Top 5 dirt bike racers of all time.

APLMAN99 wrote:

If you believe that Stewart has been a mediocre racer, you're being pretty silly. That guy probably went faster and raced better than anyone ever has...

If you believe that Stewart has been a mediocre racer, you're being pretty silly. That guy probably went faster and raced better than anyone ever has on a 125, even with 250 four strokes becoming the advantage that they are in that class. Perhaps you are just new to the sport, perhaps you just don't like Stewart, perhaps you're just being an idiot. Either way, you're saying something that just sounds completely silly.

Zracer wrote:

Of course it sounds silly to you. You have no understanding of the difference between guys that win only on riding ability vs guys that win...

Of course it sounds silly to you. You have no understanding of the difference between guys that win only on riding ability vs guys that win ,even against superior talent, because of racecraft, self control, and the ability to manage a race season when things don't always come easy. There are better racers getting 5th place,but maximizing their potential, than some of the "top" pros that rarely see their potential. As I said, people like you don't comprehend the difference.

APLMAN99 wrote:

Do you think Jeremy Martin has been a better racer than Kevin Windham? Martin has a National title, Windham doesn't.

Crush wrote:

At the crux of it, 3 years into their pro-careers Martin managed to win enough races, avoid dramas and win a major title - He did...

At the crux of it, 3 years into their pro-careers Martin managed to win enough races, avoid dramas and win a major title - He did everything better than his competition... KW didn't...

BUT

If you think comparing sample sizes after almost a 20 year career and a few is a good way to do it, or even worth the post, then I don't know what to tell you...

Zracer wrote:

Of course it sounds silly to you. You have no understanding of the difference between guys that win only on riding ability vs guys that win...

Of course it sounds silly to you. You have no understanding of the difference between guys that win only on riding ability vs guys that win ,even against superior talent, because of racecraft, self control, and the ability to manage a race season when things don't always come easy. There are better racers getting 5th place,but maximizing their potential, than some of the "top" pros that rarely see their potential. As I said, people like you don't comprehend the difference.

ttproducts wrote:

Top 5 Racers R Carmichael - just the GOAT S Everts - no need to explain J Salminen - calm, professional, talented and devastatingly effective T...

Top 5 Racers

R Carmichael - just the GOAT
S Everts - no need to explain
J Salminen - calm, professional, talented and devastatingly effective
T Cairoli - this man knows how to win championships better than anyone
D Knight - rough, talented, brutal and very effective
almost made it - Coma, Smets, Bailey and Dungey

Top 5 Talent

1. James Stewart - in my opinion by a long, long way
2. J.M. Bayle - astonishing timing
3. Paul Edmondson - ISDE GOAT, 5 world championships and a good example of why the stuff Stoner mentioned about rider/team dynamics is valid.
4. Johnson & McGrath - just cos they're my favourite guys after Stewart
5. Toni Bou (ok, he's a trials guy so doesn't really race but Youtube says it all with this guy)

Tomac, Herlings and Russel are on their way to Top 5 list sometime soon.

APLMAN99 wrote:

Do you think Jeremy Martin has been a better racer than Kevin Windham? Martin has a National title, Windham doesn't.

Crush wrote:

At the crux of it, 3 years into their pro-careers Martin managed to win enough races, avoid dramas and win a major title - He did...

At the crux of it, 3 years into their pro-careers Martin managed to win enough races, avoid dramas and win a major title - He did everything better than his competition... KW didn't...

BUT

If you think comparing sample sizes after almost a 20 year career and a few is a good way to do it, or even worth the post, then I don't know what to tell you...

APLMAN99 wrote:

Backpedal much?

Are titles the key indicator?

TeamGreen wrote:

Gary Jones
Roger DeCoster
Jean Michel Bayle
Jeremy McGrath
Kurt Caselli

We said, "Dirt Bikes".

So, I went with guys that rode Dirt Bikes The BEST

RandyS wrote:

Saw him race many times in the 60s and 70s at the Sac and San Jose miles but it was at a race at Argyle(Dixon) in...

Saw him race many times in the 60s and 70s at the Sac and San Jose miles but it was at a race at Argyle(Dixon) in the mid 80s that stands out, he was on a big 4 stroke of some kind BSA???. I want to say he was racing the open pro class, could have been vet pro, he had to have been over 50. Sheer badass on a bike that wasn't competitive 10 years earlier.

sende wrote:

I only thought of MX and SX, so Juha Salminen never crossed my mind. 13 time World Enduro Champion..Good pick!!

ATKpilot99 wrote:

Scott Summers . Multi time off road champ on a stripped down dual sport bike . RC and Everts of course . Danny Hamel , Destry...

Scott Summers . Multi time off road champ on a stripped down dual sport bike . RC and Everts of course . Danny Hamel , Destry Abbott.

RandyS wrote:

Fair enough, I said dirt bike for a reason.

Crush wrote:

At the crux of it, 3 years into their pro-careers Martin managed to win enough races, avoid dramas and win a major title - He did...

At the crux of it, 3 years into their pro-careers Martin managed to win enough races, avoid dramas and win a major title - He did everything better than his competition... KW didn't...

BUT

If you think comparing sample sizes after almost a 20 year career and a few is a good way to do it, or even worth the post, then I don't know what to tell you...

APLMAN99 wrote:

Backpedal much?

Are titles the key indicator?

Crush wrote:

What are you talking about, that's not a backpedal at all... Why would I? Titles are easily the best indicator... Bradshaw and Ward have what 20...

What are you talking about, that's not a backpedal at all... Why would I? Titles are easily the best indicator...

Bradshaw and Ward have what 20 wins each in SX. Do you want to talk about who had a better SX career? I'll take the guy with two titles.

As I said, why would you compare someone at 3 years into their career and another, what 2 years out of a very long career? If you do think that's a way to do it, Martin has a national title, KW doesn't.

APLMAN99 wrote:

If you believe that Stewart has been a mediocre racer, you're being pretty silly. That guy probably went faster and raced better than anyone ever has...

If you believe that Stewart has been a mediocre racer, you're being pretty silly. That guy probably went faster and raced better than anyone ever has on a 125, even with 250 four strokes becoming the advantage that they are in that class. Perhaps you are just new to the sport, perhaps you just don't like Stewart, perhaps you're just being an idiot. Either way, you're saying something that just sounds completely silly.

Zracer wrote:

Of course it sounds silly to you. You have no understanding of the difference between guys that win only on riding ability vs guys that win...

Of course it sounds silly to you. You have no understanding of the difference between guys that win only on riding ability vs guys that win ,even against superior talent, because of racecraft, self control, and the ability to manage a race season when things don't always come easy. There are better racers getting 5th place,but maximizing their potential, than some of the "top" pros that rarely see their potential. As I said, people like you don't comprehend the difference.

APLMAN99 wrote:

It's amusing to find people who discount "riding ability" as something that doesn't contribute to being a great racer. They assign terms like "naturally talented" to...

It's amusing to find people who discount "riding ability" as something that doesn't contribute to being a great racer. They assign terms like "naturally talented" to riders to try to reduce their achievements by implying they don't work as hard or race as well as others. That's just mostly stupid.

For a guy like James, he's probably spent more time on the bike honing his craft more than 99% of all AMA pros in history. His riding skill didn't just occur, it was built over thousands of hours of practice. And more practice. And then more practice.

His racing skills are incredible, otherwise he wouldn't have won the number of races he has. His philosophy of trying to win every race in his early years may have been different than others, but it certainly worked for winning a lot of races. Championships? Perhaps not as many. But his goal was to win every time he set a wheel to the track, and at it's essence that's what racers should do. Race to win races.

Zracer wrote:

Of course it sounds silly to you. You have no understanding of the difference between guys that win only on riding ability vs guys that win...

Of course it sounds silly to you. You have no understanding of the difference between guys that win only on riding ability vs guys that win ,even against superior talent, because of racecraft, self control, and the ability to manage a race season when things don't always come easy. There are better racers getting 5th place,but maximizing their potential, than some of the "top" pros that rarely see their potential. As I said, people like you don't comprehend the difference.

APLMAN99 wrote:

It's amusing to find people who discount "riding ability" as something that doesn't contribute to being a great racer. They assign terms like "naturally talented" to...

It's amusing to find people who discount "riding ability" as something that doesn't contribute to being a great racer. They assign terms like "naturally talented" to riders to try to reduce their achievements by implying they don't work as hard or race as well as others. That's just mostly stupid.

For a guy like James, he's probably spent more time on the bike honing his craft more than 99% of all AMA pros in history. His riding skill didn't just occur, it was built over thousands of hours of practice. And more practice. And then more practice.

His racing skills are incredible, otherwise he wouldn't have won the number of races he has. His philosophy of trying to win every race in his early years may have been different than others, but it certainly worked for winning a lot of races. Championships? Perhaps not as many. But his goal was to win every time he set a wheel to the track, and at it's essence that's what racers should do. Race to win races.

TDeath21 wrote:

I think the point he's making is that when he went up against someone of equal speed on a given day, he usually crashed or faltered...

I think the point he's making is that when he went up against someone of equal speed on a given day, he usually crashed or faltered in some way. When you equalize the talent factor, how good of a racer you are is really tested. Stewart continuously wadded up when going against riders of equal caliber. This could be an indicator of a poor racer. I see both sides of the argument, and you both make good points. I personally would have to say Stewart isn't that great of a racer by top professional standards. If he were, he'd have way more championships right now given the talent he possesses.

APLMAN99 wrote:

It's amusing to find people who discount "riding ability" as something that doesn't contribute to being a great racer. They assign terms like "naturally talented" to...

It's amusing to find people who discount "riding ability" as something that doesn't contribute to being a great racer. They assign terms like "naturally talented" to riders to try to reduce their achievements by implying they don't work as hard or race as well as others. That's just mostly stupid.

For a guy like James, he's probably spent more time on the bike honing his craft more than 99% of all AMA pros in history. His riding skill didn't just occur, it was built over thousands of hours of practice. And more practice. And then more practice.

His racing skills are incredible, otherwise he wouldn't have won the number of races he has. His philosophy of trying to win every race in his early years may have been different than others, but it certainly worked for winning a lot of races. Championships? Perhaps not as many. But his goal was to win every time he set a wheel to the track, and at it's essence that's what racers should do. Race to win races.

TDeath21 wrote:

I think the point he's making is that when he went up against someone of equal speed on a given day, he usually crashed or faltered...

I think the point he's making is that when he went up against someone of equal speed on a given day, he usually crashed or faltered in some way. When you equalize the talent factor, how good of a racer you are is really tested. Stewart continuously wadded up when going against riders of equal caliber. This could be an indicator of a poor racer. I see both sides of the argument, and you both make good points. I personally would have to say Stewart isn't that great of a racer by top professional standards. If he were, he'd have way more championships right now given the talent he possesses.

APLMAN99 wrote:

What specifically makes it a slam dunk that Stewart possesses more "talent" than Dungey, or really any of the folks he lines up against? Stewart has...

What specifically makes it a slam dunk that Stewart possesses more "talent" than Dungey, or really any of the folks he lines up against? Stewart has worked a lot longer than most to perfect his craft, but he's usually referred to as "naturally talented", rather than recognized for the work he's put in or the attempts to try "new" techniques to try to increase his speed. This is usually used to try to discount his accomplishments and infer that he isn't smart, is lazy, and if anyone else were born with his "natural talent" that they'd be unstoppable.

7warpig7 wrote:

No votes for Scotty Parker?

Expand your horizons folks.

TeamGreen wrote:

Gary Jones
Roger DeCoster
Jean Michel Bayle
Jeremy McGrath
Kurt Caselli

We said, "Dirt Bikes".

So, I went with guys that rode Dirt Bikes The BEST

Clutchy wrote:

Can I get an honorable for this guy...? Dick " Bugsy" Mann. Badass for DECADES.. I only saw him ride as an old man and he...

Can I get an honorable for this guy...? Dick " Bugsy" Mann. Badass for DECADES.. I only saw him ride as an old man and he was banging bars with every one back in the day.