Motorcycle Forums

CHR

I'm so disappointed! You can't compare riders of different generations. It just dosen't work. The biggest problem is the number of races in a season which is significantly more today than it was in the days of people like Lawson, Schwantz etc.

doohanfan. The simple and obvious difference is that stoner was riding the same machinery as Pedrosa, and still got beaten. How can that be if stoner is as wonderful as you assume?

hedgey. Infantile. Again.

mari 'oh no'

''So many ridiculous comments to choose from...

....from the simply deluded to the blatantly moronic, eh pc?''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you stop using big words please.

Ah - the child speaks

So Mario, were you sticking your tongue out at the PC and singing na-na-na-na-na when you wrote this?

Er, yes actually bluto. You see, it dosen't matter what's happened part way through the season. You can't draw conclusions based on a fraction of the season, and to do so would be silly, child-like and naive. Pedrosa beat stoner by enough points for his self inflicted crash to not matter. So yes bluto, I am deliberately overlooking that as its of no consequence.

Drawing conclusions on a fraction of the season is exactly what you are doing. First, you can't beat someone who isn't in the race. Stoner missed 4 races and in that time Pedrosa pulled 75 points on him, therefore Stoner hasn't completed a full season. Returning in Motegi left 4 races and if Stoner won them all he still couldn't have beaten Pedrosa as the deficit was too big - assuming Pedrosa finished 2nd or 3rd in each race. Had Stoner not been injured we'll never know what the outcome would have been but it's irrelevant. He was and it meant Pedrosa ended the season with more points. Riders get injured and miss races. That's all there is to it. Up to Indy of course, Stoner had won 4 races to Pedrosa's 1.

You really can't stand that one can you? Pedrosa fairly and squarely handing stoner his arse last year. It dosen't sit well with this hysteria thats being whipped up around stoner by a few sentimental, moist eyed fantasists who think he's a "widely acclaimed" this and that. But he's not, and thats exactly how it will look in the history books because thats exactly what happened. Take the blinkers off boys.

If you think that beating someone who has missed several races is beating them fairly and squarely then that's up to you. That aside, Pedrosa had a very good season, it wasn't his fault Stoner was out injured and my opinion always was that there was little between Pedrosa, Stoner and Lorenzo.

As for history books and records, as I said elsewhere, Madonna and Rihanna have easily sold more records than Shirley Bassey and are way higher in the 'title' of best sellers - does that mean they are better singers?

stoner and pedrosa

Stoner and rossi have both been beaten by a team-mate once in the premier class, in years when they missed several races due to injury and were affected by injury in several other races. All credit to lorenzo and pedrosa for defeating their team mates in those years, staying injury free has always been a significant component in premier class racing as rossi's 7 championships, doohan having 5 rather than 7 championships, and pedrosa'a previous career demonstrate.

Other than the very obvious point that getting injured is a bad thing if you want to succeed in gp bike racing, what exactly is your point? If you want to argue that success on the same equipment is all that counts, then stoner really is greater than rossi given their relative records on a ducati, and in particular stoner's times in the valencia 2010 race compared to rossi's in the post valencia testing 2 days later in 2010. Btw, stoner and rossi vs their team-mates is somewhere I really would not go were I arguing your position, given that stoner has always given his team-mates unfettered access to his data, there have not been team orders in his teams afaik etc, as opposed to your boy's team-mates usually having the status of (not very) glorified test riders, walls in the garage, leaving teams when they have the audacity to give a team-mate equal status etc etc.

Rossi is the greatest rider imo, and also imo never needed advantages to beat his team-mates when uninjured either, but if you wish to argue about stoner vs his team-mates and denigrate stoner's considerable (if obviously lesser than those of rossi) achievements then the facts are as I have delineated.

 I have never understood the attitude of those of your ilk from the start of all this in 2007, if stoner is no good how the hell did he win all those races with rossi in the field? I see it as like federer, nadal and djokovic in tennis (not that I am particularly interested in tennis), with the careers of two other exceptionally good tennis players overlapping the career of the guy who is very likely the best ever. I would see stoner as djokovic and lorenzo as nadal btw, since I think lorenzo will be regarded as the greater rider at the end of their careers as will nadal imo compared to djokovic. Maybe pedrosa will get in there too as andy murray did in tennis last year.    

Soup...

Infantile?... so Rossi was beaten by how much by his team mate on the championship winning bike in 2010?... & Stoner was beaten by how much on the bike that could only manage 2nd in 2012? In his injury year Stoner had more points, was closer to his team mate & was closer to the championship winner than Rossi in his... by a long way. That's exactly what happened.

Infantile is responding with nothing more than insults because you have no argument. Infants may know how to present arguments better than you but that doesn't label everyone who does as infantile.