Posts
10116
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA
US
Fantasy
856th
Edited Date/Time
4/14/2020 12:31pm
I don't need to remind anyone here that we cannot really compare riders from different eras. We can't truly know who is the fastest of all time because we cannot compare riders in their primes on the same equipment.
But what if we could?
Let's say you have a time machine and can transport any rider from one era to another, and race them at one track on the same day with equivalent equipment from the day. What happens then?
Assuming you give each rider some time but not a lot (a few weeks at most,) to acclimate to his new bike/track/era, here is what I think would happen:
Riders from the '90s would suffer comparably outdoors. The guys from the "Golden Age" just before trained harder (Ward, O'Mara, Bailey, Hannah,) and the guys from the RC era did as well. Even the riders from the '60s and '70s were tougher, as their machines required more strength and endurance to ride. In long-moto formats, the conditioning factor would come into play. For instance, Bob Hannah or Roger DeCoster would beat Jeremy McGrath or Jeff Emig outdoors on equivalent machinery, IMO.
Riders from the pre-evolution days would suffer just from not having the speed. Sure, they were fast, but the meaning of the word fast has changed. This would also be true of any '80s rider moving forward into the late '90s or early '00s, to a lesser extent. The fact that an '80s bike could handle so much more abuse than the ones before, and the fact that the speed of competition has risen since then would be detrimental to the riders from earlier eras. They would have to adjust. Even a lesser talent from today would probably beat a notable rider from the past on today's machinery, just from speed alone. Dean Wilson beats Brad Lackey, for instance. In other words, the speed of the race itself has gotten faster over the years.
"Hungry" riders would do well in any era. RC, DeCoster, Hannah, would rise to the top in any competition.
Current-day riders would have a hard time making pre-'80s bikes go fast. Jeffrey Herlings would get smoked by Heikki MIkkola on '70s bikes, for instance. Even if he could go faster, he would destroy his machine before the finish.
Let's hear some takes you have and discuss....
But what if we could?
Let's say you have a time machine and can transport any rider from one era to another, and race them at one track on the same day with equivalent equipment from the day. What happens then?
Assuming you give each rider some time but not a lot (a few weeks at most,) to acclimate to his new bike/track/era, here is what I think would happen:
Riders from the '90s would suffer comparably outdoors. The guys from the "Golden Age" just before trained harder (Ward, O'Mara, Bailey, Hannah,) and the guys from the RC era did as well. Even the riders from the '60s and '70s were tougher, as their machines required more strength and endurance to ride. In long-moto formats, the conditioning factor would come into play. For instance, Bob Hannah or Roger DeCoster would beat Jeremy McGrath or Jeff Emig outdoors on equivalent machinery, IMO.
Riders from the pre-evolution days would suffer just from not having the speed. Sure, they were fast, but the meaning of the word fast has changed. This would also be true of any '80s rider moving forward into the late '90s or early '00s, to a lesser extent. The fact that an '80s bike could handle so much more abuse than the ones before, and the fact that the speed of competition has risen since then would be detrimental to the riders from earlier eras. They would have to adjust. Even a lesser talent from today would probably beat a notable rider from the past on today's machinery, just from speed alone. Dean Wilson beats Brad Lackey, for instance. In other words, the speed of the race itself has gotten faster over the years.
"Hungry" riders would do well in any era. RC, DeCoster, Hannah, would rise to the top in any competition.
Current-day riders would have a hard time making pre-'80s bikes go fast. Jeffrey Herlings would get smoked by Heikki MIkkola on '70s bikes, for instance. Even if he could go faster, he would destroy his machine before the finish.
Let's hear some takes you have and discuss....
Is it not part of time?
The Shop
Sorry, but guys like Kiedrowski, Henry, Lusk, Larocco, Alby, Hughes, Dowd, Landon and Stanton trained just as hard as guys in any other era.
Did anyone else race at that level with that much bike evolution? Maybe Hannah did from 1976 to 1989. Hannah had twin shock to mono shock. Seven inches of front suspension travel to 12"+. Spindly right side ups to upside downs. Air cooled to water cooled.
Pit Row
Sports like baseball, basketball or even track and field have changed very few variables in a hundred years. Supercross and motocross on the other hand make very large changes every decade.
It does make several incomparable eras of the sport. I don’t think that it’s fair to compare any of them with the exception of maybe 2000-current
Hard to get past that for me.
RC is the GOAT by a long shot. I believe every decade since the 70's have a few riders that would win against any crop.
Then, as a few years passed and he became well known, everyone could see it. Here's a quote from MXA's Jody Weisel: "I wasn’t in a group that believed that Magoo was the greatest racer that ever lived — instead, I thought he was the fastest rider that ever lived". That's an opinion from a guy not prone to making statements like that, and has been there since the beginning of our sport.
I believe that the best thing that ever happened to Magoo was riding for Honda under DeCoster's management. The magical results in 1982 showed the influence of that on Magoo. If not for the injuries (before the Paris crash) that slowed him down, resulting in his losing the Honda ride, he would have matured and tempered his wild nature. I believe that would have resulted in an unprecedented and untouchable championship record.
The quote from Jody Weisel states two distinct categories: greatest racer and fastest rider. In the former group, greatest racer, there have been a number of contenders: Carmichael, DeCoster, Hannah, McGrath, Stewart, Villopoto, Dungey, Mikkola, Stefan Everts, Johnson and Ward. In the case of the fastest rider, those with that special gift, Magoo stands way at the top of the list, followed by Tripes and Lechien. Maybe Bayle too. Joel Robert would be the only guy that might be near the top of both categories.
So, in any era, against any competition, Magoo would be my #1 pick. I wish we could get DeCoster to jump in on this thread, it would be illuminating to say the least. Maybe even surprising...
1. Carmichael
2. Reed
3. Villopoto
4. Roczen
5. Dungey
6. Emig
7. Windham
8. McGrath
9. Tomac
10. Stewart
The big one people here will scratch their heads on is Reed. But people forget how dominant he was in the mid 00s. 2-2 moto scores for 2nd overall, well ahead of 3rd, on numerous occasions. Just so happens that number 1 on this list was there with him. But a big key to that is he proved he wouldn’t push hard and crash even with Carmichael out front. Well after his MX prime, he was giving Dungey and Villopoto all they could handle.
9 and 10 people are going to think should be much higher. Amazing as they were/are and as exciting as they were/are to watch, they’re going to miss races due to injury. They’re gonna push the limits to beat this deep field and it’s gonna bite them. Mentally, that’s just their style.
The answer is no. Not because he’s not just as fearless. He’s got bigger balls then just about anyone. The sport has progressed too far generationally. It just wouldn’t be possible.
Heck I remember when he did that flip on a motorcycle into the pool of water and badly broke his leg. I thought never again would we see someone flip a motorcycle.
Well holy shit look at what tricks they are doing now on a motorcycle.
So now look at the speed these top guys are running on the tracks. These are generational differences. This is not a measurement of heart, who’s a bad ass, who can twist the throttle.
These are truly generational differences in progression of the sport.
Just my opinion. And a lot of sports suffer from this type of comparison. It can’t really be compared because the progression of the sport is just far and beyond what it was in the past.
Post a reply to: A new angle on the "All Time" discussion