 4 which was twice as many as Nicky had in 06 and Eddie had 3 more podium finishes than Nicky's 10 in 06. Mick won 2 more races than Wayne in 92, I hardly call that "every single race".

Rainey, Schwantz, Lawson and Doohan were all winners ..... even though Kevin only won 1 title he'll never be known as a 1 hit wonder Champ because he beat the other guys to the checkered flag on the track when they were on the track together.

Simply put, you don't understand my standards enough to even challenge them.

Who's this Alzamoras guy, someone who like Nicky (if he doesn't start winning) will be remembered as a 1 hit wonder World Champion who won a few races in his career and averaged high top 10 series finishes in his career?

SS

Sorry men, got to bring a Latino saying in this… No Pros Bros!

I do understand SS point of view, no doubt… Don’t watch F1 anymore (got totally boring) but by memory I guess it is a bit as Senna going for a win and Prost in the safety zone to the Championship or something like that, years later is has become crap, maybe to blame all the rules applied more than anything else, but I could imagine it is a bit of the idea.

1366:attachment]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 10 2007, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Actually the only year in which Kevin won more races than the Champion was in 89 and that didn't even involve Wayne.
Actually, that did involve Wayne. He led the championship for most of the year. Schwantz scored 120 points for 6 race wins, and only 42 from the rest of the season. He crashed a lot, but also had the bike breakdown at least twice. Lawson won that title on consistency, and Rainey buckled under the pressure. But I guess 4 race wins, being astronomically higher than 2 is what it's all about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 10 2007, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Mick won 2 more races than Wayne in 92, I hardly call that "every single race".
I think he's referring to the fact Doohan creamed Rainey (and everyone else) in the first half of the season before he tried to have his leg amputated at Assen. Tom's discounting the final two rounds of the season as well (Doohan came back with his ankle fused in the riding position and a funky thumb-operated rear brake, but was in such bad shape that it's amazing he even finished those races). But I guess 3 race wins, being astronomically higher than 2 is what it's all about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 10 2007, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Simply put, you don't understand my standards enough to even challenge them.
What are you talking about? Your standard that a rider must win more races than any other rider that year for him to be a worthy champion, or your standard that if a rider doesn't do that, it's okay if he managed to win some races some other time?

As for "challenging" you...

Quote: Name another time in motorsport history that a rider/driver with a 12% win ratio in a season over the 2nd place finisher who had more than double the wins and won a title ..... IF you do find one I bet no one remebers them.

You asked, I answered.

Quote: Show me
[Re: Tom said it wasn't uncommon for riders with the most wins to loose the title]

You asked, I answered.

You demanded proofs that it seems you didn't think anyone could come up with, when in fact it was quite easy. Anything can and does happen in racing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 10 2007, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Who's this Alzamoras guy, someone who like Nicky (if he doesn't start winning) will be remembered as a 1 hit wonder World Champion who won a few races in his career and averaged high top 10 series finishes in his career?
Maybe I do understand your position a little better now, having read this. It's not that you think that Hayden and riders like him aren't worthy of titles, you don't think much of World Championships in general.

Your favourite rider shouldn't be Rossi, but Mamola, or Schwantz.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 10 2007, 03:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Simply put, you don't understand my standards enough to even challenge them.

Your standards seem to be nothing to do with actual results, and the rule seems to be that Rossi is good and all other riders suck. Get over it mate, the world champion is the best rider in the world. It may not last, but as far as 2006 goes, thats the story.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 10 2007, 03:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Actually the only year in which Kevin won more races than the Champion was in 89

I stand corrected, it appears i have been too nice to mr. Schwantz.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 10 2007, 09:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>the world champion is the best rider in the world.According to so many posts here that's not true .... the world champion (at least 06's world champion) is the one who finished the series with the most points.

I didn't run the #'s but I don't think any other world champion achived a title (maybe that Alzamoras guy did based on how proud you seem for him) with a 12% win ratio on the season .... I do stand corrected on the facts that others earned titles with less wins the #2 finisher but in all cases both the #1 and #2 riders were winners.

You seem to have a perception that it's about Rossi loosing it last year .... the truth is it would'nt have mattered to me if would've been you and me I'd feel the same.

This off subject a lil' but who here thought Nicky was the #1 guy at Honda last year?

SS

Hayden may have only been the "fastest" rider in the world twice in 17 attempts last year, but a championship is the bigger picture. In 2006 Hayden was the best rider in the world.

And yes, i fully believe he was hondas number 1 last year.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssiperko @ Mar 11 2007, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This off subject a lil' but who here thought Nicky was the #1 guy at Honda last year?

SS
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 12 2007, 12:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And yes, i fully believe he was hondas number 1 last year.
Not I. If he was truly the number one rider they wouldn't have "encouraged" him to ride the 'evo'. Or at least gotten him off the 'evo' when it was clear it wasn't as strong as Dani's. Or at the very least given him a decent clutch before the final two rounds.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 12 2007, 03:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not I. If he was truly the number one rider they wouldn't have "encouraged" him to ride the 'evo'. Or at least gotten him off the 'evo' when it was clear it wasn't as strong as Dani's. Or at the very least given him a decent clutch before the final two rounds.

Honda are not stupid, the know that a rookie hasn't got the experience to develop a bike, and has less chance of being the champion compared to a more experienced team mate.

The evo bike was design for biaggi to match the yamahas corner entry stability, and win back the title. It was the superior honda built to win the title.

Danis honda was barely different from the customer bikes, if he was number one he would get more special treatment.

Honda are never keen to go backwards, when hayden had clutch troubles they decided to work through to fix it rather than running back to the old bike.

I'm just of the opinion that the 'evo' was no better than the other RCVs, in fact I believe it was a hindrance. The only reason Hayden rode it is because in the pre season, he was in no position to strong arm Honda. He pretty much had no say in the matter. He was the lead development rider but I think Honda believed that throughout the season, Pedrosa would prove to be their number one rider.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Mar 9 2007, 10:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Hey maybe we should give Elias the 06 championship.
Or maybe we should just throw points out all together and have it all come down to one race. My vote is for Valencia. (Since Rossi has a tendency of losing focus and went gravel surfing in the middle of the event).

Lets just continue to apply the rules of other sports to try and come up with a rational reason why Rossi should have won the 06 title.

Nah, lets make it one race at Laguna, at least hayboy has a chance of winning evey race of the season......

Pete

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 12 2007, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm just of the opinion that the 'evo' was no better than the other RCVs, in fact I believe it was a hindrance. The only reason Hayden rode it is because in the pre season, he was in no position to strong arm Honda. He pretty much had no say in the matter. He was the lead development rider but I think Honda believed that throughout the season, Pedrosa would prove to be their number one rider.

Honda are not as stupid as to think they would win the title with a rookie, nor would they give him development to worry about while he learns. Hayden agreed to ride that bike because honda told him it would be an advantage later in the season. As it happens they came accross clutch problems, caused mainly due to hayden setting the bike up to do the opposite of what it was designed to do. The reason why the bike was so aweful in pre-season is because Honda was trying a new approach to desperately try and get the last 990 title from rossi, and they trusted Hayden to take the responsibility.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 13 2007, 12:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm just of the opinion that the 'evo' was no better than the other RCVs, in fact I believe it was a hindrance. The only reason Hayden rode it is because in the pre season, he was in no position to strong arm Honda. He pretty much had no say in the matter.
On the eve of Laguna 2006 Hayden said that the EVO bike was an advantage at some circuits and a disadvantage at others [compared to the other Hondas, presumably]. It did seem a more difficult bike to set up; he was often struggling on Fridays, improving on Saturdays and faster again on race day. What the advantages were, don't really stand out.

HRC--and the riders--found themselves in a strange position going into 2006.

Pedrosa, had just joined the class, and with 3 titles in 4 years he was clearly the guy for the future. 2006 was stressed as a learning year. No doubt it was thought that with Pedrosa's lack of experience the added burden of developing a bike geared for 2007 would be too much.

Hayden, on the other hand, was in the last year of his contract. He'd had 3 solid, if largely unspectacular, years and irregardless of 3rd place in 2005 I think needed to produce the goods in 2006 to keep his ride (or enhance his prospects for elsewhere). No doubt he didn't want the added burden of developing a bike geared for 2007.

It's a strange thing when neither guy wants to take on the lead development role. That lead role usually makes you #1 in the team (Doohan, Rossi, Rainey, Schwantz, etc., etc.), and gives you one of the best bikes on the grid. But then again, the EVO being a hybrid of sorts made for all kinds of uncertainties in that department. And who should HRC choose, the guy of the future, or the guy who might only be around for a year? [I wonder, had Biaggi not been such a prick, and had his results not dropped away, would HRC and Repsol have found a way to field a 3 bike team for 2006?]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Austin @ Mar 13 2007, 12:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>He was the lead development rider but I think Honda believed that throughout the season, Pedrosa would prove to be their number one rider.
I guess that depends on what they thought they had with the EVO bike, but even if they had both ridden the same bike it's still not a far-fetched scenario to imagine Pedrosa finishing ahead of Hayden in the championship, given their history to pre-2006. Hell, but for some rain-aversion and a clutch of rookie crashes it almost happened!