Why Repeat Champions Are Sometimes a Good Thing

By The Merchant

I've heard the complaints about repeat champions for as long I've been watching motor sports: God, can't anybody but this guy win; This asshole is ruining the sport; On track battles for the win make great racing...and on and on. In many cases the complaints are valid. But I believe that as long as a champion is challenged periodically, then a racer beating the field year after year can actually be a good thing.

You would think it wouldn't be. You would think that the complainers out there clamoring for a hotly contested series would represent the majority of viewers. But the popularity of Valentino Rossi and Michael Schumacher (and the relative health of their sports during their heydays) tells another story.

That famous chin.

Seemingly laid back, Rossi is a vicious competitor

No doubt, having a singular force in any sport - a racer so consistent and so dominant that his skills seem preternatural - turns some fans away from watching. Who wants to see someone run away from the field race after race? But when the wins and losses are tallied and the histories written, who do we revere? Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost, Valentino Rossi, Giacomo Agostini, Mick Doohan...the very same men accused of making their sports "boring" by winning too much.

Just scan the stands of any current MotoGP race and you'll see a sea of yellow "46" flags lauding Rossi's skills and his nine total world championships, including seven in the premiere class. Were there years when I personally wanted someone, anyone, to beat him? Yeah. And that made me watch more because I was determined to see him fall at the hands of a worthy competitor. That polarization of the fan base--some for, most against--is good for the sport as long there willing and able competitors to challenge the champion.

Legends serve a dual purpose: they awe the fans with their skills, drawing some into their fold and push others to root for a field that is packed with perennial underdogs. It might seem counterintuitive but having a championship where anyone can win at any given time actually diminishes the prestige of the series in many cases.

Right now the MotoGP field is as strong as it's ever been with four MotoGP world champions participating: Casey Stoner, Valentino Rossi, Jorge Lorenzo and Nicky Hayden. They are challenged by racers holding WSBK, AMA SBK, Moto2 and 125cc titles. Going into the 2011preseason it seemed as though every race would be a caldron of aggressive passing with a revolving door of winners climbing the podium. But the transition from Rossi's dominance to Casey Stoner's utterly complete performance in 2011 had website commenters crying foul and complaining that MotoGP had become the new Formula 1. But they kept watching.

When a champion wins on points, with few strong victories to his name--as Nicky Hayden did in 2006--he's not held in the same regard as a rider who utterly dominates the field. And it's only when a new rider takes down a dominant champion that he is elevated to legend status.

Even competing closely with a legend can cement a rider's reputation as one of the best of all time. Kevin Schwantz took one title in 1993 after Wayne Rainey was paralyzed mid-season. His ability to compete with riders such as Rainey, Eddie Lawson and Mick Doohan made him a fan favorite though and he's still revered today. And every Sunday, millions of fans tuned in with the hopes that Schwantz to slay the giant in Wayne Rainey. After all, Rainey won three world championships back to back but no one today complains that he made racing boring.

Standing above and apart from MotoGP, Formula 1 is the most lauded championship in motorsports and the sport's champions are celebrated like no other. During Michael Schumacher's run of championships between 2000 and 2004, when he utterly crushed his competition, many complained that the season was over before it started, and that Formula 1 was losing fans because there was no real competition. But I believe that fans rooting for other competitors root harder when their favorite driver is facing down a seemingly invincible champion. Victory, or the possibility of victory, is that much sweeter because of how difficult it is.

Schumacher showed what was possible in a Formula 1 car. He raised the bar to new heights and as much as some hated his winning streak they couldn't help but marvel at what he was doing. Every viewer knew he was watching history and each had to admit deep down that they wished their favorite driver was doing the exact same thing.

In fact, Schumacher's return to the sport in 2010 was telling. He isn't competitive in the new Mercedes and while some fans sneered at him running mid pack, most were sad to see him down in the field. He belongs at the front because that is where he lived for so long. It isn't right that he's now just one of many instead of a singular champion.

I won't argue that complete domination can hurt a series. Case in point was the AMA Superbike series during Mat Mladin's run of championships. The Yoshimura team he rode for won 53 races in a row between Mladin and Ben Spies and because no other team stepped forward to consistently push them it made the field, and consequently the series, look weak. But I guarantee you that 20 years from now when people look back at the legends of AMA Superbike racing they'll have to first say, "Mat Mladin," and that as they say it they'll remember rooting against him every weekend.