MotoGP: Down Under (Spoilers, Mite!)

I wish you were wrong. But, I'm concerned you might be right. I've been watching since the mid-80's also. Sure seems it used to be more wide open with the rules (or, at least less rules and less constant changing) and racing was what it was all about. All the politics and constant changes and progressive clamping down on what's allowed, just seems to be spoiling the show.

I'll still get that MotoGP.com subscription for next year though.

Truth is i dont think Stoner could get the current Ducati to work - its a pig. Rossi spent all day Saturday on the thing only just managing to beat the CRT's who are not that far removed from a Production Bikes considering the amount of tuning / changes allowed to them, qualifying time ...

My ears also tell me the Moto3's at full noise are louder thant he Moto big boys

Fair call, from my spot I could see and hear the thing just not working you can only ride around so many problems. All the teams made improvements over the weekend to the Ducs, but they where still second rate. Nicky was trying hard to ride around the problems, Karel Abraham rode well, Rossi looked like he was just doing enough to stay ahead of the other Ducs, while Hector just didn't really get the thing going.

Really hope they can get it together, but I don't think it will happen.

I am. I'm just not blindly putting him up among the very greatest, because he doesn't belong there. The fact that he's a whiney bitch just makes him less likeable, not a worse rider. It seems you people are second only to the English when it comes to blind praise for your home guys. Oh, wait, I see why..

I remember watching Hayden and Stoner at Laguna too. Coming up the hill to the Corkscrew, Stoner's bike sounded angry, charging up the hill with the front tire in the air or skimming the track the whole way up. Hayden's bike sounded flat, lifeless, and the front was seemingly glued to the track. Every lap. Stoner, of course, was a lot faster. Technically, the difference between the two was obviously electronic settings. But why was Hayden running so much more interference? He had access to Stoner's data and settings, so he knew the difference. He just couldn't ride the bike the way Stoner did.

I'm sure Rossi and many others would give their left testicle to find out, what exactly Stoner did on the Duc, that made him so fast.

But maybe it is actually something, that either is in you, or isn't, but cannot really be learnt (at least as long as they don't make some fundamental changes to the bike)? There have been other very, very good riders on that bike (in fact there is right now), but they are all struggling, and not much seems to change. Same thing been going on for at least 5 years now.

On the other hand, I believe Stoner himself would not challenge for many race wins or world title with the current Ducati. There were reasons, why he left.

He is a very very rare talent.Your opinion of his personality traits have no bearing on the matter.He undeniably belongs amongst the greatest.He may not be finished with motogp yet

So far he doesn't, as we discussed in the other thread. If he returns and improves his record, then I may revisit that opinion. Has nothing to do with his personality.

Last two Indy races I watched from the top deck over turn one where I could sight down the short chute to turn two. Casey Stoner was the only rider who could keep his front tire on the inside paint so he could sweep turn two. Everybody else would end up about 5 feet off the paint or worse. The Ducs just wobbled wide or even ran off.

He was able to keep to the paint by spinning up on a late apex, allowing the motorcycle to turn tighter. It was a definite slide he repeated every lap of every dry session. It gave him a significant advantage. Pedrosa was better than 2011 in that turn, but not quite as slick as Stoner.

Strange that Doohan has stated that he regards Stoner in the top four riders he's seen. But heh, what would he know ?

victories 2nd places 3rd places poles fastest laps World Championships
AGOSTINI Giacomo 122 35 2 9 117 15
ROSSI Valentino 105 45 27 59 87 9
NIETO Angel 90 35 14 34 81 13
HAILWOOD Mike 76 25 11 79 9
DOOHAN Mick 54 31 10 58 46 5
READ Phil 52 44 25 5 36 7
REDMAN Jim 45 33 20 35 6
STONER Casey 45 17 26 43 33 2
PEDROSA Dani 44 38 29 41 54 3
LORENZO Jorge 44 36 18 51 23 4
BIAGGI Max 42 41 28 56 42 4
MANG Anton 42 25 17 34 26 5
UBBIALI Carlo 39 20 9 34 9
SURTEES John 38 4 3 34 7
MARTINEZ Jorge 37 14 10 42 11 4
CADALORA Luca 34 22 16 29 30 3
DUKE Geoff 33 7 10 29 6
LAWSON Eddie 31 31 16 18 21 4
BALLINGTON Kork 31 9 6 19 16 4
TAVERI Luigi 30 33 26 28 3
CAPIROSSI Loris 29 34 36 41 32 3
LAZZARINI Eugenio 27 35 19 35 15 3
BIANCHI Pierpaolo 27 17 17 32 25 3
SPENCER Freddie 27 10 2 33 24 3
SCHWANTZ Kevin 25 13 13 29 26 1
ANDERSON Hugh 25 12 11 25 4
MARQUEZ Marc 25 5 8 28 15 2
RAINEY Wayne 24 22 19 16 23 3
ROBERTS Kenny 24 14 6 22 27 3
VILLA Walter 24 6 6 21 20 4
SHEENE Barry 23 13 16 19 20 2
MELANDRI Marco 22 20 20 9 16 1

8th on this list is amongst the greatest surely?

When you look at the names below him , DEFINITELY

Ok so Eddie Lawson, for example, who won 4 world titles, and changed manufacturer, but still kept the title (just like Stoner and Rossi), while riding against allegedly the toughest field of all time (Gardner, Rainey, Schwantz, Mamola, Doohan, etc) on them fire-breathing two-stroke monsters, is 10 places below Stoner? Because only the number of race victories count??

I do respect Stoner hugely, and he's certainly among the best riders of his time. But this kind of classification will always be open to debate. The sport changes, and you just can't compare riders from different eras.

As I already said in the other thread when you posted the exact same thing: i) that piece of statistic you chose is probably the worst one for looking over time between different riders - it simply doesn't allow for a fair comparison, and ii) it takes more than a big number of wins to be one of the greats. If you need to show people statistics to convince them you're one of the greats, you're not. He's a good rider and a world champion, but he is not to be mentioned in the same sentence as Doohan, Rossi, Rainey, as just some examples. And he is far from alone in history or even the present to ride a bike sideways through a turn.

I think we could all agree this photo is awesome

Some quotes from a story I'm writing for a magazine:

Jorge Lorenzo: "Maybe the fastest one, or the most talented one I have seen on a race track"

"I think I was quite lucky in the years he was in Ducati, because if he would have been in another factory like Yamaha or Honda, he would have won more races and even more world titles. "

Ben Spies:
"To me I think he's definitely the fastest person ever to ride a motorcycle, I mean the most talented, when it comes to raw talent, for sure. "

Andrea Dovizioso:

"he is very fast, the fastest, his feeling is really high,"

Nicky Hayden:

"I think he elevated the speed. That's what Casey has, is just natural speed."

Of course, these world champion motorcycle racers could just be full of shit.

So many numbers and still you rank him 8th, simply by the number of victorys...

Rank him by world champion titles aand he's on position.... 28th ...:huh

No. I don't think they are full of shit, but maybe close to full of hypocracy...

If they had been asked to tell their opinions about Stoner a year or two ago, i don't think they had been so "kind"
But NOW, that he's retiring...

You have quotes from JLO, Ben, Andrea and Nicky... I'm curious what Randy, Abraham, Rossi really think... maybe not printable for the magazine story...

Everyone has opinions, polished or not. Run it through a contemporary MotoGP political filter, and see what comes out. He is quite obviously not the fastest person ever.

Only one who disagrees is Rossi, and his record speaks for itself.