BWitcher

It's not your opinion at all. It's just you being stubborn. Your claim is if a rider averaged 8.08 over an entire career, never won any World Titles, or indeed reached a World Final, you'd class them as the greatest of all time... You've not given your opinion of Rickardsson, you've just said he isn't in your 'top 3' of all time. I've said he isn't in my top three either so you're hardly saying something groundbreaking. If you can come up with a rider who was never World Champion, never achieved an average over 8.08 in the league in his entire career that you think is better than Rickardsson I might start to believe you.

So, if Mauger had never won six World titles, never achieved 10-11 pt averages year after year, but just rode at the level he did in 84 for his entire career, you would still class him as the greatest ever rider? You provide some great comedy Sidney

You do realise speedway results are recorded don't you? You do understand if a rider wins 95% of his races it means he is better than someone who in the same season or set of seasons won 70% of his races? You do understand if a rider won the World Title six times and another in the same era was a 3pt reserve it means the first rider is better? You don't have to have seen any of them ride to know that. Speedway isn't like sports such as football. It is a measurable sport where the ability of riders in certain eras can easily be mapped. How they went about achieving those results is a different argument.

In 1984 he was already a six time World Champion who you had spent your life watching win races. Just the same as in 2005 I still thought Sam Ermolenko was the greatest. Just as in 2014 I still thought he was the greatest when watching him race at Monmore.. because of what he had PREVIOUSLY done. Had you watched Mauger ride at the level he did in 84 for the rest of his career you wouldn't be classing him as an all time great.. and had Ermolenko rode at the level he did in 2005 for his entire career I wouldn't be classing him as highly either. Anyway, come on, you keep saying winning races had no impact on your judgement of riders... so name me one.. just one... who you classed as world class who didn't win many races.

Utterly irrelevant to the conversation. In answer, in terms of his riding style, how he earned his pts, how exciting you found him as a rider then yes. His overall success? Makes no difference at all if you saw them or not. Results are all documented.

And what was Ivan doing when you were watching him ride? Winning races by any chance? Again, name me one rider who you judged to be 'world class' who didn't win many races. Must be plenty as winning races had nothing to do with your judgement?

Answer remains the same, I always forget to dig out the old Backtrack magazines in my fleeting visits to England. We need one of these convos when I'm there to jig my memory!

When discussing the characteristics of a rider, i.e. ability to gate, make passes etc then yes. The overall success of a rider, it makes no difference at all.

No I have never done that. I have simply illustrated the differences between a large league and a smaller league. The rider pool is irrelevant, the results will always be the same. My comparison of eras only comes into play when assessing how riders ranked 20-35 are perceived in an era of a 'big league' and an era now of smaller leagues by looking at that group of riders in the strongest leagues of the time. All any of this boils down to is the simple, indisputable (unless you are Sidney) reality that the more you see a rider win, the better you will think they are.

??? That's because he'd already won six World Championships. So, if Mauger rode his entire career at the level he did in 1984, never won six World titles as a result, never had the 11.74 and other 10 and 11+ point seasons, you claim you would still have ranked him the same? Same question for Boocock.

No, your post only once again backed up what I was saying. All your post did was clarify how you ranked/differentiated two riders with similar achievements. They only came into the conversation because you saw them winning lots of races. The more you see a rider win races, the better you are going to think they are. That's just reality.

Your opinion that Mauger was a great was because he was winning most of his races!!!! The 'average' is simply a by product of that. Feel free to name a rider that you thought was World Class who didn't win many races...

At that time the British League was still the strongest league with most of, if not all the top riders racing here. Feel free to name 70 riders better than Staechman and Parker who could have come into the league and been stronger than them? You can't get a more accurate comparison than 94/95/96 as it's the same pool of riders... The point is, had you watched Staechman and Parker and riders of that ilk in the 'bigger league' format over a ten year period they would be remembered more fondly than such a rider over a ten year period in the smaller format.

There you go again with the same nonsense. Averages is just a measuring stick. The more you saw riders win, the better you thought they were.. their average being higher was just a consequence of that. There is no other way of judging the overall ability of a speedway rider. Yes you can throw in skills such as team riding etc to further refine things but in a nutshell winning races is what counts. Are riders like Kenneth Bjerre, Jakob Jamrog and Jack Holder top class riders in your eyes Sidney?

So you're liking things you don't agree with? Rather strange. Simple question, is your judgement of riders effected by how often you see them the win races.. yes or no?

So you disagree with Sidney then?

You don't need statistical permutation. The reality is extremely simple. The more you see a rider win races, the better you will think they are. Only Sidney and Steve Roberts seem incapable of grasping that fact. I challenge them to name me a brilliant rider who never won a race.

You're trying to set out something that is completely irrelevant to the point being made. You've also failed miserably in your objective. A larger league has more heat leaders. Absolute indisputable fact. A larger league will have more riders achieving higher averages and losing less often. Absolute indisputable fact. A larger league creates an impression that some riders are great, whereas in another format they may not be viewed that way. The scenario you have tried to create was essentially impossible as there weren't and never will be that many 'world class' riders. In every single era of speedway there has ever been there have always been a small group of riders ahead of the others, then a group behind and so on down the levels.

That's the entire point we have been making.

No Sidney. You are wrong as you STILL don't understand what we are talking about. Nobody is saying the BRITISH leagues are as strong now because the top riders don't ride here. The comparison, as I have told you over and over would be Poland where they do.

Good post Chunky, it's worrying that it has to be spelt out in such a fashion to be honest. Even more worrying it takes digesting.. it's just so obvious. Now take your analysis a step further into Sidneys world.. Had he been watching those number 5's from the first format.. but in the second format for ten years or so, he would not be ranking those riders very highly. Whereas in the first format he.. and the rest of us to be fair would be thinking very differently. Simple example is to look at what happened in 1995/96. A rider like Jan Staechman, never more than a 6-6.5 rider in the top flight in its usual format.. but in those two years in the larger league jumped to 8.20 and 8.44. Shane Parker always a 6-7 pt rider in those two years was 8.54 and 8.67. Had they rode their whole careers in the larger format they'd be listed amongst those high quality heat leaders around at the time... they didn't, so they don't get a mention in such a conversation. It's not the average per se, the average is just a measuring stick, it's the simple reality, the less often you see a rider lose.. or the more you see them win, the higher regard you hold them in.

It does, in the appropriate section.

Being critical of the management and 'supporting the team' are two completely different things. Indeed, it could be strongly argued the absolute worst fans are those who stand around happy clapping instead of voicing their displeasure at the decline in fortunes of the club/sport they claim to love so much.

Surely your worst fear is having nobody to stand next to... that in itself is becoming more of a challenge at meetings.

"You felt a lot of the teams had three heat leaders". Really! Amazing! A seven man team ALWAYS has three heat leaders. Now you are claiming that Hans Nielsen's average had no impact in you deciding he was good? lmao. The average comes from winning most of your races. It's part and parcel. Had he not had a good average you would not have thought he was one of the worlds best. Period. You also thought many of the second and third heat leaders were amazing because they had high averages, due to the league format they were in. Every post you make confirms what I say, you just don't see it. The second and third heat leaders of that time were the akin of riders such as Kenneth Bjerre, Jack Holder, Jakub Jamrog, Rune Holta etc.I bet you don't rank those as highly do you? Yet they are the same level.