waiheke1

As you say, facility is allowed for the NL riders as per the rules. Not sure how you can compare it to Harris where no favility is allowed per the rules, which is the whole point of the thread.

Well I've read that thread, and if you think can find anything SCB has said that even faintly implies that Harris should not get a ban, then I'd suggest you need remedial English lessons. And then you can make your apology for being wrong.

Maybe he enjoyed good corporate hospitality (I assume there was good German bier) and the Monster girls?

Really depends what u study. I initially did a BA in English literature and philosophy, which somewhat surprisingly didn't lead to well paid jobs, so when I was last in London I was earning a couple of quid above minimum wage while my tradie flat mates were earning 4 times what I was each week.But since then I got a more useful degree and then a professional qualification and now earn well over 10 times what I was back then- and for sure I wouldn't be without the qualifications (that my previous employer paid for).

And SCB is the last person who would have a dig at Harris. But in recent weeks we've had: Chris Holder banned as per the rulebook for refusing to race. Jack Holder and Peterborough strongly castigated for missing/allowing him to miss a meeting in contravention of rules. Threat of punishment (still pending)? Chris Harris permitted to miss a meeting, and facility granted, despite fact that this contravenes the rules. Consistency? What are rules being based on if not the rulebook?

Sparkies and plumbers I flatted with in London were earning close to or more than a grand a week, and that's nearly 15 years ago!

Well for a start that claim is not accurate. He won 6 from 13 heats in the world pairs. So that is more lost heats than he claimsAnd 2 from 4 in the world team cup And dropped at least one point in the continental final

Judging Louis based on his Halifax days is a bit like judging Peter Collins only on his 82-86 seasons - totally unrepresentative of the rider at his peak.

Lucifer Sam will be the guy who knows that if he stumbles onto this thread. I know Carl Blackbird beat him a couple of times (maybe even 3) in one meeting but suspect that was the league cup not the British league. Don't understand this anti Holder position. Plenty of people have ridden world championship meetings in conditions they wouldn't have for a league match. And when u consider the injuries holder has had, and seen his mate have, I can understand reluctance to race on conditions he deemed dangerous.

Ok so by that logic you could argue that Penhall wasnt a worthy winner in 82, Nielsen not in 86, countless other examples. I don't think that was what was intended by the question at all though.. Not sure this is right, Nielsen went all of 86 unbeaten AWAY from home and almost unbeaten at home, but did win the world championship that season. I don't think he was unbeaten at home in 84,85 or 88 which would be the other years you could be talking about. Valid argument though , the only deserving winner is the winner! Not sure I agree entirely but that could just be because you are a seether...

Not sure it's that clear cut. They may go Lindback over Zagar to get an extra Swede in? And possibly Nicki P over Puk? I'd probably go with those you suggest but 50/50 between the two Danes.

It sure why you think it's a trick question. And if based purely on achievements why KC would clearly be number one. For me it's largely about what he was good enough to achieve but didn't (ie. arguably the only one good enough to be world champ, though Simmo fans might argue that he also was) rather than the titles he did win, though the back to back BLRC maximums was clearly an impressive feat.

Have to say Havvy would be my last choice of all British world champs to manage team GB. Is that the barometer to use though? Gollob at his best is probably better than Hancock or nicki P at their best. but surely ranks behind them in a list of all time greats.I agree GPS are percentage results, thereby a better indicator of who is the best rider in the world . You win by being best over a season, not by overcoming nerves or lifting your game for the big night.

Depends what you mean by undeserving. But if it's a rider who was never in the top 2 or3 riders in the world in any given year, then you would definitely add Egon to the list. Maybe Havvy. That's probably about it.I'd also note that if last night was a world final, then surely Doyle would be a deserved world champ? And what an awful gp that was. not helped by it being a disastrous night for Woffy. Surely the title gone now but a medal is still up for grabs if he can turn it on for the remaining meetings.

I'd say it's harder to win a series Sid - unless you are one of the top two in the world that year, then I'd say it would be tougher to win a one off final. Was a great achievement no doubt. and was no fluke. He had an outstanding season. It no way imo he would have won a gp series. But being arguably the worst British world champ is still far more than most achieve. If woffy finishes top 2 this year Sid would u rate him best ever? With another world title?

Wouldn't think you'd be surprised by me having Carter top Sid. can't think of anyone better round Hyde Rd and the shay. And not many better round Odsal either.

Would add that of that list, Carter is the only one imo with a genuine claim to have been the best rider in the world in a given year (82).

Carter Simmons Louis Morton Wilson Probably Aces bias to put Mort ahead of Wilson But I would point out to Grachan that 81-86 Mort was Aces top HL ahead of Ross/Collins (Pc of course rode only a handful of meetings in 81 and never regained his earlier form on returning). BLRC champ, IC champ, 6 or 7 world finals, world pairs champ, WTC champ, British champ, 2nd in BL averages in 84 - a pretty impressive record, actually I've convinced myself that he deserves 4th place at least!

But as I've pointed out, it's normal that riders will put up with more risk for a world title. Just like the KC and PC examples I gave. It's also why it annoys me when people complain about riders not racing in the wet anymore - why would fans want to watch meetings in such poor conditions.

And I agree. There are many world championship meeting taken place over the years that shouldn't have. But seemed to me your dig was aimed at the riders, not the people who pushed the meeting to take place. Apologies if that was not the case.

Amazing that riders are willing to race in poor conditions with a world title at stake?I bet PC wouldn't have raced in conditions like he did in the world final in 77 with his injured leg if it was a league meeting. Amazing how Jenny carter was willing to race in the wet at Brandon with a broken leg in 84 but missed league meetings. And who wants to see league meetings "raced" in conditions like that anyway? Real shame Lambert was riding injured in the first one or he'd be really in the mix for the title

But fans expect the riders to perform as professionals. A rider who has sub standard machinery, or misses the odd meeting due to work, would not be tolerated by fans in the top two tiers...

Wouldn't need to buy the stadiums surely in order t promote?

Some people just make it tough for the poor old bookie to do the calculations don't they...

Classic Gustix, telling the OP what the thread is about and what they should have titled it!?!Find it interesting that someone who last watched a meeting 12 years ago and says they turned off the last GP they watched 5 years ago because they didn't know any of the riders, purports to still have an interest in the sport and "follow overseas results closely."