You are about to report the comment below to the Crash.Net moderators as being abusive. An abusive comment may contain profanity, personal attacks or commercial SPAM.
Please do not report this comment as being abusive if you simply disagree with the comment posted. If this is the case then you can click on the "disagree" icon () in the upper right of the comment's post to show your dissatisfaction.
Crash.Net moderators will view all reported comments and will act as they deem necessary. This may be editing the comment or total deletion.
A fallacy is the 2003 M1 being referred to as a dog of a bike when it wasn't. Biaggi was putting up a good fight until he started crashing like mad. From what I understood, Rossi was given 5 engines so whatever he picked is moot. Furusawa was actually using that as a test to see if Rossi knew what he was talking about as a rider - meaning it was all predetermined anyway.
So, Rossi didn't turn a dog of a bike into a winner, really. It was all Yamaha. The classic rebuttal is, "Well, what about the other M1s?"
Oh, you mean the fake ones that didn't really count? Rossi was the only one with a true, big-bang M1. He got all the go-fast parts and all the support. Logically, it's the stupidest move for data acquisition, but Yamaha gambled it all on Rossi to defeat Honda and it worked.
Do you blame Rossi for the over-development of the 2006 M1? Of course not! Or the fact that the non-pneumatic 2007 M1 sucked? Nope! Or tail-chasing methodology of Ducati Corse 2011-2012? Not eve