Motorcycle Forums

Hog5

What a complete load of twaddle, you've scrambled up there, tripping over yourself, to try and make Stoner your super hero. You need to listen to the words that Stoner said, key words, 'I'm retiring from MotoGP at the end of the season' - reasons: pissed off with it, not going my way. 'I'm not bigger than the sport after all', that was his realisation, and 'I'm going fishing', either way he's done on two wheels, unless they chage the rules to suit.

Unless of course you know something, that everyone else don't, that he's starting a full race season again this year. He might do V8 cars for fun, who gives a monkeys, he's out of bike racing, so he's history.

You're on another planet, you'd like to do a retro recount of the points back to 2006 to give him another title would you, and  saying your going to retire at 65 when you're 20, is definitely Hog5 bollocks. You're the Stoner fan boy, getting your panties all in a twist as usual.

Cornbowl

I didn't ask about reasons for retiring, whether he should have or shouldn't have and I'm not interested in your perceived difference between Stoner and Rossi

You said this

he would not have stood a chance of winning the title last year

I asked on what you based that assumption and clearly gave my reasons why. You have replied in your usual manner of not answering a question. So again, why is that your opinion? What is it based upon, given the reults up until Indy?

Hog5

What a yawn, that confirms what I said, Stoner is history in the bike world. Him racing V8's in Australia or him entering the French table tennis championship is of no interest to me, so who gives a toss, perhaps he feels safer in a tin box, less likely to fall off, and at least you will be able to get your fix, watching him in cars, but that's not for me.

Still no answer Cornbowl

Well you must know the answer to that, with seven races to go, Dani & Lorenzo had got the measure of Stoner, and imo, Stoner would not have taken the title.

Got the measure of him - after Laguna?

Iv'e always said there is as little as nothing between them in terms of ability, all are capable of winning races, therefore titles. They all 'had the measure' of each other.

So to go back to the situation before Indy, Stoner had just taken a convincing win at Laguna, so was hardly buckling under pressure as some like to claim. That meant Stoner had won 4, Lorenzo 5 and Pedrosa 1. The order in the championship was Lorenzo, Pedrosa, Stoner and one race win's worth of points covered 1st to 3rd. Including Indy there were 8 races left.

In practise he was fastest in FP1, tried a different set-up in FP2 that didn't work and in FP3 he was fastest again. He crashed very early in Quali so was hardly up against it with time running out and panicking  -  the early time he set was only 2/10ths off getting him 3rd on the grid. He was one of a good few riders caught out by the track surface that weekend (but everyone conveniently forgets about the others who crashed too) and on this occassion it was his turn to be unlucky and pick up a bad injury that wrecked his season.

So what there suggests that without the injury, Stoner would not have stood a chance at winning more races and the title?

Hog5

so what point are you trying to prove, you're talking about correctness, you're just full of it. All that matters to me and a good proportion of MotoGP entusiasts is, Stoner is no longer on the grid, so he is history, he can do whatever takes his fancy but, unless he decides to return to Motorcycle racing , I have no further interest in him, now do you think you can obsorb that in one easy go. He was a 2 times MotoGP champion and is now in the history books, so move it along.

Bultoboy, I did not say he wouldn't win anymore races, but imo, I did not think he would win the title, it isn't like he had a commanding lead, but with hindsight, I'm pretty positive he would not have taken the title, not given the commitment and mindset that Pedrosa had, but hey, it's water under the bridge, Stoner's playing with his new toys now.