The fact that Rossi's win percentage is about 27% and podium percentage about 54%, even though he moved away from the best bike and spent many, many years in a bike that wasn't the best - sometimes not even close -, is completely insane.
Hailwood being behing Rossi is probably the biggest surprise of this system. Agostini still at the top feels right. I wonder what Marc would need to do in the rest of his career to take top spot in this system
Yeah! That's a Mr. V's Garage video, I love that one. I really like doing weird racing stuff with statistics like he does, he's a huge inspiration for me
What makes them the greatest... I think you should omit what they did for the sport, I think math can't quantify that. It should be strictly results, and naturally longevity needs to have a modifier, because it's not fair to those who were amazing and yet had short careers. Ultimately, you are trying to get a glimpse of who was the best of all time (however, times change as well). Lastly, the other factor is that there should probably be another modifier between modern times and the classic riders...same thing w 2 stroke vs 4, and TC era vs non.
Yeah it's not perfect, and the influence part was broken and I couldn't figure out a way to quantify it, that's why I took it out for the most part and only left in a 1.25x multiplier for MotoGP Legends. And yeah, comparing riders between eras is ultimately pointless, because they would all do worse if you put them on bikes from another time, it's never going to come out right regardless of what you try tbh.
@TheBeehivePaddock true, I think in light of this, greatest by era would probably yield a better result, with more of a bias towards modern era mainly because you can argue that they are superior athletes to past riders, therefore better overall.
Good points. Can't really compare any players in any sports from modern times to like 50+ years ago, even arguably 40 years. 2 stroke and 4 stroke, I agree as well. No rider aids and all sorts of pathhetic rider aids (TC, anti-wheelie, and other electronic helpers), I agree as well but that may be more difficult to calculate. I always wonder which riders & drivers got better or worse - relative to the others of course - whenever there are big technical regulation changes in motorsports. I mean how many more or less wins and championships would have Rossi gotten if they didn't go to 4 strokes and/or if they didn't introduce all those pathetic rider aids?
SPOILERS!
Here's The full list, if you have a rider I missed or you want to see added to the list, reply to this comment with their name, and I'll run them through my spreadsheet and add them into this comment.
MotoGP GOAT List:
1. Giacomo Agostini - 1,223
2. Valentino Rossi - 1,066
3. Mike Hailwood - 674
4.Marc Marquez - 655
T-5. Angel Nieto - 610
T-5. Jorge Lorenzo - 610
7. Mick Doohan - 566
8. Phil Read - 548
9. John Surtees - 495
10. Eddie Lawson - 425
11. Jim Redman - 423
12. Dani Pedrosa - 405
13. Geoff Duke - 395
14. Carlo Ubbiali - 374
15. Max Biaggi - 369
16. Anton Mang - 366
17. Casey Stoner - 349
18. Wayne Rainey - 329
19. Kenny Roberts - 303
20. Freddie Spencer - 273
21. Pecco Bagnaia - 262
22. Kork Ballington - 260
23. Barry Sheene - 248
24. Luigi Taveri - 235
25. Jorge Martinez - 234
26. Alex Criville - 211
27. Andrea Dovizioso - 205
28. Kevin Schwantz - 189
29. Hugh Anderson - 185
30. Walter Villa - 184
31. Stefan Dorflinger - 183
32. Wayne Gardner - 171
33. Loris Capirossi - 157
34. Gary Hocking - 144
35. Maverick Vinales - 140
36. Umberto Masetti - 133
37. Hans-George Anscheidt - 126
38. Kenny Roberts Jr. - 110
T-39. Fabio Quartararo - 109
T-39. Jarno Saarinen- 109
41. Daijiro Kato - 108
42. Franco Uncini - 106
T-43. Marco Simoncelli - 105
T-43. Nicky Hayden - 105
45. Randy Mamola - 104
46. Werner Haas - 103
47. Marco Luchinelli - 101
48. Pedro Acosta - 100
49. Bruno Ruffo - 81
50. Stefan Bradl - 58
51. Aleix Espargaro - 18
Math also can't calculate just how shit the current Yamaha is, or how shit the 2011 and 2012 Ducati was.
The fact that Rossi's win percentage is about 27% and podium percentage about 54%, even though he moved away from the best bike and spent many, many years in a bike that wasn't the best - sometimes not even close -, is completely insane.
He never had a time where he wasn't competing against greats too, he is definitely one of the greatest ever, no question.
@@TheBeehivePaddock Damn, that's true. That has never occurred to me.
4:03 i don’t see any issues??
another fun 'little' video. id love to make something like this but for the WRC at some point in the future
You are a great video machine!
Hailwood being behing Rossi is probably the biggest surprise of this system. Agostini still at the top feels right. I wonder what Marc would need to do in the rest of his career to take top spot in this system
Pretty cool. This reminds me of the video about an Elo system for Formula 1.
Yeah! That's a Mr. V's Garage video, I love that one. I really like doing weird racing stuff with statistics like he does, he's a huge inspiration for me
Didn t capirossi win 3 titles in his career?
Yup, my mistake there, he won 2 125cc titles and 1 250cc title
I wish stoner never got sick
The best rider of all time is Stefan Bradl!
Rossi🙏🔥🔱
Marquez
What makes them the greatest... I think you should omit what they did for the sport, I think math can't quantify that. It should be strictly results, and naturally longevity needs to have a modifier, because it's not fair to those who were amazing and yet had short careers. Ultimately, you are trying to get a glimpse of who was the best of all time (however, times change as well). Lastly, the other factor is that there should probably be another modifier between modern times and the classic riders...same thing w 2 stroke vs 4, and TC era vs non.
Yeah it's not perfect, and the influence part was broken and I couldn't figure out a way to quantify it, that's why I took it out for the most part and only left in a 1.25x multiplier for MotoGP Legends. And yeah, comparing riders between eras is ultimately pointless, because they would all do worse if you put them on bikes from another time, it's never going to come out right regardless of what you try tbh.
@TheBeehivePaddock true, I think in light of this, greatest by era would probably yield a better result, with more of a bias towards modern era mainly because you can argue that they are superior athletes to past riders, therefore better overall.
Good points. Can't really compare any players in any sports from modern times to like 50+ years ago, even arguably 40 years. 2 stroke and 4 stroke, I agree as well. No rider aids and all sorts of pathhetic rider aids (TC, anti-wheelie, and other electronic helpers), I agree as well but that may be more difficult to calculate.
I always wonder which riders & drivers got better or worse - relative to the others of course - whenever there are big technical regulation changes in motorsports. I mean how many more or less wins and championships would have Rossi gotten if they didn't go to 4 strokes and/or if they didn't introduce all those pathetic rider aids?
gj