Grand Central

Yes, the rather ubiquitous and yet so incongruous appearence of TORUN and LESZNO on race jackets at GPs in other countries for the last couple of years is, I think, testomony to this funding mechanism. Goodness knows what the council tax payers (or their equivalent) in these Polish 'tourist' centres feel about their money being spent in this way is rather open to question.

But goodness gracious me ... don't tell me that Peter Ljung has a sponsorship and backroom set-up in place so able to cope with the GP circus of 2012 any better that Darcy could not have had within about 24 hours .. this would be to send the GP to hell in a hand cart!

Yes ... There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip ... to turn down the invitation now in the hope that a future opportunity will arise so easily is a gamble that, in speedway, should not be done lightly ... I hope Darcy does not live to rue the day ...

Perhaps it is best to leave Jack and Dave out of the debate for the moment until they have had the opportunity of reading Ian Hoskins article. For those that have had the chance of the reading it ... don't you find it rather surprising that Ian Hoskins didn't jump to defend the creationalist argument for his father as others have done on this thread. Instead, he seems to have taken the position of trying to carve out a new, rather more esoteric, place for Johnnie where he was a facilitator moving speedway from it's rather vague indeteriminate origins to the more certain european narrative with with we are all familiar. This is a rather new perception of Johnnie's role, is it not?

Absolutely ... 1977 versus 1974 for wetness ... 1977 wins! I was not decrying the GPs at any point, quite the reverse. But Ullevi happens to be a bit of a leveller, doesn't it. It's one of those places that SHOULD show the best of world speedway but it actually never has, has it? It is not a particularly good example of how the old system was bad any more than it is a good example of how the modern way is any better. Goodness know why BSI keep going back! It's dreadful! But having said that 1974, 1977, 1980, 1984 AND 1991 I was there every year, thoroughly enjoyed my stay in the city including Saturday/Sunday at Liseberg ... but funnily enough I haven't set foot in the place since the GPs took over. I just find it interesting that you chose '74 as an example of the nadir of World Finals. As a modern-day lover of GPs that is the one place that would never get me to leave my seat in front of Nige and Kelv to see a live GP, yet it always drew me to travel to a world final at the place. Funny that, isn't it?

I have said previously that GPs are the future and that World Finals are of the past and only for nostalgia. BUT ... this is a little disingeniuous, is it not? You mention the 1974 Final held in the pouring rain at Gothenburg of all places. Yes it wasn't good but for goodness sake NONE of the GPs held at that place have been any good either have they? AND when talking about the past world championships is the whole year-long story of the qualifying rounds that has to be remembered. Truth is that today there is hardly a person alive who can remember the events of ANY GP qualifying meeting (except for a couple of GP Challneges back in the 90s) but you mention 1974 ... the British Final at an absulutely ram-packed Brandon with Eric Boocock pulling off the win in his last ride, the European Final at Wembley with Peter Collins winning his first big title after beating Mauger and Olsen in a run-off and not to mention the initial rounds around the whole of the UK that, in those days, were genuinely must-go-to meetings. Really Phil, I think you should choose your examples a little more carefully.

It is an article by Ian Hoskins to which he refers to the ongoing debate about his father but adds only a couple of very short paragraphs of his own comment on the 1923 question. There is no new information divulged. The quote from Mr Hoskins that you gave at the beginning of this thread seemed to promise much more. Thankfully, Mr Hoskins deals with whole matter in a rather relaxed manner and does not make any assertions about his father inventing speedway at all. He prefers to look upon Johnnie's role as the man who provided continuity with the pioneering days and on to the world wide spread of the sport. This may or may not lead to an entirely different debate!

Funnily enough I had made that very same mistake as I read that particular paragraph. For some reason 'THE supreme achievement' tripped off the page better than the 'A supreme achievement', as written. A semantic distinction, perhaps. But vital to understanding the paragraph correctly. The most interesting thing about the piece is just the lack of anything new at all that Mr Hoskins adds. And actually he is to be commended for that. He does not make any out landish unsubstantiated claims for his father (except for the bit about 'led to High Beech' perhaps). He thankfully makes no claims or defences along the lines used by Jack or Dave. I am sure he is not foolish enough to honour his father's memory with statements that cannot be shown to be true. Just another interesting semantic (twice in one post) from the Ian Hoskins piece is that he mentions the word speedway with reference to the sport as it was to become but he actually only refers to 'motor bike rcaing' at West Maitland in '23. Significant, I think. And like (I think) everone else on this forum can I just put on record that I believe that Johnnie Hoskins was a truly great man and who did as much, if not more, for Speedway as any other in it's history. But the search for a more fuller understanding of the true origins of the sport must be allowed to continue using proper resaerch that others are doing so diligently. Keep up the good work. Just thank god Mr Hoskins has not found wikipedia, or if he has at least he must understand how it works far better than some on this forum.

I wholeheartedly agree. Like lots of other retro products and nostalgic delights of the seventies and eighties I love to look back at those times. They were great. At the time. But time has moved on. There is no going back. The Grand Prix system (under BSI/IMG or their inevitable successors) is the present and future of world Class speedway. We need to make sure that is works. And works very well. And I don't want to be too over-dramatic but this present situation with riders turning down places seems a bit of a crisis for me. The system of the top eight from last year plus three Challenge qualifiers and four permanent wild cards seemed to be a good balance. But that is now being dismantled not by the FIM, not by BSI but by the Polish league. And it's not in the interests of speedway or the World Championship at all, is it? The indiviual wild card at each round may have helped some attendances and was useful for the appearence of Darcy and Thomas H. But beyond that, it was already a bit of a tired 'add-on'. Most of them are fairly ho-hopers. We surely cannot cope with yet more 'one-offs' who offer nothing to the quest to be World Champion at all. An extra one, two or even five (!) meeting by meeting wild cards would just look silly, wouldn't it? You've also got to wonder about some of the men in the middle ranking of the GP who take up their qualified place or wild card as offered and who are willing to forgoe the 'Polish Shilling' for World Championship hopes. How are they going to feel about the riders who have turned down guarenteed places to take the big money and then get the chance of coming back as 'guests' without all the attendant costs and trouble that the season-long guys have put up. A little division in the ranks will occur, surely?

Ah bless, someone has learnt how to use Copy & Paste. Well done, Jack. Historical investigations can be forgotton now.

That had been my understanding as well. Looking up the FIM regulations that govern the GP and qualifiers (seee the FIM website) it makes matters very clear for riders who qualify for the next round of the championships. If you qualify for the next round you HAVE to ride. Only bonafine injury will be an excuse against participation in the next round. If you 'pull out' without such good cause the FIM have all the powers that they need to prevent you from riding that weekend anywhere in the world and also have the option of greater suspension. This is written down and clear to all. What is not clear at all is what options a rider is left with if he has qualified for the GP FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR from the qualifiers. There seems to be nothing in the written regulations that says whether the same principles apply. We all know that wild cards are totally different. Anyone, it seems, can turn those down with impunity.

I notice from HenryW's previous post that Protasiewicz has not actually 'pulled out' of the 2012 GP as yet. Whilst I understand that it is perfectly possible for a rider to decline a wild card place when offered (a la Darcy) I wonder if it is so simple as to just 'pull out' when you have actually qualified. I always understood that the meeting regulations, signed by competing riders, for rounds of the world championship included a clause where the rider had to agree to take his place in the next round if he qualified (injuies permitting, obviously). It isn't usually possible just to 'pull out' of a place in the next round. Will Protasciewicz not have actually agreed to this sort of clause when competing at Vetlanda in the Challenge Final? If he has, surely the FIM won't just allow him to pull out and then also allow him to ride in league racing in this way, will they?

Like many others, I'm sure, I've been watching this thread without commenting. But could you just clarify for us watchers, Jack. Are you really just PRETENDING to be the thickest person ever regarding wikipedia or are you really this unworldly? If we are to understand anything else about your writings we really need to know becuase you just seem to be making a huge fool of yourself as it is.

The problem for the GP is that he might actually be the best rider in the world NEXT year and he's not in the World Championship. Surely BSI are concerned that any propective world champion would find a prefferable alternative to their series As someone else pointed out the Polish Gp rider policy for 2012 was known all this year. So I just don't understand why Darcy was going through the qualifying rounds if he was only only going to decline a place if he qualified, or had it offered gratis. And similarly, he took up GP wild card placings 'without a team' to do it and presumably not using that experiemnce to get that team in place for the following year. Has he just been a dirty big tease? I just wonder how keen Mr Bellamy will be to extend that meeting by meeting wildcard to Darcy once he has gone into this self imposed 2012 exile?

I'm not sure who should be given a wild card in his place ... but I have to say after all this talk we have had about GP qualification I don't feel to well disposed to any little mite who turns down a wild card. I just don't accept the explanations being given. Here is a rider who entered the qualificatiuon procedure to try and gain entry to the 2012 series ... but failed. He was quite happy to take every opportunity to have individual wild cards as they were presented ( with not a thought for others who may have relished the priviledge) ... but now finds he has overpowering reasons for not accepting a permanent wild card for 2012. What would have happened if he had actually qualified via the system in place. Would he have declined to take up his place if he had gained it through Vetlanda? Or is it only the wild card he feels so happy to decline? If I were BSI I would say 'Sod you, Darcy'.

I used the term BONKERS to describe YOUR view. And yours alone. It is hardly good form to present it as being used against others. Poor show.

I had one go at this discussion with you. I drop out straight away after this. If I went on I fear I would lose the will to live.

I really don't understand this. Back in June there were FIVE qualification meetings held at which EIGHTY riders who wanted to have access to participate in the World Championship and get to the 2012 GP all competed. They were whittled down by an open and fair on-track qualification procedure through three race-offs and then the Challenge Final in Vetlanda at which four riders of the original eighty gained qualification to the 2012 series. HOW MUCH FAIRER CAN A SYSTEM BE? The fact is that youngsters like Darcy and others tried and FAILED TO QUALIFY by exactly the same route as 'oldies' like Bjarne Pedersen actually did QUALIFY. Why has anyone got a problem with such a clear, simple qualification system that ANY aspiring rider in the world who has serious GP aspraritions could enter. Of course, they can only actually qualify if they are good enough. BSI's wildcards are just an added alternative that is their descrection but will people stop claiming that there isn't a fair qualification system in place for those who want to use it. There is.

I have to say that I don't think that SOME of your posts are as totally non-sensiscal as others seem to feel. BUT this one takes the biscuit for being the most deranged I have seen in a long time. It is your contention that the riders who stay in the series by finishing in the top eight of the GP "HAVE NOT HAD TO QUALIFY". That is bonkers. They have competed in 11 separate Grand Prix over 60 plus races in about eight countries over the course of a six month period against all the best riders in the world. And scored enough points over that time to be in the top eight so that they QUALIFY for the following year's series. How on earth do you make that 'NOT HAVING to QUALIFY', for good ness sake! No World Finalists of ANY past vintage have had to 'QUALIFY' by such rigorous means.

Trying to take the fractious childish element out of matters. Can we just establish where this thread has led us. Will Darcy Ward be World Champion in the future? ... A few people think he will, and a few people don't think that he will. No surprise there really as none of us are clairvoyant. Perhaps, a more productive topic of discussion might be on 'What would it take to improve Darcy's chance of becoming World Champion?'. Several people have pointed out the Grand Prix seemes to have increased the longevity of International Class Speedway riders. Some people seem to think this a bad thing; others do not. But why? Some people feel that the GP system has made it more difficult for new talent to jump to the top, whilst others have given arguments that the old one-off World Final was hardly much better. Is it just the same or is it for different reasons? I just wonder ... is a lot of this not down to the influence of the TEAM that surrounds riders in the GP today. Aren't Greg, Jason, Nicki and the like able to sustain the top class level of performance needed over the long series because of the team that does so much more of the work than in the past. It's my feeeling that the newcomers to the GP scene must be totally outclassed before they even reach the tapes with the GROSSLY different level of backroom that the best established men now have in place. The days of well-meaning Dads in the pits and mechanics that were schoolmates has no place in the GPs anymore, does it? Wouldn't the quickest and easiest way to get someone like Darcy to 'break through' be to get that TEAM in place as soon as possible ... and I don't mean a just a bunch of Aussies that he is friends with, or those that are totally good enough for Elite League ... I mean a really top professional team with years of GP experience who can do EVERYTHING else to a modern GP standard, at the track and away from it. Then Darcy could just do what he does best ... but with the right guidance.

Clearly, I didn't explain my self well enough. The point I was attempting to make was that in the 2000s only one World Champion actually entered the series as a newcomer during that same time frame. Every other champion had already first appeared prior; in fact as far back as 95, 96 and 97. Actually as your list of 1980s Champions shows perfectly how different that was in those days. ONLY Michael Lee and Egon Muller had appeared in a World Final before 1980. Every other Champion was a newcomer at some point in the eighties NOT before. Penhall, Gundersen, and Nielsen were all well outside the World Final envelope in the seventies but burst to greatness in the next decade. ONLY Nicki Pedersen has come in from outside the GP circus of the late nineties and achieved this. So perhaps Darcy will be that man for the 2010s.... we will have to wait and see But just going back to the eighties... Tommy Knudsen, Kenny Carter, Dennis Sigalos, Kelly Moran, Lance King, Simon Wigg, Shawn Moran and Jimmy Nilsen were all possible candidates for a similar thread on the BSF of the time (whatever that would be) and all without a Championship win to their name at the end ... So Darcy may turn out to be a Nicki, a Hans or and Erik ...or possibly a Tommy, a Dennis or a Lance ... as I say only time will tell.

Yes, what is the explanation of this? Can anyone advance a theory? The original question about Darcy becoming World champion made me do a little thinking back ... just who has come into the series and won? Much has been made about Greg Hancock winning his second championship some 14 years since his first but those years inbetween show a remarkable lack of 'new winners'. Only Mark Loram (2000), Nicki P (2003), Jason (2004) and, of course, Tomek (2010) have moved from the mortal ranks to be World Champion for the first time during those 14 years. And THREE of those four actually had already been in the series prior to 1997 anyway; they were hardly newbies. Actually, out of all the winners of the World Championship since 1997 only ONE single rider has entered the series and then won it IN ALL THOSE 14 YEARS. Nicki Pedersen entered the series for the first time in 2000 (ELEVEN years ago) and won it for the first time in 2003 (EIGHT years ago). If I were Darcy, or actually anyone entering the GP circus anytime soon, I wouldn't be too optimistic about breaking through ... would you?

Thank you, I was beginning to doubt my own sanity for a moment!

I am glad that in this much fuller description of Heat 15 you readily acknowledge that Carter was actually in SECOND place to Jessup when he was first 'visibly losing power' and it was at this point that Gundersen went passed. You're original post had stated that he was third. It is certainly true that Gundersen went like an express train once Carter was out of the race but it is pure conjecture as to whether he would have passed Carter had his bike not been failing. It has to also be remembered that Jessup himself also suffred an engine failure before the end of the race thereby giving both Gundersen and Olsen an extra point that significantly changed the pattern of the overall scorers at the end of the meeting. The well-known Penhall 14, Olsen 12, Knudsen 12 would be looking an awful lot different were it not for the randomness of engine troubles on that night. I have to say that if Kenny Carter had a 'Second to Penhall in 1981 at Wembley' tag rather than the no-where placing that fifth is; then quite a lot of retrospective pro-Carter arguments would carry a ton more weight. And, totally irrelevent to this debate, but Ivan Mauger was certainly renowned for 'strong engines' and not leaving things to chance but as his catastrophic break down when leading in 1976 showed ... even he, the greatest rider ever (my view) was actually fallible in this regard. But not actually mysterious, really, is it?

This is a rather strange representation of the events of Heat 15 at Wembley. Dave Jessup gated first (no surprise there) ahead of Carter and the other two. Carter got into a firm second - ahead of Gundersen and Olsen - as they were going down the back straight. But by the time they go around bends 3 and 4 Carter's bike is popping and banging so loud as to be audible above the Wembley crowd. He is clearly losing power and ground so first Gundersen goes past as they cross the start line at the end of lap one and then Olsen as they go down the back straight. I don't think any of this matters in terms of the debate raised by the original poster; but you're characterisation of that partcular race and the bizarre inference of his engine 'myseriously' dying certainly cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Please don't be! The video is around on You Tube so I encourage everyone to look at it and judge for themselves.