waiheke1

justifiably favourite imho, though if i was putting money down think likes of hsmpel and emil offer better value. heading off to the gp now , enjoy the meeting lads

sidney had previously posted that the old qualification system was far more fair, despite examples like olsen and collins failing to qualify due to bad luck/one bad meeting, in years they would have been real contenders. yet here he is citing mjjs elimination- due to a meeting he failed to score in - as evidence that having qualification is a joke?

GP DAY! nice enough morning in auckland, possibility of some morning showers, but nothing which should affect the gp (or the cricket). roll on 4pm!

sid - are you denying that you have repeatedly complained about the inferiority of the current system vs the old, that you have labelled it a closed shop, that a rider like mike lee might not get a chance like he did as a teenager? and the argument presented against that has been that the current system is fairer as it means a top rider will not neccesarily miss out just because of one bad meeeting? yet now you are labelling the knock out quification system a joke because mjj was eliminated after scoring 0 points? noone is denying mjj is a good rider. however, you seem to define world class as being able to beat the worlds best. others believe it also requires being able to do so consistently, which mjj does not yet do, as evidenced by his averages. by the same token i also would not yet call tai world class

looks to me like the monster girls did!

what do people reckon - 6 points in the nz gp tomorrow?

ok my prediction for the season holder emil pedersen ward hampel hancock gollob lindback jonsson nki vaculik lindgren kk tai zagar

my view: world class talents yes, able to produce world class performances yes, but world class - not yet in my view. I'd say they are some way behind Ward, Emil, Hancock, Gollob, Hampel, Holder , Pedersen (cearly world class), and also a (smaller)drop back from the likes of Lindback, Vaculik, NKI, who are probably "borderine" world class. But obviously it depends what cut off you use for world class, whethe it means being capable of beating the world's best, or if it means being capable of doing so consistently tbh, I thought GR has made only one person look a mug, but it apppears he has actually managed to make two peole look like one... as an example, just to highlight a couple of FACTUAL inaccuracies Actually, the “classic” 13 heat format that most know was in effect in the BL for 20 years (1969-87), and was by no means a world standard. A 13 heat format was used prior to that time, but with quite a different racing order. But the nominated heat was actually introduced in 1988, and era when all the top riders still raced in Britain, and all sides had what I am sure you would consider “proper heat leaders.” The bookmakers seem to disagree Sid, given that they have made him second favourite. Let's be honest, he is some way ahead of MJJ and Jaowski - 4 points better in the EL, quite a chu nk better in the other leagues also. You'd have t think he will finish top 6 -likely better- in the GP this year, I'd say MJJ would have done well to make top 10 , and Janowski I don't believe would out perform any of the riders in the series.

and more characters. riders who liked a bit of biffo and more than the odd drink - under no circumstances however tsking drugs, which have no place in a famiy sport like speedway.

how old was emil when he finished on the podium?

Go back to 13 heat meetings and a proper second half, get rid of the play offs, get rid of the joker and golden double rules, a proper world championship with qualification, that should solve everything i expect

25 quid each on hancock holder gollob and lindback for the nz gp many thanks

you really havent understood a single one of the points that have been made have you? i agree with you that simmons was better than nicholls though. Edit. this was addressed to grw not yhe oldace post that has popped up while i was typing of course the nominated riders heat reduces the top riders averages without increading the lesser riders averages

Robbie b- r u putting up odds today for nz gp?

and in other breaking news, i've heard a rumpour that Jason Crump will be retiring from GPs and will not be racing in Auckland. Can anyone confirm if there is any truth to this?

Very true oldace. Conversely, you could argue that in a GP riders will often settle for a "safe" 2 points or even one point rather than going all out for a win, if they only need a certain number to make the semis or final (much like in an inter-continental final). In the World Final it was generally "do or die." The riders you name Sidney I think would have made more world final appearances than they did, though perhaps not as many as you envision. Qualifying would not have been muh easier - finish in the top 8 when for a sizeable chunk of the era MAuger, Olsen, Collins and Michanek would have been shoe-ins for 4 of the spots- would have been very tough, and qualifying from outside the series tricky as well. However, the absence of a requirement to include "token" continentals (though the likes of plech, jancarz etc. would have been well capable of qualifying in their own right) would have freed up some extra places. However, in terms of placings, I'm not sure they would ahve done better than they did. Crump i think would have had one rostrum finish (75) - assuming that he qualified in 74 which would have been no guarantee-, Autrey would have been a strong rostrum propoect around 77/78, Louis at his peak may have pushed for a rostrum place though i'm not convinced he would have got one, Ashby/Boocock/Wilson i don't believe would have done. Crump I can imagine you envisioning being in the series throughout the 70s and 80s, but I think he would ahve struggled to get into the gps in the 80s (I'd say only 81and maybe 84 is there a case for him being in the top 10 riders in the world). do you mean that its easier to qualify from the gps than to be eliminated. Or also that this is a mathematical fact? If the latter, would you care to share the mathematical equation which proves this "fact.? It was Sidney. Are you one of those b@stards that's always ganging up on him and picking holes in his arguments!?! Though I agree with the point you and Bewitcher have been making, I'm not sure -this bolded bit is entirely correct. I would suggest that perception was based 90-95% on results, however 5-10% on other factors (style, manner of winning races e.g.. ability from the back, mitigating factors in results (e.g. collins finishing 2nd in the world final on one leg we might regard as an equal feat to winning it uninjured). Also, with young riders perception may be based slightly differently for example, a young andy smith didn't score many points initially in the BL, but it was still apparent tht he was quite a talent. I can remember Neil evitts being another who always impressed me in his early performances around hyde rd, even though he didn;'t score many. an example to me of how results influence perception is Steve Finch. I always thought he was a cracking rider, whenever I saw him ride for Halifax at eiother Hyde Rd or the Shay he seemed to score well - I reckon over the 83/84 seasons I must have seen him about 8 times, and he must have averaged around 7-8. However, his average for the Dukes over that peruiod was about 4. SO, I can imagine anyone who saw him race at a smaller track would have seen him as just a mediocre poor reserve. Same rider, different perception due to different results.

so do i parsloes. are we going to have to get out a measuring tape to see who has the biggest to settle this?

In fact "at the time" is surely tautological when used to follow "unprecedented"?

I just called to say i love you? what's your number sid so we can reciprocate?

Craven and briggs i believe both disliked the handicap. i can imagine heat leaders today starting off a handicap would want extra money to compensate for lost points and extra strain on machinery etc.

are u sure about this? have you e mailed sky to confirm? what do you think about cancelling sky if they no longer have the gps!

i think that is about right. Mort as I say I would class as around 10th in a list of best riders of the 80s. Riders I would consider to be somewhere 20-30 would include Les COllins, Doncaster, King, Schwartz, Shirra etc. I'd suggest that Mort would clearly rank higher than those riders, however not by a large margin. Les Collins and Doncaster I would rate as similar to Harris- perhaps slightly better at their peak, but overall behind him as they didn't remain near the top for as long. True to some extent. However, look at the list of riders who have won the inter-contiental final or the BLRC in that era, they are all class acts. In fact the weakest rider to win either was arguably Les Collins, who managed to win both! The BLRC and i/c finals were (IMHO) the second and thrid biggest individual meetings in the world in that era, compared to a GP which is one of 12 equally significant meetings. Personally, I woud rate a BLRC triumph slightly ahead of a GP win, a GP win slightly ahead of an i/c title (though I could see arguments for reatrranging those in any order). I also think winning a GP round can in no way be compared to an old World Final - the pressure is not comparable, though the flip side is that the field is stronger (no weak continentals) and riders have something to race for right to the end of the meeting. Anyway - I think we are in agreement anyway that Mort was better than Harris (relative to the era of course), I'm not quite sure how we even got here from discussing pros and cons of heat formats.

Weve been here before with pasloes and his mathematical facts. badically his claim is that as the top eight (or generally ten if you include wildcard spots) of fifteen qualify for the following year, it is easier to stay in than out. Essentially he confuses statistical probability with difficulty by his logic it was easier to qualify from the inter continental final than the contunental final or easier to qualify for champions league than to be relegated.

Firsty, I personally have never claimed that standard of speedway was higher in the 80s than now , nor would I- i don't think any such claim can be justifiably made. Hyde Rd I would class as a "fair" track - most good riders rode it well, poor riders would be found out. Harris I agree would have ridden it well. utter bollocks, we have been here before and it is nothing of the sort I agree with this however

Follow the link to their site and rules are there