|
Calling someone elses view on here garbage is really rather rude, especially when your facts are wrong!
Stoner only ever rode for Aprilia in 250, and was on a factory LCR bike with de Puniet, and it took him a while to learn to ride it. Pedrosa was aso on a factory bike, but not an NSR, it was a very modified RS Honda, much like the one Aoyama and Dovi rode to win aswell. Stoner was always quick on the straights on that bike, so in my eyes he could have won a world title, but didn't. He got beaten by a better bike,rider combination in Pedrosa and the Honda. Herode 125's at world level for 3 years, and even then was on a KTM which at the time was quick bit not the best, he won a race but never looked a title contender.
My point about Rossi winning titles is that he learned how to win. The bikes he was on were good yes, but he earned that in his first year in 96 with the sort of riding that earned the Nastro ride in 97 and then on. Stoner never got to that level Rossi did in his first year or he might have also attracted that level of support. He has had to work for it more, but you get what you deserve
in 2000, the NSR was Crivilles, he couldnt ride it, so they designed one round Rossi more and he won the title. Stoner couldnt ride the RCV211 remember, he kept crashing despite showing glimpses of amazing speed.
Basing an entire argument around one mans ability to ride one bike to wins and anothers inability to gel with it is fine. But it doesnt make him better or worse.
Rossi is mcomiong to the end of his career, why should he take the risks, he has hjad a scare with the leg break and shoulder, why bother really?
I find it sad people are so eager to put the boot in, yes Stoner has made him look a chump, but do you think Rossi wouldnt be dominating too on that Honda, and more importantly, do you think Stoner would be winning on that Duke this year? Smehow I think not.
|