waiheke1

You are right that Berry was team manager, thst would explain it. Th ere were issues agsin 10 years later...

PC is imo the greatest rider to won a single world individual title. Loram would possibly be in the bottom 5. No comparison imo, I think PC is closer to Tai than Loram to PC. Loram never topped the top flight averages as an example. I dont believe he shone for england/gb in the way Woffy and PC did.

Genuine question, why wasn't he picked for the pairs for England that year?

If only the privileged few had works machinery - how does this correlate with claims tgat Tai only wins because he had fast bikes. Which all riders have. When in the 70s it was only your Maugers, Olsen and Collins...

And tbf when assessing Pcs greatness I think most factor those things in. He was the best rider in the world in 76&77 And arguably would have won a gp series in both years. And you rightly say he could have won more but for the injury which saw him drop from being world class to more an international class (world top 20 rather than top 10) rider. At the same time in 80 you could argue he had been overtaken by the new generation of Lee and Penhall. People talk about Tais era being weak, but the era Gundersen and Nielsen dominated was marked by rge number of world class riders whose careers were prematurely curtailed or otherwise hampered - Penhall, Carter, Lee,Sigalos,Sanders plus Collins never the same after injury, the Morans never professional enough. I've also seen people say Mauger only started winning world titles once Briggs was past his best... Anyway, Tai the greatest brit for me, narrowly ahead of the two PCs then Lee.

If good riders could get on any bike and win in the 70s, why do people make excuses for Peter Collins display in the 78 British final... And why did NZ use Ivans bikes for 14 of the 16 heats in the 79 final if average riders couldn't go better on quick bikes?

Just want to point out that if the top 30 riders in the world are considered "international class" then in the 70s PC would race such riders 3 times per domestic meeting, so for an 11pt average pc would beat such riders 2 out of 3 times. Using the same definition, Tai I believe races such riders 8 times per meeting (5 rides). So with a similar success rate to Pc, and assuming also finishing once behind a team mate - given he races every heatvwith a top 30 rides- then a 9pt average would reflect an equal level of dominance to PC. Oh surprise, that's what he averages! There are arguments to support PC beimg better than Tai, but pretending Wyer and Stancl are better than the riders in todays GP, or that Tai rarely beats world class riders from the back doesnt help advance the argument. Tai probably does beat less riders from the back than PC, but I'd say that is less to do with his ability than the fact he is a better gater, superb round the first turn, and gets far less easy heats than PC And i say this as someone who grew up watching pc/Mott in ht13 each week, so it should be clear who my favourite rider of the two is.

I believe one of the reasons Ole was an advocate of the GP series is he felt he had been disadvantaged in the world championship by being, for most of his career, the only Dane in the field. He saw Gps as reducing the opportunities for collusion. I'm sure there were other reasons as well why Ole wanted a series...

I'd be amazed if Zmarzlik isn't the next Polish world champion, and in the next few years.

Don't forget Bruce Penhall allegedly paying off -hmm, Jri Stancl, to allow Bruce to beat him and claim world title number 2

Tbh its a bit like england in the 70s...

Yet in 1994 after 3 rides, T Rick was in 6TH! equal and 3 points off the lead. And won it!

But the reality was you needed 12 or 13... I remember the PC farewell meeting and Les scored 10 But finished outside the top 6 who made the final

Tbh i dont see it as a flaw. Its about getting the most points, regardless of how you do it

That was the 82ic final. And actually he waved for Gundersen to pull over to let Bo Petersen through

Swap Dryml and Hancock in ht6 And all 15 except the winner have a heat win.

And of course a final where over half the field had nothing to race for at the half way mark. Or qualifiers where when you reached the last 4 heats riders had nothing to race for... Off the top of my head I can think of 81 overseas final, 82 overseas final, 82 ic final, 84 ic final, 91(?) overseas final (Sam letting Hancock pass). Plus the Collins brothers team riding in the 82 overseas final. And tgese are not the incidents with money changing hands, just "favoyrs" for compatriots Whereas in the gp series I can only think of the hancock/holder case, where Hancock got rightly excludes, neutralizing the impact of his action.

You know, it is possible for Woffy to win on 9 without winning a heat... Swap Woffy and Vaculik in ht3. Madsen and ward in ht6. Pedersen and puk in ht8

Or be world champ without ever making a semi final!

Droppimg from the lead after heat 8 was common: 1980 final had Penhall and Thomsen tied for the lead with Lee. Neither made the podium. 81 Jessup was tied for first, didnt make the rostrum, likewise Carter in 82, Ermolenko 88, Tatum 89.

For the 80s, atvvthe interval, position of world chsmp: 1980/81/83/88/89: 1st 86: 1st equal 82:2nd 84: 2nd= 85/87: 3rd=

Yes. Posted this 20 minutes before you

Kenny Carter's world final record of never having less than 8 points after 3 rides (So at the interval, placed 2nd,1st,2nd) - yet never made the rostrum!

You could win with 9 And no run off. It leaves 111 points from 15 riders, so you could have 6 scoring 8, 9 scoring 7. Or a variety of possible combinations. Technically you could win with 4 points being two second places. Beaten in two races, with the other 18 heats having no finishers.

Sorry. I thought we had concluded that for most world finals in the 80s there were only 2 Or 3 riders with a chance of winning, and less if it were a gp. I gave u 5 for this year. Where i come from, 5 Is more than 3.