MotoGP/500cc Dominators (historic)

[Schummy]

(I have put a link to the graph at the end of this post)

We are nowadays within the reign of Rossi. He is not just the best rider in MotoGP but the current "dominator" of it. Along the years several riders have been the respective dominators of their era. Yet some other years there was not any ruler in it.

Obviously I *had* to get out my calculator (to speak so) and do something about it . So I searched about the data to see who were the Dominators in MotoGP/500cc history.

I define "domination" as winning more than 50% of races in the season. That is, a dominator is able to outperform the whole opposition. Perhaps surprisingly, about half of seasons have had a dominator (28 out of 58 seasons), although most of those seasons have been dominated by just a handful of excepcional riders.

Please, note that "level of dominace" is not a direct index for the "absolute" quality of that particular rider. Factors as quality of rivals, machinery, make direct comparisons not doable.

I am not going to put many statistics in this post, I'll write them in later posts, otherwise this post would be overweighted! But I'll put a graph showing the level of dominance by the best (most winning) rider each season. This level is simply the percentage of wins in the season.

I have added some signs to better understand the highs and lows. I hope this graph looks nice.

[Dani Filth]

the graph looks very nice .. and it's an interesting read as well

[Hazza]

I don't belive in the accuracy of comparing pre-modern day to current day.

Doohan getting on the podium in every race in 1998 is far better then what Surtees did, not to mention the fact they John Surtees would've contested quite a few more full strength races outside of the championship not marked on the graph.

Aside from that, yeah, I think that's great work.

Could you adjust it for number of races? I'm sure That pre 70s was probably only about 7 races or something

Also, afaik, the "Sheene" year, BArry stopped turning up after he sealed the title.

[Schummy]

Originally Posted by Schummy

Please, note that "level of dominace" is not a direct index for the "absolute" quality of that particular rider. Factors as quality of rivals, machinery, make direct comparisons not doable

No comparisons here between epochs. The point is the level of dominace in its time (year).

Not only there was the case of Sheene. A lot more extraordinary was Ago's. In 68, 69, 70 and 71 he won *every* race he *entered*(!), a feat never aproached. He often DNSed when the title was over. BUT... I cannot give a bonus for not starting a race, if they chose to forfait a GP, I cannot credit them with other thing than a "non-win". Every stat has its fine details between the numbers.

Yes, one of the stats I'm going to post later is the percentage "adjusted" according to the number of races. It's not the same to "dominate" 2 out of 3 races than dominate 9 out of 17 races. There is not, though, a great variation of the scheme represented in the graph.