norbold

Brilliant, Jack. Thank you. That explains it all. So Adam named all the various species of dinosaurs as well did he? I've often wondered where they got their Latin names from. Thank you for sorting that out for me.

Ah, Jack, just the person I've been looking for to help me out with a conundrum I've never been able to resolve. But I know a man like you who researches everything thoroughly will be able to at last answer my question. It's this: Did God create animals before man as it says in Genesis Chapter One or did he create man before animals as it says in Genesis Chapter Two? I look forward to your in depth knowledge and research being able to provide the answer for me. Thank you in advance.

You commented on my post that said, "Actually it's quite an anti-climax. It doesn't say what BFD says in the post that started this thread off." What do you think the "it's" in the first sentence and the "It" in the second sentence refer to given that I had already said, "I've just received a copy of the latest issue of Classic Speedway. Did you know there is an article in there by Ian Hoskins about his father, Johnnie. It makes very interesting reading....."?

?

Absolute utter confusion, Jack. The whole thing has now been rendered impossible to follow. I'd be surprised if anyone could now possibly follow anything that's been written on here by my deletion. It was the crux of the whole discussion.

Actually, mick, I deleted it because I misread what Ian had written. He said opening Odsal was "a supreme achievement" for his father. I misread it as "the supreme achievement". My comment was not meant to imply that he didn't open Odsal but that if he considered opening Odsal to be THE supreme achievement he couldn't really think that the invention of speedway was down to his father as surely that would be THE supreme achievement. However, I realised I had made a mistake and deleted it.

Actually it's quite an anti-climax. It doesn't say what BFD says in the post that started this thread off. Actually, I wouldn't disagree too much with what Ian says in his article. In fact, I've already said it above. Firstly that the importance of the West Maitland meeting was that it was the start of "continuity" and secondly that he subsequently promoted speedway at other locations across Australia. The only thing I would say is that when he says, he "left a trail that led to High Beech in England and from there, the world..." of course he had nothing directly to do with the High Beech meeting and, although the role he played as a promoter in Australia was very important, it gives no credit to the other great Australian promoter of the time, A J Hunting, who subsequently had a much bigger influence on the early days of speedway as an organised sport in England. The rest of the article is about how Johnnie Hoskins opened up Odsal and Newcastle and re-introduced speedway to Scotland at Glasgow after the War. All of which, as far as I know, is true. As I keep saying I have the greatest respect for Johnnie Hoskins as a promoter. He was a great promoter, who as Ian says in the article, took great risks. Speedway would have been all the poorer without him. He lived and breathed speedway, no-one has ever denied this. But it doesn't mean that the meeting on 15 December 1923 was any different to dozens of meetings that had already been held in Australia and America and there is no way that Johnnie Hoskins could be said to have "invented" speedway. A great promoter, yes; a great publicist, yes; but not an inventor.

No, I give up, mick. Where did I say that Johnnie Hoskins didn't open Odsal?

I've just received a copy of the latest issue of Classic Speedway. Did you know there is an article in there by Ian Hoskins about his father, Johnnie. It makes very interesting reading.....

Yes, iris, the timescale is all wrong. Also, the bit olddon highlights in red as though it's proof is lifted straight from Johnnie Hoskins' own book, "Speedway Walkabout", so it's not an independent view nor a first hand account by someone else verifying what Johnnie wrote. It's just a straight copy.

No-one has ignored it Dave. But the problem is, it is just not true. you say it is "provable", but the only evidence you have given so far is a plaque put up 80 years later. You have still not pointed to any original research to show that what you have said is actually the case. Some of those "rough and ready bunch of rural rogues and roustabouts" were motor-cyclists who had already ridden at a number of the other meetings and venues I have mentioned before. It was not their first time. It is true that probably the greatest contribution West Maitland made to speedway was not that it was the first but that regular meetings were held there. BUT, after that meeting on 15 December they were not promoted by Johnnie Hoskins. Most of them were promoted by Campbell and Du Frocq under their manager, Billy Dart. And why do you have to use emotive words like "vitriol" "slanted", "jaundiced" in what should be a rational debate? Just because you disagree does not give you the right to say that about what other people say. Why should I not say that your views are "slanted", "jaundiced" and "vitriolic"? What possible reason do you think we could have for saying that Johnnie Hoskins didn't invent speedway other than historical research shows that to be the case? As I keep saying I have the highest regard for Johnnie Hoskins. I certainly have nothing personal against him. Why would I? I didn't know him personally. The nearest I got to knowing him was seeing him every week at New Cross. He was a hero of mine in my younger days. It was him that brought me to speedway by re-opening New Cross, the team I still regard as MY team (see my avatar). But my lifetime as a historian shows me that you cannot ignore proven historical research in favour of something you'd like to be true. Sadly, the fact of the matter is that Johnnie Hoskins did not invent speedway and no-one here so far has given up anything but second-hand writings and anecdotes to back up the claim that he did. Whereas there is a whole body of first hand evidence to show that he did not invent speedway and that the meeting at West Maitland held on 15 December 1923 was nothing new nor particularly special in Australia at the time.

My first contribution to this debate was that it was like a debate between Creationists and, for want of a better word, evolutionists. The creationists say the Bible says God made man so it must be right. The evolutionists have painstakingly built up a picture since Darwin of just how man came about through an evolutionary trail going back millions of years. There is still no definitive answer to the final trail that led to us, but enough has been discovered and proved to show that Man did indeed evolve and was not just created by God. Creationists still do not believe this position in spite of the fact that the only "proof" they have is what it says in the bible. All evolutionary evidence is just dismissed as either fake or that the timescale is all wrong etc. In speedway we have the Creationists who fervently believe that Johnnie Hoskins "invented" speedway and those who have painstakingly built up a picture of just how speedway came about through an evolutionary trail going back decades. There is still no definitive answer to the final trail that led to speedway, but enough has been discovered and proved to show that speedway did indeed evolve and was not just created by Hoskins. The Hoskinists still do not believe this position in spite of the fact that the only "proof" they have is what it says in an old letter to the Speedway Star and on a plaque. All evolutionary evidence is just dismissed for some reason which is not even as clear as the Creationists do re the evolution of man. Now, here's a thing for you, Dave. You say that the meeting of 15 December 1923 was the first meeting to be held under the banner of speedway. When asked for some evidence for this you continually refer to the plaque put up at West Maitland, which, incidentally, is not quite as unequivocal as you seem to suggest as it says it is "widely accepted" that the first speedway meeting was held there. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. The fact is that until recently it was "widely accepted". However, the point is that just because it says something on a plaque doesn't make it true. There is another plaque at the Camden Motordrome which is headed, "Prominent Riders who Appeared at the Motordrome, Camden S.A. from Sat Dec 28th. 1935-April 1940" There is then a list of all the riders who "appeared there". 10th down in the second column is the name Tom Farndon. So, as it appears on a plaque it MUST be true, eh, Dave? How do you account for the fact then that Tom Farndon died on 30 August 1935 following a crash at New Cross and couldn't possibly have ridden at Camden between 28 December 1935 and April 1940? And yet, if it's written on a plaque it must be right? There is no need to investigate whether what is written on the plaque is actually correct. Far better to take the plaque's word for it. It saves having to do a lot of hard work in investigating the true origins of the sport. I have to admit I have resorted to a bit of abuse but it is born out of sheer frustration on behalf of those who have spent years of their lives trying to piece together the origins of speedway and with those who have made no effort at all but just simply refuse to looks at the facts and say "Goddidit" or, in this case "Hoskinsdidit". I tried to make this a serious debate early on by talking about the American pioneers and the tracks that staged "speedway" before West Maitland. The only real reply I got to this from BFD was, "No-one is denying that most if not all of these riders had raced before, so why do you keep banging on about it? What we are saying is that this meeting, on 15 December 1923 at Maitland, was the first one under the banner of SPEEDWAY." I have tried asking several times what BFD means by "15 December 1923 at Maitland, was the first one under the banner of SPEEDWAY," but so far the only answer I have had is that it says so on the plaque. That is not the response of a serious historian or someone who cares about finding out the truth of the matter. Yes, I do keep banging on about the meetings held before Maitland because they show that Maitland wasn't the first. I've also mentioned the report in the local paper of 17 December 1923 which, at no time, refers to the racing that took place as part of a bigger Carnival programme as speedway but calls it motor-cycle racing and even mentions the fact that there have been other similar meetings at other venues previously. So far, olddon has not commented on this, preferring instead of a contemporary account to rely on wikipedia. Some of my abusive comments are born out of this complete and utter frustration with people who refuse to look at the facts as they are and stubbornly cling to their views without answering the relevant points raised by serious historians. Though I have to say, when it comes to hurling abuse, I can't help feeling that BFD is hardly more sinned against than sinning. I would still like to know what those who support the idea that Johnnie Hoskins "invented" speedway think is different about all the similar meetings that were held in Australia before 15 December 1923. And don't say because it says so on a plaque! What was the difference between the meeting on 15 December 1923 and the one, say, at Thebarton Oval on 24 January 24 1923 on a cinder track?

Ah yes, so I am,that's why I have already written on this thread: and An obvious attempt at denigrating the man. :blink:

Oh, for God's sake, Dave, give it a rest. You said: Please point out to me where I ever said you attacked anybody in your first post. I have not once made that accusation. Your snide comments only started after I asked a legitimate question which you couldn't answer, that's the point at which you started making personal attacks on me. Not in your first post. I have never said you did attack anyone in your first post. Nowhere. Not once. I can't apologise for something I didn't do. Do you understand that? Your first post consisted of a quote from Ian Hoskins with an addition of your own supporting Hoskins. It did not attack anyone, but nor did I ever say it did. It's a neat trick, Dave, to try and divert the discussion away from the real topic because you have no evidence to back up your claims, but trying to do it by accusing me of something I haven't done is not really helpful to anyone. OK? Oh, by the way, I have not at any time said your first post constituted an attack on anyone. Now can you please leave the discussion to those who wish to find out the real place of that meeting on 15 December 1923 and are prepared to discuss it rationally?

So, in other words, you have no evidence to support your claim that the first meeting "held under the banner of speedway" was on 15 December 1923 other than a plaque, put up in 2003, that says "it is widely accepted that..." In other words no contemporary evidence at all.

You didn't attack anyone in your first post. Happy now, Dave? Right, now you're happy, can you please answer the crucial question, what evidence do you have that the West Maitland meeting on 15 December was the first to be held "under the banner of speedway"?

OK, Dave, if you seriously want to discuss this issue, yes, let us take a look back at some of the contributions to this topic. You started it off by quoting from Ian Hoskins. To start with, let's note the last line which was your own addition. As a result of your post, I then asked in relation to the sentence, "Speedway should have a birthdate to be recalled by riders and the public like football and cricket have." To which you replied So, I think the first avoidance of the question and first personal attack belongs to you old chap. Anyway, to continue... In response to some further debate on the subject, you then said, Now let's deconstruct this a little, which seems suspiciously like a personal attack to me. Firstly, you seem to be trying to weasel out of your original statement, which to remind us said, "I'm sure everyone who's been to Maitland and seen the commemorative plaque under the Grandstand would agree - this is the birthplace of Motorcycle Speedway and Johnnie Hoskins was the Godfather." So, not just a messenger after all. Next, your statement, "facetiously asking other people to prove one's own points" I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Can you please clarify? What evidence have you seen at Maitland apart from a plaque? I then went on to say: To which you replied: and My reply: You have still not answered this crucial question. Preferring, instead, to make personal attacks on me. If you want to continue this debate in a serious manner, I am more than happy to do so, but can you please answer my question. Why do you say that the 15 December meeting was the first meeting "held under the banner of Speedway"? What is your evidence for this? Historians work with evidence not on statements plucked out the air; they need to support statements with some evidence. Please tell me what yours is.

I suggest you re-read the Wikipedia entry on speedway, olddon. My reading of it is that it says something quite different to what you are saying. Just to make it easy for you, this is the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_speedway

Exactly so, Humphrey.

Your contributions to a serious debate remind me of when you're having a serious discussion at home with some of your friends and your three year old son keeps interrupting to tell you about Igglepiggle, Upsy Daisy and Makka Pakka's latest adventures in the Night Garden. Anyway, on to more serious matters. Olddon, you cannot be serious quoting Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Anyone can write what they like on there. In fact I added the last sentence, so you presumably must accept there were meetings before 15 December because Wikipedia says so. I have asked you repeatedly to have a look at the newspaper report of the first meeting, but you have decided to read Wikipedia instead. If you read the newspaper report you will see that nowhere is speedway mentioned and, in fact, it talks about previous similar meetings - that's what the report of the meeting on 15 December says and printed just two days later. Why will you not read or accept what the nearest contemporary source we have to the event says? You might like to read this article as well, by the way: http://www.philipcoppens.com/wikiworld.html

Please tell me who is trying to "belittle" Johnnie Hoskins? Johnnie Hoskins was a great speedway promoter and character; a man who did a tremendous amount to popularise the sport. No-one disputes that. What is in doubt, however, is his claim that the meeting on 15 December 1923 was something new and that he "invented" speedway. No-one doubts the meeting took place. But it was just another in a long line of similar meeting held throughout Australia in the late teens and early 20s. The idea that there was anything different about the 15 December meeting is what is in dispute. And if you think that we should listen to the people who were actually there rather than later historians, even though these people who were there are recalling events from 40 or 50 years later (and in Ian Hoskins' case, not there at all), why are you so opposed to reading the contemporary newspaper report of just two days after the event, which surely must have the greatest claim to immediacy and therefore accuracy of anyone or anything?

Says the man who has consistently done nothing else since this thread started!

Of course it's possible. And if that evidence is available why has no-one ever produced it? It would be invaluable. Just like the report from the Monday December 17, 1923 Maitland Daily Mercury is invaluable but if you refuse to read it because it might upset your cosy little world, there's really not much point in continuing this discussion with you.

Thanks. That explains that then! It was said that he broke EVERY bone in his body...though I doubt that is true!

You obviously still haven't read the contemporary newspaper report of the 15 December meeting I recommended to you, then. This was written two days after the meeting not 56 years later. More on oral history and people's memories. I am currently writing a new book on Clacton - a Then and Now book. My publisher has asked me to take 45 photos from one of my old books on Clacton and take a photograph from the identical spot today as a comparison. One of the photos I've decided to use is of the swimming pool at Butlin's Holiday Camp. The camp was closed in 1983 and demolished a couple of years later. There is now no sign of it left, so getting a "now" photo is a bit difficult as there is nothing left on the ground to indicate where it actually was. The only clue are some old plans showing where the swimming pool was in relation to the main entrance to the camp, the position of which you would think would be easy to remember. Now I visited the camp several times myself and I think I know where the main entrance was, but, to be sure, I have asked several people I know who either worked at the camp or visited it. Every one of them has a different idea of where the entrance was, differing by something like 400 metres. We are talking here of people's memories of 25 years ago (not 56 years ago) and not just a one-off occurrence but something some of them went to every day. People's memories are not to be trusted without supportive contemporary evidence and, in regard to 15 December 1923, that contemporary evidence is not only not supportive but is actually contrary to the idea of that meeting being the first "speedway" meeting.