norbold

Not quite as long as some mentioned here, but Mike Broadbank managed 16 consecutive years for Swindon.

Hi mick, Barbara is looking forward to a nice evening out....

Rohan Tungate for a pick!

Ronnie Moore and Wimbledon. 1950-1972 (on and off!)

Yes, sorry, everyone. It was the 50th anniversary meeting. And I should know - I was there!!! Still, it makes Jack Parker's longevity even longer.

What it says is "British racing" not your misquoted "British pioneers".

I think the prize has to go to Jack Parker. Phil Bishop wasn't technically a pioneer as he didn't ride in 1928, though I note you mention 1929 in you op, compost, but even taking that into account his career really came to an end in 1950. He only had a few one-off meetings between then and 1959. Jack Parker remained a regular team rider until 1954 and actually rode later than Phil Bishop with a one-off meeting in 1968, when he "beat" Malcolm Simmons in Speedway in Britain's 40th anniversary meeting. One other rider worthy of mention would be Ron Johnson, who rode regularly in Britain in 1928 (though actually started earlier in Australia). He continued on and off until 1961 and even returned for another go in 1963.

I've never liked the excuse, "You've taken my remarks out of context,” but here context is everything and it's a shame you obviously didn't read the comment I was responding to.

Great to see such a large crowd tonight. One old boy said, "it's the most I've seen here since 1952." Not sure that's right (!) but I know what he meant. It looked as if the meeting had the stuffing knocked out of it in heat 6 but Ipswich put up a great effort, especially with Newman and Greaves just keeping our hopes alive with a bit of an unexpected 3-3 in heat 14 leading to a last heat decider, as it was by no means out of the question that Scott and Cameron would get a 5-1 in heat 15 and then again in the first golden heat, but not to be of course. In the end though, three points out of Danny King's scheduled rides instead of what would likely have been at least seven with nine not out of the question, was what did for the Witches. Still, congratulations to Peterborough, you did what you had to do and the accidents to Schlein and King weren't your fault. As for the Witches, oh well, there's always next year....

If you're going to count the War years, you should also count 1928, as he rode regularly that year as well, making 27 seasons in all.

I think it more likely you were on the beer when you posted this!

On a former similar thread some years ago, a poster called speedyguy, who, as we all know no longer posts on here, said, "Indications are that Jimmy Squibb started at Southampton in 1939, where he was a protege of local riders Vic Collins and Frank Bond." It maybe that gustix can confirm this and has more information.

According to that great fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, Andy Smith rode in the Grand Prix series in 2002 but not the league.

Ivan Mauger 1957 - 1984 (28 years)......though it has to be said a bit on and off at the beginning and end! So probably only 22 years in total.

I believe there is a good account of the history of Greenford in a book called "Speedway in the South East." If only I could remember the name of the author.......

Indeed. He might only have been in the top 6 twice, but he has been in the top 8 five times and in the top 12 every time. Should the Grand Prix be for riders proven to be amongst the top riders in the world or for those who might be one day? But, in any case, as I said before, Realpolitik!

I understand what everyone is saying about why Holder shouldn't get a wildcard for next year, but I believe the word is Realpolitik. He will get one, there is absolutely no doubt about it.

I can't really see any circumstances where Holder will not get a wildcard. Personally I don't have much time for him, but his record in the GP over the last few years will surely see him being given a pick.

? After?

Sorry to hear that. He rode in the first meeting I ever saw. He was reputed to be the smallest rider in speedway. R.I.P.

We'll never know is the real answer to that. Does a rider dominate his era because he is [one of] the greatest of all time or is it that the opposition is not so good at that period. Who knows? Is Greg Hancock a case in point here? Four Times World Champion, the last at the age of 46? Must be an all-time great. But where was he when Tony Rickardsson, Jason Crump, Nicki Pedersen and Tomasz Gollob were the dominant riders? After winning his first World Championship, did he have to wait so long for his next because he wasn't actually that great and had to wait for his rivals to disappear? Is it just that over the last few years there has been a dearth of really great riders that has allowed him to come good? Does that apply to Mauger, Nielsen, Gundersen? Probably not, but who knows?

That's very true, SCB, but then again, he didn't have the sort of opposition that maybe other candidates for the best ever had. Fundin for example had Briggs, Moore, Craven and Knutson to contend with as well as riders of the class of Gote Nordin and Nigel Boocock. Though there again that might have been because actually Mauger was a class above all other riders (with the possible exception of Ole Olsen). Who knows? As has been said above, it is impossible to compare the top riders of each era with riders from a different era. The number of top class opponents is an important factor in that.

I think it is true that speedway was at its lowest ebb in 1957 and 58 after Wembley closed at the end of 1956. The revival began in 1959 and then in 1960 with the return of New Cross to the capital under Johnnie Hoskins and the formation of the Provincial League, thanks mainly to Mike Parker and Reg Fearman. I know TWK won't agree with this but maybe what the sport needs now are characters with the drive and determination like Hoskins and Parker.

Wot! No wrestling?

There again was Lionel Van Praag a worthy winner in 1936? Bluey Wilkinson scored a maximum in the final, with Van Praag only winning because he carried forward more bonus points. Jack Parker was top of the averages that year. (The answer by the way is yes of course he was a worthy world champion because he won it under the rules pertaining at the time - as every other World Champion has, which makes them all worthy winners.)