waiheke1

Davis actually rode both Belle Vue and the Shay pretty well, I recall the Aces getting him to appear as a guest on a few occasions. Of course, he would have struggled to beat a World Class field, as even at his peak I don't think you could have descrived him as a world class rider.

Really!?! Of that era I'd rate him behind Penhall sure. But I'd rate him alongside S Moran and Sigalos as the next best, and ahead of the likes of King. K Moran, Schwartz etc. from that era. For me the most unimpressive Americans were Larry Kosta and Eddie Ingels, and guess which two the Aces signed! (of course, they did subsequenyl get it right with Frria and the Morans).

Sydney: stop avoiding the question: In your opinion, who was the best rider in the world in 2007/8, why didn't they win the GP, and what is your reasoning for why they were better than Pedersen in those years. To be honest, Pedersen must have got away with an awful lot of major incidents in 2007 if that's the only reason you think he won the GP by 70 points and topped the averages!

ok, so can you name one world speedway final when there wasn't a home representative for commerical reasons? I suppose you think Henry Kroeze qualified forthe 87 World Final on merit? And it's not just Speedway - even footbal guarantees spots for home nations in the World Cup/Euro Champs etc. If there was a Welsh GP, you may have a point. However, at the current time there is a British GP and there is a British wildcard given for the event. Most New Zealanders wouldn't be able to name the current World Champ, let alone have a clue how good Jason Bunyan is. I ssupect that who the wild card was given too would have minimal impact on the gate anyway, but at least gives kiwis a "multi national champion" to cheer on the day, and makes a nice little story for the local media to add to the publicity around the event. Of course, he's not going to be particular competitive, but as others have pointed out, the Italian wildcard has rarely set the GP on fire. He'll also be well prepared, while other finalists may be a little rusty. So, I'm going to stick my neck out and say I reckon he will score a couple of points and finish 15th equal.

In principle I'm opposed to the play-offs, but understand the commercial neccesity. And yes, I fully acknowledge that to win the FA cup/old World Championship, it is an achievement in itself reaching the final.

sidney, you didn't answer the question. On what basis do you not believe Pedersen was the best rider in the world in 2007/8? (I'm not saying he's a better rider than Crump, but I do believe he was in those years). (PS. if you're replying directly below a large quote, no need to quote the whole thing)

of course i'm pleased i saw the old format, went to two finals (83 and 85), loved them both though the racing in 83 was dire and on neither occasion did I get the winner I wanted (morton and S Moran). Also, loved going to the qualifying meetings, the tension,, some great races etc. I have great memories of the old system and I remember being disapointed when they were replaced by the GP system - however, indisputably the GP is better at determining who the best rider in the world is, and I can see no rationale whatsoever for going back to the old one-off system as a replacement for the GP system (as mentioned preivously I'd be happy to see a pared-down knock-out World Championship run in parallel if it could be made to work).

no ones disputing that Rembas rode well on the day, and if he'd finished thrid he would have deserved thris, no question. However - if he had finished third, would that mean that he was the third best rider in the world that year? No, that day yes, but the year, no way. And if their had been an equally difficult qualifying route for all riders, would he have even made the final? Re: wimbledon/Sunderland - yes, on the day they were the best, but same point, were they the best teams that year? no chance. Not sure why you think this proves the series is easier to win? Wimbledon were nowhere near the best team in the premiership, but won the fa cup - so doesn't that show that a knock out is easier to win? Goes back to the point thats been made countless times, that a league/series is easier than a knock-out/one-off format if you're best in the competition, for everyone else the knock out style is easier, becuase its about being the best on the day, not a year. Personally, I think the World Chapion should be the best in the world that year. Muller in 83, well he was outstanding that day, and yes he was a quality rider. But -would he have won if the final was outside Germany? Highly unlikely. Would he have won a GP series - no way. Nielsen, Gundersen, Lee, Sigalos, Sanders, Carter, Morton - at leats 7 riders who would have finished ahread of hime that year and had a better claim to being best rider in the world. Loram is probably a valid point, though bthe GP series at that stage was run under the knovck out system, I believe an inferior system to the current one. You could say Hamill issed out on the world final due to 4 bad rides, though conversely you could say he had 2 shocking meetings out of 6 (1 in 3 meetings performin badly) and hence didn't seserve to win? Nicki Pedersen is an interesting one - he's won as many individual world titles as Olsen and Gundersen, but is never considered when "who was the greatest Dane" is debated. In fact, some rate him behing his name sake Jan O. Even more interesting when you consider that under a GP system, most reckon Olsen and gundersen would haave won only a couple of titles each. Anyway - so are you saying he fluked it each of those three seasons? On what basis was he not the best rider, and why did Crump/Gollob not finish ahead of him? 2003: beat Crump by 8 points cam edown to last meeting of the season, so very close. Gollob 6th. So maybe he wasn't best in the world, what is your argument for Crump? 2007: Won by a mile. Crump 3rd, Gollob 6th. He scored as many points in the first 7 meetings as Crump managed all series. Got lucky? Also topped the Elite league averages, won the ELRC., outscored Crump in the World Cup final. Personally, I'd say he was indisputaby best in the world, what is your counter-argument? 2008: won by 22 points, with crump 2nd and Gollob 3rd. Topped the ekstraliga averages. Outscored by Gollob in the Wc final, but outscored Crump. Not as clearcut as the previous year, but I think again he was best in the world. Why don't you think so? anyway, no one claims the GP winner is best in the world every single time as no system could guarantee this - but most of the time they do, which is the point.

to be pedeantic, I don't believe the holders fo the football world cup are seeded anymore (just the hosts). But, plenty of other sports you could add to that list, cricket springs to mind. I'd suggest there are very, very few sports (if any) in which every participant in the world is given equal opprtunity at qualifying - hence no sports have "proper" world championships? Parsloes - I guess the question is does (or should ) BSI have the right to dictate to national federations how they select their qualifiers? Personally, I'd be happy to see a system where the number of "seeded" riders which national federations could be capped at the greater of 1 spot or 50% of their total allocation (rounded down), the remainder to be determined by placings in the national championship. (so for example, if Britain has 5 places, then the BSPA could select two riders to "seed" into qualifying, the remianing three slots would go to the top pace getters in the British Final, excluding those already in the series). Potential issue though is for nations where the national championship is not held prior to the qualifying meetings starting? And does this actually improve the qualifying process any? Also - don't Australia have a national qualifying process,a dn Troy Batchelor is already out?

Simple. PC was better in the 70s. Mort was better in the 80s.

apart from the pemanent wildcard spots, isn't it very much the same system as the GP (i.e. top x riders based on performance stay in the series without the need for additional qualifying). I'd suggest the risk of engine failure or injury playing a significant part in the outcome is significantly less in snooker than in speedway, hence why I feel speedway has the need to retain at least some of the wildcard spots to cover riders who potentially miss out due to these reasons. Additionally, one bad meeting can ruin a riders qualifying hopes in speedway, whereas in snooker due to the number of tournaments, this is not the case. Ideally, in speedway there would be some sort of qualifying series to reduce the impact of luck/one off day, however I can't see that this would be financially viable.

I think he's on a wind up to the same extent that you are when you say that the old system was fairer for all riders To clarify, I think there's two ways that riders can be unfairly excluded from participating. One is if the governing/administering body for the championship (in the old days FIM, now BSI) specifically excludes riders. So, up to the mid 70s US riders were excluded from competing, at various times Australsaian riders not riding in Britain were excluded from competing. To my knowledge, all speedway nations are allowed to enter into the GP qualifiers. Perhaps you can advise me of an excluded country if I am wrong? So, on this basis, qualifying got the GP seems fairer. Now, the other way riders can be excluded from qualifying is by their own natuional body. So, examples from the past of this include PEter Collins in 81, Autrey in 78/79, Larry Ross winning the 85 NZ championship but the sole Nz spot in the overseas final being given to (the vastly inferior) Dave Barge. Sam Nicoljesen getting the last Danish qualifying spot in 86, but Tommy Knudsen (who was struggling with injuty and missed the cut) then being seeded through at his expense. And of course, under the GP it is still up to national bodies to decide how to award their own nations spots. So, under neither system was there a completely fair and transparent qualification system for all. But, this is not the fault of either WC or GP systems (although governing bodies could perhaps dictate how countries conduct qualifying for their places), but of respective nation's governing bodies. Agree or disagree Parsloes?

Note that that list is not neccesarily my view, but a summarry of other's thoughts on this thread. I agree Collins over Mauger, but don&;t think its clear cut. PC only beat him in a run-off in the Ic final, and but for a Mauger ef the Final itself would have gone to a run off. 77 - PC himself said that Olsen was the form rider early in the season, and of course PC would have had to ride on one leg for the last three or so meetings. He was able to produce an amazing performance on one leg in the final, but could he have done the same over three meetings? I remember Kenny Carter winning the B Final in 84 with a broken leg, qualifying comfortably enough from the Overseas final in the next round, but then finding the inter-continental a step too far - perhaps PC may have struggled too, the leg injury would have made it particularly tough to come from the back, and while Pc made every gate in the final, perhaps too much to imagine him gating well three meetings in a row? Despite that, my vote also goes to Collins, but only just over Olsen. You don't think that whether a rider is at their peak (best, top of their game if you prefer those phrases) has a bearing on the outcome of their clashes with other riders? Penhall in 81 was riding as well as any rider in history, he may have been able to maintain that form, I'm not sure he would have improved on it. Nielsen averaged close to 11 in 83 when all those riders (bar Penhall) were around, he improved after that, and consistently beat Gundersen, S Moran and Knudsen when they were at their (here's that word again) peak. I'm confident he would have averaged over 11 even with those riders around. Anyway its all speculation/opinions, no way to prove it one way or the other.

well of course Lee/Penhall wouldn't have feared Hans, as Nielsen was nowhere near his peak when Lee/Penhall were at theirs (83 is the only year when Nielsen/Lee were anywhere near their peaks at the same time, and in both cases still about three/four years off their respective peaks). You mention Lee's average, but he never averaged over 11, which Hans did countless times. In fact, I'm not sure Hans averaged below 10 any year in the 80s? ] Without wanting to re-open the "natural talent" debate, I'd suggest Penhall/Lee were both more gifted than Hans (or possiblly just earlier developers), but neither produced the sustained excellence which he did (and which is the key under the GP system).

well of course, no systems perfect, so I can't see any way of guaranteeing the best rider would win every time. So not sure what your point is? So, to clairfy, you'd remove the permanent WC spots from the GP as these are unfair. However, all the spots in the Challenge meeting/s for riders from outside the series would be effectively seeded? So no places at all up for grabs on a "pure" (i.e. none subjective) basis for riders from outside the series? I'm not saying that I enbtirely disagree, but that seems extremely contradictory - care to explain the logic? Would there be some formula to work out who the best 8 "outsiders" were (formula based on averages. World Cup performance etc?). Also, to clarify another point, you're also removing the meeting wildcards? So, who do you reckon was the best rider in the World in 2000? Billy Hamill? Quite possibly, but I think that the knock-out formula was a flawed concept. Can you think of any examples under the more “conventional” formats? And tbh, if there are only a couple of examples from 17 years, that’s a much better ratio than the old WC. My bitter comment was directed at your earlier post, if that was tongue in check, then I apologise. No issues at all with your subsequent proposal, I don't agree, but happy to see a constructive suggestion. And personally, Pilsner over Bitter every time. I’d keep the “hometown” wildcard for each meeting, so there are actually only 7 slots up for grabs from outside the top8. I think it’s important that there is at least one new face in the series each year, that is why I would have at least guaranteed one spot available for riders from outside the series. As mentioned above, I believe your suggestion has some merit (I’m sure Parsloes will see red though!), and may well result in a stronger field for the GPs (as the “selected” challengers are likely to be stronger than those who qualify from outside under the current system), but I actually think it is less fair than the staus quo.

I think the phrase "proper World Championship" is in reference to the likes of Parsloe refusing to acknowledge the GP series as a"proper" WC due to their perception of it as "unfair" and not openn to all riders. Bast didn't get a proper crack at the old WC due to American riders being given no places in the old WC while he was at his peak, and only very limited sports (1 or 2 from the US final) in his later years, hence to use the same logic, the WC in this period was not a "proper" world championship.

muddled? Just saying that if you had been right about the twenty extra titles, this would have meant those four riders winning every year from 1951-1988, and that I was looking forward to you explaining your logic for the above years as to why they would ahve been champion? Not sure what was unclear? If you don't think Moore would have won in 54, who do you think? Nielsen would have still won GPs if Penhall/Lee had stuck around, though not as many as 10 I would expect. Penhall in 81 was as consistent as Nielsen at his peak, I can't think of a season in which Lee was as consistently good as the Nielsen of the last 80s. If anything, the presence of Penhall/Lee in GPs may well have meant Gundersen was never crowned WC.

So, 5 extra titles for the Fundin/Olsen/Briggs/Fundin,quadrumvirate not the twenty you mentioned earlier. Shame you're admitting you were wrong (or tongue in cheek) really, as twenty would have meant they would have won between them every year from 1951-1988, I was particularly looking forward to your explanation about how Nielsen missed out 1984-88 (forget the world titles, did he do it against Fundin/Mauger/Olsen), whether it was Mauger or Olsen beating Penhall in 81/82, and why you reckoned the novice Fundin or Briggs were winning ahead of Young and Moore in the early 50s.

sydney - I have suggested change above, and on a spearate thread suggsted a way in which I envisaged a "knock-out" style world championship could be run in parrallel, so I am certainly not averse to some change. But for the reasons I have outlined above there is no way they will abolish the permanent wildcards all together - do you not agree that if say Greg Hanock had a season ending injury first meeting in 2012 that it makes sense for him to still get a place in the 2013 GP. Or if say Jankowski/Ward/G Laguta topped their domestic averages, spearheaded their country to World Cup victory, won a GP as wildcard, but missed the GP challenge due to injury - would you want them to miss the 2013 GP? Re: your O'Sullivan anology - if a GP rider chose not to ride in every event and finished outside the top 8, I doubt very much they would be given a permanent wildcard, as let's face it, if someone's not riding the meeting they are not very "box office" are they?

Perhaps this particular debate should be resumed here http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=50265&st=270. FWIW, I'm inclined to go with Michanek in 73, on top of his domestic form he did win the Brit-Nordic and European titles, spearhead the Swedes to the Wolrd Pairs title and drop only a point in the WTC final - so Mauger only really outperformed him on the big night itself.

Sydney – I addressed this point above. They would almost certainly have won more titles, but not because they didn’t have to go through the qualifying rounds. They would have won more because the GP system rewards riders able to maintain excellence over a whole season, not just one meeting. So Sckaziel wouildn’t have won in 73, Michanek, great rider that he was, would not have won in 74, and those titles would have likely gone to Mauger. But I don’t believe this proves it was harder per se to win then – harder if you were the consistently the best in the world (so more titles under a GP system for Mauger/Fundin/Nielsen), but easier if you were “one of the rest” (and we’re talking the likes of all time great riders such as Craven, Michanek, Briggs, Gundersen as well as the obvious candidates Sckaziel, Muller etc.) Anyway, I’ve just bumped a post in which this topics was debated in some detail – discussion on the selections made may want to be continued there! Consensus seems to be that Fundin would have won 7 or 8 titles, Briggs 2 or 3, and Mauger 7. So say 18 titles vs the 15 they actually won. An improvement certainly , but nowhere near the 20 you were claiming somewhere earlier (tongue I cheek I know).

ok, to bump this thread (as it has some relevance to another discussion), and complete the list, the rough consensus seemed to be: 1928 - Frank Arthur 1929 - Frank Arthur 1930 - Vic Huxley 1931 - Vic Huxley 1932 - Vic Huxley 1933 - Tom Farndon 1934 - Tom Farndon 1935 - Bluey Wilkinson 1936 - Eric Langton (ArnieG, Bobbath and Rob) or Bluey Wilkinson (Norbold) 1937 - Jack Milne 1938 - Bluey Wilkinson 1939 - Cordy Milne 1946 - Jack Parker 1947 - Vic Duggan 1948 - Vic Duggan 1949 - Jack Parker 1950 - Graham Warren 1951 - Jack Young (Rob / Norbold) or Aub Lawson (Bobbath) 1952 - Jack Young 1953 - Jack Young 1954 - Ronnie Moore 1955 - Ronnie Moore 1956- Ove Fundin 1957- Ove Fundin 1958- Ove Fundin 1959- Ove Fundin 1960- Ove Fundin 1961-Ove Fundin 1962-Peter Craven 1963-Ove Fundin 1964 - Bjorn Knutsson 1965 – Barry Briggs 1966 - Barry Briggs 1967 - Barry Briggs 1968 - Ivan Mauger 1969 - Ivan Mauger 1970 - Ivan Mauger 1971 - Ivan Mauger 1972 - Ole Olsen 1973 - Ivan Mauger 1974 - Ivan Mauger 1975 - Ivan Mauger 1976 - Peter Collins 1977 – Peter Collins 1978 - Ole Olsen 1979 – Michael Lee 1980- Dave Jessup 1981 Bruce Penhall 1982 Bruce Penhall 1983 Hans Nielsen 1984 Erik Gundersen 1985 Erik Gundersen 1986 Hans Nielsen 1987 Hans Nielsen 1988 Hans Nielsen 1989 Hans Nielsen 1990 Hans Nielsen 1991 Hans Nielsen 1992 Per Jonsson 1993 Sam Ermolenko 1994 Hans Nielsen Hopefully that’s a fair representation of the debate, certainly the following years had no clear consensus: 62- Craven or Fundin 65- Briggs or Plechanov 73 – Mauger or Michanek 75 – Mauger, Olsen or Crump 76 – Collins or Mauger 77 – Collins or Olsen 83- Neilsen or Gundersen, Lee, Sigalos, Sanders, Carter? 85 – Nielsen or Gundersen 93 – Ermolenko or Nielsen

But Sidney the fact is that in any generation you only get two or three Michael Lees, you don’t get 9 or 10. Of the current generation, only Emil and Darcy bear comparison to Lee – and they have both been offered the chance through the much maligned permanent wildcard. Holder/Jankowski arguably the next best of the young talents – Holder qualified on merit, Jankowski I am sure will get his chance next year – and quite possibly may have done this year if it hadn’t been for the Polish 1 GP rider rule. As I’ve said previously, young riders if anything are advantaged by the system, as if they fail they have a second chance through the permanent wildcard. Also, the under 21 GP series is IMHO a great learning experience for them. Also, if Ronnie O Sullivan is the best player in the world, can you explain how he is not ranked in the top 16. Doesn’t that indicate that he is actually no longer best in the world? There are currently 3 spots up for grabs, if they got rid of the wildcard there would be 7, without getting my calculator out I make that 4 extra spots. Perhaps you could let me know where I went wrong – did I forget to carry the one? Anyway, I agree to a degree, but realistically they are always going to need to keep a couple of permanent wildcard slots up for grabs. This allows for a) entry for riders who are genuine contenders but missed out on qualifying due to injury (Emil/Nicki in 2010) allow the very top youngsters who miss out in qualifying to be given the chance in the series (Emil, Darcy, potentially Jankowski/Batchelor) c) to make sure that there is representation from each of the major speedway nations (probably a commercial necessity – and personally I have no issue with 1 spot guaranteeing a Brit or potentially a Dane/Swede a place. Most major sports have some slots “reserved” based on nationality rather than pure ability/results). So: I’d have top 8 still qualify. 2 permanet wild cards. I would say two (at least one anyway) direct out of the “qualifying” meetings (otherwise you could potentially end up with NO new faces year on year!). And then 3 from the GP Challenge, to be contested by 9-14 from the GP (15th doesn’t deserve another bite at the cherry in my view], 3-10 from the qualifiers and top 2 from the under 21 GP (to give yoof an extra chance). I also reckon the "challenge" meeting should be held over two days (to reduce the chance of one engine failure/bad decision deciding the outcome) similar to the 87 Amsterdam World Final, but with GP style semis/finals at each day to allow extra points to be added, and hence incrase the scope for a rider who had a poor day 1 to still scrape a place by bagging 24 pomts on the second day. Exactly the sort of post which makes people dismiss you as nothing more than bitter and stuck in the past –nothing constructive to add? In what year was the GP title not won on merit by the best rider in the world?

Sidney Firstly- don’t think the list you have painstakingly put together actually shows anything about how easy/hard it is to win GP vs old WC. I don’t think the GP is any easier, nor harder, to win than the old WC – both are great acheievements. What one could argue though is that if you are one of the top2 riders in the world, it is easier to win the GP series. If you are any other rider, it was easier to win in the old one off, where one good night could do it. 1. And surely they know the rules now before hand too?11 of the slots are clearcut, and the other 4 there’s generally no surprise in how they are awarded 2. Agreed. I also think its an achievement to make the final 15 now - certainly more so than qualifying via the continental final route under the old system. 3. Really??? You don't think those going through the continental final route had it easier than those going via the inter-continental final. What about Larry Ross - 1985, Nz champ with a 15 point maximum, didn't get a slot in the next round? 4. Simply not true about the seeding. And of the years Mauger didn't reach the final, in how many of those would he have been a genuine shot at winning. Only 1980? And a chance under the one-off system maybe, no way under a GP system. Any others? PC – 78, any other years?. But don't forget, if PC had reached the final in 78 and won, he'd have been taking a title off Olsen. 7/8 points enough points in most rounds to go through? Name a year in which that was enough in the American final, Nz final, Australian final? And tbh, I reckon scoring 7 points in the inter-continental final was a much tougher ask than scoring 13 to qualify from the GP challenge now. Also, please tell me the years in which Gollob, Crump, Hancock and Hampel were given permanent wildcards i.e. did not have to qualify for that GP series? Is it really that much easier to finish in the top 8 than to qualify in the top3 of the best of the rest. I don’t believe it is (Lindback is a good example). And the “elite” which people keep harping on about it – its not as though this is some aristocracy where they are getting their “elite status” based on bloodlines (apart from Harris obviously) – they are the “elite” because they are better than the “outsiders.” But fresh talent does have the chance!!! They can qualify via the qualifiers (most aren’t god enough), or via the permanent wildcard. Pedersen/Gollob/Crump/Hancock/\Rickardson 14GP titles from 80 seasons – roughly one every 6 . Your list of riders is closer to one in 5 – which if you took your logic would indicate that its harder now. However, as I said above, I don’t think you can use these figures like that. One key factor is that there is significant overlap in these careers – so Mauger winning was preventing Olsen and Collins winning for example. Of course, between them the riders you list would have won more World titles under a GP system – but I don’t see how that’s a bad thing, if it means the true greats would have been even more successful? But no-one is claiming the current system is perfect. You are the one saying that as it’s not perfect its not a “proper” world Championship. Others are pointing out that the old WC also had flaws (arguably more), and that you are therefore being hypocritical. But please tell me even one criticism of the GP system which has not been answered and I’m sure you will get an answer to it. Every criticism you have raised on this thread has been answered on others, but you seem to ignore all the counter-arguments you have been presented with. My thought are that while the current system isn’t perfect, it works well in ensuring close to the strongest possible field (plus a Brit).Personally, I’d reduce the permanent wildcards to two slots (to cover in order of priority injuries to top riders , entry for hot talents, ensuring each of the 5 major speedway nations (Poland, Sweden, Denmark, England Aussie) have at least one representative)., reduce the “qualifying slots” for riders from outside the series to two places, then have a GP challenge for places 9-14 from the GP, 3-10 from the “qualifiers” plus the top 2 from the under 21 champs. How would you structure it Parsloes? Valid points to some extent. Les Collins is an example of a rider who had one blindingly good year (well, great performances in the IC and World final anyway), but would have likely not been in the GP that year. Januz Kolodiecz (spelling) is a recent example of someone who had a great 2010 season, but then a shocking 2011 when he was in the series. Counter-argument though is that there are far more examples of riders who missed out on World Final because of injury, one bad meeting etc. To add to Rob’s list, you’d have Carter in both 84/85 due to injury, Morton (85) and Wigg (86) missed out at British final stages in the year’s in which they were in the best form of their career. Every year there were riders who were unquestionably in the top 10 in the world missing from the final – that’s simply not the case now. What I do believe true is that the gap between riders in the GP and those outside may be increasing because of their exposure to racing the best in the world every fortnight. Also, the absence of test matches which used to be a feature of the 70s/80s reduces the top level meetings ridden by those outside the GPs. And also, GP riders may be able to attract the sponsorship which allows them to have the best possible machinery. Not sure how to solve this, I think it is a relatively common problem in the “professional age” of sports that the gap between the top competitors and the rest is growing larger Only 4 riders good enough to win? I disagree – I think you have Crump, Hancock, Gollob, Emil, Hampel, Holder, Jonsson and Pedersen who could all win it. 8 riders, most year’s in the WC you’d have struggled to pick that many candidates. Also, you’d expect the list to be shorter anyway under the GP system, as you include only riders good enough to sustain excellence over a whole season, not just one meeting. For example in most years in the 60s, had GPs been in effect, you could have said Fundin/Briggs and been right, in the 70s Mauger/ Olsen/Collins and been right in the mid-late 80s Gundersen/Nielsen and been right. Pretty much any of next year’s field are capable of winning a GP, and hence potentially an old style world final. Also: How many people last year picked Hancock to win it – to borrow a line from one of Nz’s best musos, “not many, if any.” The Olympic final isn’t really a valid comparison, as that is knock out style event, The SGP is a league system. So a comparison is Man Utd being part of next year’s premiership because they finished in the top17 this year, or qualifying for the champions league next year. A circus??? I’ve used the analogy before, but the old WC was like the FA cup. Everyone had a chance, but one bit of bad luck and your hopes were gone for the season. The GP is like the premiership, every point counts. The FA cup may have more drama, and the winner is always deserving, but the truly prized title is the Premiership because if you win that you have truly been the best team that season. It is in your control, there is just a one year delay from qualifying to be in the “finals.” I don’t think young talent is disadvantages, in fact genuine young talent is likely to benefit from the permanent wildcard system. Riders likely to be disadvantaged are more likely to be the “journeyman” rider, who is unlikely to get a wildcard, but has one hot season in a year they are not in the GP. BUT… I haven’t seen any strong examples of riders who would probably have won had they been in the series (a couple of outsiders have been suggested – , which isn’t bad for a 17 year period). Anyway, to go back to your original question, and to borrow a line someone else used on another thread: Old WC –hard to win. GP series- hard to win.

umm... so Tai Woffinden got a chance as a teenager. What on earth makes you think that Michael Lee wouldn't!?!?