Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Between F1 and MotoGP for whom are these statements most true?:
1. I consistently produce an entertaining race weekend - MotoGP
2. I provide an adequate avenue for the best riders/drivers in the world to eventually make it into this competition - MotoGP (close call as I think both sport struggle with this)
3. I have a competition in which the riders/drivers are just as important as the machinery - MotoGP
4. I engage the fans through many different media outlets and am easily accessible to anyone who is interested - F1 (close call but Dorna is a little too greedy for me)
5. My races are compelling and the riders/drivers have the ability to aggressively battle and overtake - MotoGP (by a mile)
6. Race wins and championships are often decided in a dramatic and/or interesting way - MotoGP
7. The riders/drivers and other people in the sport are interesting and engage the fans and media in ways that give people something to talk about - F1 (close call but F1 is doing really well with this nowadays)
8. The level of competition is as high or higher today than it has ever been in our sport - Both
It's all subjective, though. 'Entertaining' is in the eye of the one being entertained: I've watched MotoGP races, and I just don't get into it as much as I do with cars. By the objective standard of close racing and overtaking, an oval race is better. By the standard of the driver making the difference, again a spec series racing on ovals is better. Would you agree that a spec oval series is superior racing and entertainment to MotoGP?
I'm not trying to duck into the MotoGP thread and put the series down, but I'm frequently annoyed by the sense of superiority that MotoGP fans seem to feel about their series. If they like it better than F1, great - enjoy it! But I don't see why they need to constantly come up with reasons why MotoGP is objectively better when it's not an objective question.
Of course it's not objective. This type of conversation can never be anything other than subjective. I'm a big fan of both F1 and MotoGP and have been for ages. I'm not trying to put down F1 or prop up MotoGP at its expense. I'm just pointing out that, in my opinion, MotoGP has a much more entertaining overall package.
To answer your question about a spec series like Indy; no I don't agree with that. Spec cars in and of themselves are less exciting than individual prototypes IMO. Also Indycar doesn't have the same level of performer as F1 and MotoGP; two series that attract the very best (for the most part). Ovals, for me, are also inherently less interesting.
Ironically, the thing that works most in MotoGP's favor are the laws of physics themselves. Because motorcycles are much more narrow and rely much less on aerodynamics for performance, they are basically ideal for close racing.