PJay

OK, I've got drawn in to the discussion again, because there's a huge logical inconsistency here.

Money may draw talent out, true. But it doesn't actually find the talent to start with.

Worldwide, there is probably now about the same proportion of motorcycle riders to total number of vehicle users as there was in the 1970s, that is to say less than in much of the 20th century.

So there are countless people who may have the talent but will never have it drawn out, by money or any other way, because they never get riding. And thus a smaller proportion who get to hone and prove their talent in competition.

And as for "different talent level", well, go compare the lap times of a race circuit done by the top old guys still racing today on Historic bikes (eg Ginger Molloy, #2 in 1970 World 500 R/R championship) with the outright lap records. Then compare relative power, brakes, and top speeds.

And then compare the lap times done by modern riders on the same Historic machines.

"Different talent level" my ****.

RK1

OK, I'm sucked in again myself. As I've said, I'm no expert on racing or racing history, but I know how to look stuff up.

Prior to 1978, before Americans entered the fray, virtually every 500 cc championship was won by an Italian or a Brit.

Americans won 13 of the next 16 championships. How can you explain this?

Seems to me that one of two things must be true, which would a reasonable man consider more likely?

Either Americans entering the 500 cc class substantially expanded the talent pool and increased the level of competition (a level of competition previous champions never contended with).

OR:

Something inexplicably strange, mysterious and devastating happened to the rest of the world's talent pool during the winter of '77-'78.

Could Agostini or Hailwood be MotoGP champs today? It is entirely possible, but one thing is absolutely clear. They would have to overcome stiffer competition than they encountered back in the day to get there.

PJay

I absolutely agree with almost all of what you say. In fact, it was often said at the time that Ago was champion as often as he was through lack of rider and machine opposition. But he could - and still can - ride like a champion.

The Transatlantic Match Races of the early 70s, that stuttered on into the 80s, should have given the Brits a wake-up about American roadracers' abilities. At different times, in fact, each team in those was bolstered by other foreigners in attempts to widen the talent pool in them, too. The US riders of the late 70s brought into the mainstream the dirt riding techniques that the Southern Hemisphere riders had used with success, but were somewhat frowned on by the European roadrace establishment (refer the discussion about Nicky earlier in this thread - the discussion, in general terms, is decades old now). Talent and past riding experience are two different things. Tire technology for the late 70s race bikes was wayyyy behind machine abilities - I know, I raced a TZ750 then - and you just could not manage to lap really fast unless you did expect a bit of unruliness. The Brits and Europeans were much unused to that.

So the answer about the sudden dominance of the US riders is really easy - their opposition became complacent about technique, just as the British motorcycle industry had become complacent about its machines a little earlier.

However, on the point of money bringing out the talent, it was not money that took KR and Pat Hennen and those guys at that time to go and race at World Championship level, because money was better in several levels and areas of the sport in the USA. It was their successes and their PR abilities that then brought the money in for riders in World Championship racing (the same happened with US riders getting in to World level MX, I think, too) - at last.

I would want to look at a much longer history - such as the years all the way through until now from 1978 - to start with, before discerning patterns about where the greater racing talents come from. 1978 was not quite half way through the history of the formal World Championship R/R system we have now.

It does stand to reason that a greater population pool will give a greater talent pool. So what about comparing modern-day winners per head of population of their respective countries?

I suspect you would get ..... Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi (yeah, they're the neighbours, but I'm proud of 'em).

HisHawkiness

Actually the Ducati MotoGP bike is an 800cc V4 if Im not mistaken.

PJay

You're not mistaken.

HRCA#1

Sorry guys I've been away from the forum for awhile. So let's see oh yeah

Nicky did go to Ducati..good for him and Ducati I wish them success.

AMA/DMG and the OEM's are making nice and we will have racing as we knew it in 2009..good news if the economy will allow us to buy tickets.

There are still a few that want to push the depth of talent argument. I would point out something that I believe is attributed to Mario Andretti when he was asked about depth of field issues in CART. His response was something like if there were 10,000 more people driving these things you might not even know my name!

It's just as PJ pointed out there are and has always been only a small number of motorcycle racers compared to the total population of people who could do it.

I look forward to getting caught up with the Forum..talk to you soon.

RCVTR

Josh Hayes just joined the Factory Yamaha team in AMA Superbike.

He looks forward to the opportunity to have a go at Mat Mladin, on a highly competitive full-factory ride (his first).

Looking forward to that.

Go Nicky!!

RK1

Your Andretti quote argues against your stated position on "talent pool". I believe, and I'd bet Mario did and does believe, no matter how many people raced CART, we'd still know who Mario Andretti is, but his point is well taken.

The larger the talent pool, the harder it is to win. Harder to win MotoGP in 2008 than in 1968. That in fact is the point Andretti was making with that quote.

PJay

Larger ain't deeper (in this context, anyway - we're talking bike **** here, not the other sort...).

If you stick with the equation that large talent pool = harder to win, and keep it to the USA, how come friends of mine from here in a little country have won AMA Superbike races (and in at least one case, an AMA series)? I guess an explanation could well be that the foreigners are enlarging the talent pool. Another could be that the local pool is very wide, but shallow; depends on your perspective, huh?

I have no disagreement at all about 1968 being a bad time for factory race riders - Japanese factories dramatically reducing their expenditure for all World level roadrace competition, British factories moribund, MV the only European factory putting in any real effort at 500 level.

But....because riders below factory level were encouraged, there were more riders competing at the top level then than now over the course of a championship year. And some of them placed. And a lot of them were very, very good riders.

Just compare the pathetically small fields in Moto GP 2008. What a bloody yawn: Pedrosa starts well; Pedrosa falls off; Rossi and Stoner go for it; the 10 also-rans have a small race; finis.

Conditions were different back in '68, too. Track surfaces were nowhere near as good as the billiard table ones Moto GP ride on; tires were nowhere near as good as the Chinese ones you can get for your stepthru now; supensions were hardly adjustable, far less were they tuneable; tracks were routinely just roads for the rest of the year, with stone walls right next to the racers; and so on and so on and so on. There is a really good case for arguing that many of today's racers would not even consider trying to race in the conditions the 500GP competitors did in 1968.