waiheke1

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!?!?

Actually, I think most people are happy with a system in which the World Champion is the best rider in the World that season. Which the SGP does achieve, pretty much every time.

I'm pretty sure Bradford '85 wasn't, they also held the Overseas final and Wiorld Pairs semi there that year, and it became the home of the Bradford Dukes the following season.

there's only Sky in NZ, and as a monopoly they pretty much can show what they want...will be intresting to see how much of a time delay there is between NZ GP and it being broadcast that would be the perfect scenario!!!

um, not sure how Italian Matej Zagar is? Anyway, I really hope there is a kiwi wildcard, but not convinced that that will be the case

Would love to be proved wrong, but there isn't any coverage of the Elite league on TV in NZ. GPs and World Cup are shown (highlights), but often months after the event. Otherwise us kiwis are reliant on t'internet. That's why I was so surprised that the GP did come to fruition, I would have thought there would have been better coverage of the GP on Sky last year to help drum up interest. I'd assumed that this would be given to an Aussie (Troy Batchelor?) or a Brit wintering down under. Is there any word on who this is likely to be? this article seems to suggest that while NZ are entitled to a wildcard, this may not be given to a kiwi if there is none good enough (likely to be the case?) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motorsport/news/article.cfm?c_id=66&objectid=10770641

So, you start a topic with a melo-dramatic title. You make an alarmist claim about up to 5 permanent wildcards being needed, though when asked produce nothing to substantiate this – and lo and behold, we have a full field of 15 confirmed. Discussion on your opening points evolved pretty quickly into a discussion of the relative merits of GPS vs. World Championships. This discussion, which is highly relevant to your original post (given that you implied the GP was not a “proper” world championship event) continues for around 30 pages, to which you stopped contributing at around page 6. Admittedly from then, it moves slightly off topic into a discussion of great riders (of both GP and old WC eras), and finally devolves into a series of botanical puns (which I will confess, is a relatively significant divergence from the topic). I do find it a little bizarre that, havingat this point you decide to complain to the mods about it moving off topic? So, back to your original post: GP is not really in tatters it? In fact, while the standard may be slightly down on the last couple of seasons, there are arguably 7 riders in the field capable of winning the title (Crump, Gollob, Emil, Hampel, Jonsson, Holder, Pedersen) other \s likely to scrap for the 8th spot but well capable of winning an individual GP (Harris, Lindgren, Lindback, Bjerre) and then three who are unlikely to be in contention but ,may surprise . In 2013, I’d expect BSI to have sorted out the issue with the Poles, and potentially we could see the likes of Ward, Jankowski, G Laguta and Tai added to the field, which, even allowing for one of the “old brigade” potentially retiring, would be a very appetizing line up World Finals have ALWAYS paid poorly. The only reason it is now an issue is the rule the Poles brought in - this is surely an issue with the Poles, not the GPs? And let’s face it, the field isn’t missing any of the riders in with a genuine shot at winning it is it? An “old-style WC” as well as a GP? I thought this topic worth discussing, so actually opened a separate topic on this, which neither you (nor anyone else really) commented on – perhaps because it’s just not likely to happen. Anyway, a summary of how I saw it working, which would involve only an extra two weekends of meetings over a season were – how would you see it working Midland Red? Your other point was regarding how GP benefits British speedway, specifically the clubs. Surely, the purpose of the GP is not to benefit English clubs (or any clubs for that matter) – it’s to identify who the best Speedway rider is in a given year, and benefit speedway as a whole. Ps: Like the avatar.

Yes, nailed it, that's EXACTLY what he was saying

Sorry, Sydney I meant of course Phil crump (who we had been discussion), not Jason (who I agree is better than Pedersen). So confirming, you believe PHIL was better than N Pedersen? You keep saying this is because its easier to stay in GP than to qualify for the old final (which I’d dispute anyway), but are you actually saying you believe it was harder to qualify for the old WF than it is to WIN the GP? Note, someone like Billy Sanders in the same era had exactly the same qualifying route as Phil, but managed 5 world finals, and two rostrum appearances.Who do you think was better out of Phil and Billy? Of course, being good enough to win, and deserving to win, are two entirely different things. Do you think Jessup was good enough to win, and can you name a rider who was better in the world in 1980? The point being that it is a rarity for one incident to have determined the overall GP winner in a particvular year, wheras roughly every second year under the old one-offs such an incident had a significant bearing on who took out the title. I’d say Lee would certainly have either qualified or been wildcarded to the 78 GP series. Peter Collins similarly for the 74 series.So, a year later than they actually made a final under the old system, hardly a significant delay. And in the case of Lee, who’s to say that he wouldn’t have actually benefitted from success coming slightly later. I don’t buy the argument that its harder for young riders now – Emil and Tai for example were hardly waiting for ever to join the series. If a British talent like Lee emerged in 2012, I think you could practically guarantee he’d be offered a spot in the 2013 GP series. I don't blame you for not having read every page of this topic, but this has actually been covered off in a fair amount of detail Of course, Sydney, you've alreayd expressed your opinion on Nielsen on another thread. yeah forget the medals, forget that season he went undefeated away from home in the BL, forget the number of consecutive seasons he topped the BL averages (including the two best ever season averages), forget the 3 BLRC titles , forget the many test series he topped the averages, forget the 6 Danish Championships, forget the numerous other World Final qualifying titles. Because, lets face it, apart from those, he didn't really do much did he? Ok, so that’s a 12 year period you’ve listed, and quite a few of those riders (e.g. N Boocock, Jonsson, Rickardson) were nowhere near World class in that period. You’ve then asked us to look at a 9 year period of GPs as a comparison? Anyway, I’m not sure looking at a list of riders over a 12 year period of time is the best way to compare relevant strength in depths, rather pick a particular year and look at the quality.So, I’ve picked 1982 (just because its one of the seasons I feel most familiar with), and compared to the current situation. I've then split riders into three groups.1) those who would have been good enough to challenge for a spot on the rosturm, 2) those who would have been good enough to challenge for the top8, 3) those who would have performed respectably, probably around 4/5 points a GP, but capable of making semis, or even the final, on a good day and a track which suited them. Note, this is obviously highly subjective, I realize different people may have very different bvies on which category different riders should fit into: Champion/rostrum: 1982 Penhall Carter Sigalos L Collins Gundersen Jessup 2012: Gollob Hancock Crump Emil AJ Hampel Holder Top 8: 1982: M Lee S Moran K Moran C Morton J Andersson H Nielsen O Olsen B Shwartz B Sanders 2012: N Pedersen Lindgren Harris Bjerre Ward Holta G Laguta Respectable 1982: Knudsen Muller Nieme Ross Mauge Petersen Andy Grahame Alan Grahame Kennett Cook Erixen Preston Peter Collins Crump Autrey Davis 2012: PP Batchelor Andersen Lindback Nicholls Woffinden Zetterstrom Schlein Pavlic Walasek Sullivan THJ Janowski Zagar Miedzinski Kolodziej KK IMHO I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the strength of those two lists, though I do think the 82 list is slightly stronger. Would appreciate other’s thoughts.

I think Penhall would have won more titles. Not in 83, I don’t think any rider would have beaten Egon that day (though if anyone could , it would have been Bruce- and perhaps there would have been a difference to egon’s psychology if Bruce had been in the field, as it was there was no strong favourite, and egon must have thought “this is mine for the taking.”). I reckon he’d have won two more in the 80s, with Erik and Hans perhaps winning two apiece. Lee certainly could have won more if his career had stayed on track, Sanders I don’t think would have done, Carter and Sigalos perhaps. That said, I think you have to bear in mind that Nielsen in particular was nowhere near his peak when Penhall and Lee were at their peak - so its not surprising that Penhall had a great head to head record against Nielsen. Penhall (81 version) , Lee (late 70s version), Nielsen (86-89 version) - all great riders, very, very little between them, in my view - but I think you'd have to say Penhall and Nielsen would have a slight edge over Lee, simply for their consistency. At their peaks, I'd take Penhall to beat Hans in a one-off final, Hans to beat Penhall in a GP series.

one otherpoint on the subject of old World Finals. Certainly, I think an element of luck was needed to become world champion. To back this up here are incidents off the top of my head, without which, the winner (or other medal winners) may well have been different. Please note again that I am not saying WF were a lottery, or that winners were not deserving, just that luck, as well as skill, played a part. And yes, in GP series luck also plays a part, but over a series of 11 meetings, less significant than in a one off final. 73: Controversial incident involving Plech and Chlynovski robs both of a place in run off for title. Mauger falls in run-off gifting Szcazkiel the title. 75: Peter Collins has two wins from first two riders, however just prior to third ride the dusty track is watered by over enthusiastic fans. Collins finishes last and his title hopes are gone. 76: Mauger engine failure while leading hands Collins title. 77: Collins injury week before meeting. Mauger twice trailing in clashes against key rivals (Collins and Olsen/Lee), but races stopped due to other rider’s falling (muller and Boulger). Mauger triumphs in both re-runs. 78: Jessup ef costs him title. Mauger falls/knocked off in his first heat while leading, but race not stopped. 80: Lee randomly checks timing of his bike at a service station, notices broken bearing which would have ruined world final hopes. Gets favourable gate 1 twice, while rival Jessup gets orst gate three twice. 81: Penhalls main rivals on the night, Carter/Gundersen/Jessup all suffer engine troubles 82: L Collins drops two poins in his easiest ride. THAT incident, when at best Penhall would have picked up second (and hence a run off) 83: Nielsen puncture costs him place on rostrum 85: Nielsen crashes in fourth ride, and has to race re-run on second bike. Inside gate a huge advantage in first half of meeting (benefits Sam Ermolenko who finished third) 86: Knudsen controversially excluded in clash with Neilsen 89: Gundersen e/f costs him runners up spot 93/94: Nielsen controversially excluded costing him the title on both occasions I'm sure there are many more examples that exist. These moments are also perhaps why specific old WF stick in our minds more, as they are defining moments in the destiny of the title, while the many (for example ) Nicki Pedersen incidents are less vivid as they have ultimately not decided the overall GP winner in a given year.

1. So, you agree Jessup was good enough to wint the World title? 2. So you believe that reaching World Finals was harder than winning GPs due to strenth in depth? You think it was that much stronger then? Or is there some other basis on which you think J Crump was better than Pedersen. On the "gate position " issue. Here's some footage that confirms that riders do see gate postion as asignificant advantage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnoxEvYa4as Also, I have to say that I do recall Speedway Star etc. commeting on impact of gate postions, so don't think it is anew thing at all. Finally, on the 1980 final, I had my stats wrong. Gate three totalled 18 points over the night (average 0.9 pts per rider), wheras gate 1 scored 47 points (average 2.35 points per ride). So, you have to say that Lee (who had gate 1 twice) definitely had an advabntage over Jessup (who has gate 3 twice) - you could argue a 1.45 pt advantage due to luck of the draw. With finals as tight as they were, I think you have to acknowledge that that's reasonably significant.

tbh, I can't see why people are so anti-Penhall. Ok, i could understand if: a) you were a Cradley fan bitter about him costing you the '82 BL title you were a Carter fan who, despite video evidence to the contrary, believe Carter was robbered in '82 c) You had a few quid on Penhall to win the 82 Overseas final Otherwise, I think the sentiments are pretty irrational. To me, he is one of the all time great riders. I'd have much rather he'd stayed in speedway, where I think he would have continued to win world titles,but understand why he made the choice he did, and think he has to be admired for then becoming a World Champion in another sport. For those who doubt him as a person, hopefully something like this shows that he is at least not all bad

Not wanting to be pedantic, but the uk qualifying meeting for the WTC in 1980 was held at Kings Lynn, and the weather (from footage and photos I've seen) was fine? The following meeting (at Vojens) however was torrential. Wrong meeting/year? England v USA 1985 is the wettest meeting I recall seeing at Hyde Rd.