BWitcher

It should also be remembered, bikes are a lot harder to ride these days and it takes more skill to become a decent rider. This alone would have scuppered the hopes of a number of riders in the 70's... but again, the best would have adapted.

No, that wouldn't be the case at all. There are countless examples across all sports of athletes/competitors who have a lot of talent, but lack the dedication that is required to succeed in their given sport. Had they been around in an era of 20-30 years ago, they would have been fine. By the same token there will be competitors from bygone eras who simply wouldn't have been able to adapt.. others such as Mauger most certainly would. Besides, your argument defeats itself in that the level of professionalism WAS there in the 70's, but only from a select few of the riders. Now that level is far more widespread. There are less of the worlds elite riders riding in the EL, but the 'standard' is an ambiguous term. The reality is, the 'standard' of riders in the EL, head to head with those in the BL of the 70's is far higher. The 'standard' compared to other riders of their era is lower.

Ah here comes another deluded one. No you didn't have to be really good to shine. That has already been proven. An average rider would look like a star in those days, whereas now, even in the weaker set up off the EL, an average rider looks barely average. What has also been proven is that although there were more TOP level riders in the British League in the 70's, due to the format it is actually FAR harder now to obtain a high average than it was back then. The fast track system has muddied the waters somewhat, but prior to that, reserves in the modern EL are of a higher level than in the 70's. On a worldwide basis, the overall standard of rider is higher now than it was in the 70's,

Sidney, don't misunderstand me. I completely agree with you with regards to the awe and the aura surrounding the top riders back then. As there were more teams you saw them less and thus it was much more exciting when you did. Plus, with the addition of the GP series we see the top riders every other week so it's not such a 'big deal' anyway. It's an interesting debate as to what effect this current heat format would have had on the league in the 70's. You would have seen the big boys racing against each other far more often which would surely have created more exciting racing? However, you quite simply wouldn't have been in awe of as many of them as you would be used to seeing them being beaten on a far more regular basis.

Not just the nominated race, but Heat 13 as well.

You still don't understand. It has nothing to do with 'coping with the changes', It is to do with Maths. In the 70's there is a chance as a no 1 you may only face the no 1 rider in the league TWICE in the whole season. Once in your home meet, once in the away. Now, you would be facing the no 1 rider in the league TWELVE times. The same for facing the No 2 rider in the league.. the same for the no 3 and so on. Thus, if you are for arguments sake the 6th best rider in the league, you will go from having TEN races with opponents that are better than you across the season to having SIXTY races against opponents better than you. That is a massive difference. Your opinion would change and you have already admitted as much by trying to suggest Matej Zagar isn't a true Number One as in days gone by. Why do you state that? Quite simply because he doesn't win as many races as No 1's in days gone by... Why doesn't he win as many races? Because he is in a tougher format and is racing the other top riders far more often. That immediately changes your perception. Zagar is in the bracket of riders just below the very top boys. So is akin to your Louis, Jessups of the world. He's won and been on the rostrum in GP's, just as Louis, Jessup made the rostrum in World Finals. Your ENTIRE opinion of riders is based on how often you saw them winning races. As is the case with everyone else. Your futile suggestion that there are other reasons you have failed to back up. You can't provide me with the name of one single rider who you believed was top class that you didn't see winning most of his heats.

Sidney, once again you aren't grasping it are you. ER is giving you examples of WHY you are completely wrong in your assertions. I am going to give you a stone cold FACT here. If this lot rode NOW in the current set up... Briggs,Mauger,E.Boocock,N.Boocock,Mauger,Olsen,Betts,Moore,McMillan,B.Jansson,T.Jansson,Michanek,Ashby,Simmons,Crump,Wilson,Jessup,Louis,Boulger,Persson,Lofquist,Eide,Sanders,Valentine Only 8 of them would be No 1's, and only 3-4 of them would stand out. Another 8 of them would be 7.5-8.5 men and the next 8 would be 7 pt men. Basically riders such as Betts, Ashby, Louis, Sanders would be riders akin to Craig Cook now. Correct, because they had easier rides.

Correct. Back in the 70's a rider could race speedway for the first time one week and within a few weeks be in a team. Never ever happens now. Foreign riders could come in and rack up very high debut season averages, not 6-7 pts, but 8-9 or even higher.. very, very rarely happens now. Yes it was easier. That is a FACT and its been explained to you over and over. His average included bonus pts, he only raced against the opposite number 1 once a meeting in most cases and had pick of starting gate in most cases. Plus the opposite no 1 he is against may be the 14th,15th, 16th best rider in the league etc.. so not difficult if you are one of the top 4 or 5 of the time. None of this says Carter was a bad rider or diminishes from his ability at all.

God help us. Edited to add: Sadly he's retired so can't

The discussion was Sidney claiming that the standard of rider was higher in the 70's than now. He then tried to throw in the Elite League to cover up the inadequacies of his argument and to deflect from questions he couldn't answer.

You have it spot on Waiheke for sure. More of the worlds top riders rode in the BL as it was then compared to the current EL. The overall teams weren't as strong as appeared as they were spread over more teams as you point out. The BL of the 70's teams are nowhere near the strength of the teams in the Polish and Swedish top leagues.. again this is simply due to the number of teams in the league.

Except I've already demonstrated it wasn't.. "Spot on"

That's not your argument though WK... you've just come up with a new one after I've shown your previous one to be false. Although of course, we did have the World Champion last year.. How many world Champs did we have in the 70's? More than 1 or... Seriously though, that is an entirely different argument and the roots of it lie in the change of the then National League in my opinion.

No, not what I said. Still you haven't answered my question have you.. quite simply because you can't Sidney. There has been no mumbo jumbo from me, I have been quite clear in what I have said and its backed up by facts, not make believe. You however have constantly contradicted yourself. It's not been the debate, as the EL has been gradually weakened for a number of years now. However, again you're falling into the old trap of, the more teams there are, the more it appears there are top riders. It's simple maths. Take someone like Troy Batchelor. He'd be a 10pt+ heat leader under the 70's format. As for your point regarding 'full' internationals, I would estimate around 75% of the top 5's of the Elite League last season are full international riders. I highly doubt the figure was higher in the 70's and if anything it is almost certainly lower... so again, your line of argument is flawed. Once again it comes back to the fact that it was a bigger league, with an easier format, so there will be a lot more higher averaged riders.

I suggest you read it again Sidney as the answer is there. You are the only person on the thread not answering simple questions. I've asked you 4 times now, name me a top class rider who didn't win most of his races, as you've told us that's not how you judge the ability of a rider and that we should 'forget it'.

The bigger the league, the easier it is and the more 'top riders' there appear to be. It's very simple. 8 teams, you have 8 no 1's. 8 no 2's etc. 20 teams, you have 20 no 1's 20 no 2's. And so on. REGARDLESS of the strength of the leagues. The British League in the 70's had more of the worlds top riders in it.. however, its still arguable whether the teams were that much stronger than even current EL teams (although the fast track has blurred that somewhat)... due to their being less teams in the EL now. The British League in the 70's is nowhere near as strong as the top leagues in Sweden and Poland are now.. but again, that's primarily due to the number of teams. The overall standard of riders is around the same. Waihekeaces has already demonstrated this, or do you believe Sidney that Peter Carr, Paul Thorp etc were better than Freddie Lindgren?

You still haven't answered the question Sidney. You don't need stats and race wins etc you've told me, so once again name me ONE world class rider who didn't win the majority of his races. Come on, it must be easy for you. Sidney, you really should stop talking as you are digging a bigger hole for yourself with every post. Once again what you are claiming is quite simply mathematically impossible. You can't have the top riders being way above, but at the same time losing to the 2nd strings more. Malcolm Holloway is like a Nicolai Klindt. He has beaten all the worlds best riders on a regular basis, not just once in a career. He too can score 0 in a meeting and look atrocious. It's interesting you say to 'forget' stats.. but it's becoming more and more clear you're judging these riders based on them. All the averages you quote include bonus pts, which makes a BIG difference to many riders averages, especially 2nd and 3rd heat leaders and 2nd strings. It can turn a 6pt rider into a 7.5-8pt rider in some cases giving a totally different perception.

What decades? Decades are irrelevant. I've asked you, name a top rider who doesn't or didn't win many races as you are saying you don't judge riders on their race stats. So come on.. its simple, name me one.

Name me a top class rider who didn't win many races.

You keep saying forget stats... stats are a record of a riders performance. So, effectively you are saying please forget how many races a rider wins. Are you telling me that you judged the ability of riders on something other then the amount of races they won?? Seriously?

No, 95 and 96 is the most comparable example. What season did those you list all race against each other?

Yes it is Fact. Eye and memory isn't fact. You can't forget averages, you can't forget stats. They are not subjective, but a representation of what your your eye is seeing. You're seeing someone win races regularly.. rarely if ever come last. That's represented in their average. Why do you think there were 30 odd top class riders? Quite simply because you saw 30 odd winning most of their races on a regular basis. Why was that? Quite simply because they weren't racing against each other as often as they do now. Take those 30 odd riders, put them into a format such as the Polish or Swedish League.. the 30th one would be a 7pt guy. If that is all you saw week in week out, you wouldn't be classing him as a top class rider. Even take the same 30 and put them in an EL format, the difference would be even more paramount. If you want evidence of this, take a look when the leagues were merged in 95 and 96. There were countless riders averaging 9+. You had riders like Charles Ermolenko averaging 8+. Had he rode his entire career in such a format he'd be viewed as being a bordering on top rider.. but once the format changed and the league shrank again, riders such as that went back down to 5-6pt men.

As said, quite simply you can't.

It's amazing how many unbeatable, dominant riders there were according to Sidney. The more he says that, the more he actually strengthens the argument that I and E I Addio have put forward. Sidney, it's very simple. Take the top 10 riders from the 80's, put them in the format it is now and they would end up with similar averages to the current top 10. Nielsen at his best would be higher, but that would mean other members of the top 10 would be lower. Likewise, that the current top 10, put them in a format as was from early 80's, you'd have a number of 10pters, and the rest 9+. It's maths, it can't be argued against.

Nielsen, Gundersen, Craven, Briggs, Moore, Fundin etc were all time great riders. Kenny Carter, Billy Sanders were not. The inferior EL is irrelevant, although Nielsen would still not have achieved as high an average in it as he did most seasons in the old format. A more applicable comparison is the Polish or Swedish League.