How good is Rossi in real terms?

It's true, certain individuals among our number seem to go into raptures
every time he has a win but have we really seen Rossi tested yet? True,
he's managed a good series win this year on what has till now been a second
string bike though we've also seen in past years that the same bike in other
hands hasn't been as far off the pace as the it's results may indicate.

Who has really tested him?

What about previous champions?

Agostini - Had competitors the like of Hailwood and Read but almost always
had a significant equipment advantage over his opposition. While he was
campaining sophisticated multi cylinder bikes his opposition of the time
were usually on large British singles or fairley primitive Japanese two
strokes.

Saarinen - We'll never know thanks to incompetant Italian officials.

Sheene - A tough, gutsy rider who's battles with Kenny Roberts Sr were the
stuff of legend. A larrakin streak a mile wide plus a lack of tact when
dealing with people around him almost certainly prevented him from having a
longer stay at the top, that and some nasty injuries.

Roberts Sr - Kel Caruthers.

Spencer - Good on his day but fragile, all in all a bit of a sook really.

Gardner - A lot like Sheene without the charisma though with a huge
determined streak. His loathing of being led probably made him take more
risks at times than were necessary in terms of championship points scoring
and this, ultimately, was his downfall as a championship threat. The last
competitor that anyone would want on their back wheel on the last lap of a
race.

Lawson - Cool, calculating with a good feel for the machinery. Like Gardner
he didn't like being beaten though he was ultimately, I feel, a better
championship rider.

Mamola - Tough, gutsy but an eternal bridesmaid.

Rainey - Probably the best American rider in the series to date. A
spectacular career cut short.

Scwantz - An American version of Sheene. Classy and charismatic with as
tough streak. Like Sheene before him he was let down badly by Suzuki.

Doohan - IMO the best Australian rider to date and one of the top five of
all time. The guy had it all, skill, a superb feel for the equipment and
(unlike Gardner) the ability to determine when to push and when not to. His
five titles could have been seven or more barring injury and he managed that
against opposition much more intense than any of the others.

And now there's Rossi. Is he really that good? It's a harder call to make
than you might think. On one hand he has the runs on the board but look at
the opposition he's facing right now. The only one in the current series
close to his level of skill is Biaggi and he's very reminiscent of Freddie
Spencer in that he tends to drop his bundle when faced with an opponent of
similar or superior skill. Sete? He was around in the days of Doohan and
running much further down the field back then. True at the time he was
running a second string twin cylinder Honda but when Doohan was out injured
and he was given Doohan's equipment he wound up doing worse than he did on
the inferior machine. I'm inclined to think he's up the pointy end of the
field more by virtue of a lack of competition than any real skill.
--
Deevo

Geraldton
WA, The Nanny State (® Corks)
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie

 

And now there's Rossi. Is he really that good? It's a harder call to make

So your question, really, is whether the competition is mysteriously
missing (including his days in 125s, 250s, and for a few years of
500/MotoGP now) or Rossi _is_ in fact _that_ good?

I find it hard to believe we've been seeing an extended period of absent
talent. Rossi hasn't been challenged too much because - IMO - he's
_that_ much better than the rest of the best.

Who knows? It's impossible to know unless a few other substanially more
skilled riders suddenly appear, which looks very doubtful.

Jules

 

He has been around for a while now, its not like he just appeared one race
and was at the pointy end. he did his time at the back of the pack.

why dont ya have a look at laptimes of them all?

 

It's true, certain individuals among our number seem to go into raptures

Thats my arguement with doohan as well, no competition.. IMHO they
cant actually be THAT much better than the rest, the rest just suck
arse.

 

But seeing how that view comes from a perpetual malcontent who copes by
trying to drag everything and everyone down to the bottom of whatever damp
hole he's trapped in, it is easily dismissed...

 

But if "the rest just suck arse" and they (Doohan, Rossi etc) don't,
doesn't that, by definition, mean they are "better than the rest" ?

David

 

Exactly......

MrBonk
www.mrbonk.com

 

So, who is, then?

 

by definition, mean they are "better than the rest" ?
doesnt mean they are "THE BEST"...

 

So, who is, then?
[/QUOTE]
Well, 'Gus is, of course, he's just never had the proper factory
suppoet...

;-)

big

 

I would still say the likes of Ago would have to rise to the top.
He raced more than one class,
On bikes which handled good for the day, but would be scarey to ride..
Had more than one genuine constant opponent

So who would you suggest?

 

In his day, the GP season consisted of 6 or 7 races, not 16, and most of his
dominating was done when his was the only factory team in the field. Early
on in his career, when Honda were still interested, and later on, when the
two-strokes came on line, he had to battle.

In terms of risk taken by the riders, the era immediately following his, the
mid 70's, when the bikes sprouted an extra 30hp but it took the better part
of 5 years for tyre, chassis, suspension and safety gear technology to catch
up, and for the new crop of racetracks like Paul Ricard to come along would
probably count as having been scarier.

Then again, he did come up in the late 50's, when they raced in pudding-bowl
helmets past stone buildings, on roads with kerbs 'n' shit...

In terms of what he achieved, and how far he had to come to achieve it, I
really can't find anyone to compare with Doohan.

He entered the GP's at a time when the bikes were at some of their most
unmanageable, and when the depth of talent was probably at its peak. Lawson,
Schwantz, Rainey, Gardner, Mamola, Sarron... ranging from multiple world
champions to some of the most talented and most determined men ever to have
raced, and, pretty much right from the off, he was right up there with them.

Then, his period of domination came after an injury of a type which has,
both before and since, seen other riders call curtains.

He guided the development of his own bike against an uncooperative factory.

He saw off a large number of very capable up-and-coming challengers
who'd've, without someone to put them in their box, gone on to far bigger
things than they did. Kocinski may have been, and probably remains to this
day, a dickhead, but the guy could ride. So could Criville and Barros.
Biaggi wasn't a drama queen until Doohan bent him over his knee and spanked
his arse the way he did in '98.

Someone like Rossi, who pretty much has the run of his team, benefits from
the rider-knows-best philosophy which Doohan brought to the paddock. Plus,
he's always been backed by probably the best team and he's come from a cozy
upbringing which fostered his talent the whole way.

I really do think that, had Doohan not fucked himself up in '99, he'd
probably have retired at the end of the 2002 season, after he'd won the
inaugural four-stroke championship and long after he'd've taught Rossi
self-doubt the way he taught it to those others.

....and I can say all that as someone who counts iconoclasty as a hobby.

 

Since the introduction of the 4 stroke bikes he has been both tested and
bested by both Barros and Gibernau on identical equipment.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Exactly the same could be said for Rossi.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Hang on Biggus, this is not actually being very fair.......

There are a variety of attributes required of someone who wants to be
dog's dick world champion motorcycle racer in the big class, or any
other class, for that matter.

They include talent in riding a motorcycle _very_ quickly round a track,
but also include being able to interact with pit crew, and factory, in
bike set-up, being a "marketable" commodity, to raise sponsorship money,
being silly enough (IMHO) to risk life and limb almost every week, in
the pursuit of excellence in their sport/business.....etc., etc.

There is a relatively small pool of people who have, by one means or
another, established their credentials as to their talents and motivation.

Most anyone on the starting grid of a MotoGP has already established
their right to be there. Some may well be on the way up, and
learning....others may be on their way down, but we are still looking at
250 to 30 folk who are, at any one point in time, the tops of their
profession.

If you compare Rossi with others that were racing against him, it is, of
course, valid to say that he won the the championship and thus is better
than they are, but it is extremely unfair to say that the rest "just
suck arse".

regards,
CrazyCam

 

It never occurred to me before but Rossi is Spencer (or Schwantz) WITHOUT
Roberts/Lawson (or Rainey/Gardner/Doohan).
Goes to show you just what might have been.......

 

Not to mention that Doohan had the '92 championship shot to bits until the
Dutch doctors butchered him (and he still beat Schwantz and only lost to
Rainey by 4 points after missing four races!) and there's no reason to
think that anyone would've beaten him in '93 either so what's that; 11
straight championships?
(Yeah yeah and if Criville had a dick he'd be king.....)
Clem

 

Trolling for Hatz, eh?

 

No competition? I'm sure Messers Lawson, Mamola, Haslam, Spencer, Scwantz,
Gardner and Rainey may have something to say about that.
--
Deevo

Geraldton
WA, The Nanny State (® Corks)
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie

 

My point exactly. Barros was at best a high end of midfield runner in the
time of Doohan as was Sete.
--
Deevo

Geraldton
WA, The Nanny State (® Corks)
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie