Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

oldace

Members
  • Posts

    1,999
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by oldace

  1. We have been trying to tell you this for years Ian. No one thinks the current system is 100% perfect but you have constantly gone on about the old way being fair when in truth the old way was about as unfair as it could be. Seeding to the final or later stages of qualifying was rife from the 50s through to the 80s and not always because of being world class but to draw a crowd. Possibly the worst one was Henny Kroeze in Amsterdam but the Poles regularly had substandard riders in their world finals
  2. Do you want to research that statement a little bit? Or to save you the trouble, no he didnt, along with the other 4 Poles in the final they were seeded to draw a crowd Not quite game set and match then!!!!!
  3. You see no contradiction? You have long argued that it was good for an underdog to win and you have in the past used 1973 as an example of unpredicability and the underdog coming out on top. Now I might be being silly but please explain the difference between Szackiels presence in the 1973 world final (what the sport is all about according to you) and Woffindens presence in the 2013 SGP.
  4. But even worse is that in 1973 we had a winner who didn't even qualify but that was great Now one of Ians criticisms is the lack of qualifying into the GPs, although he has gone quiet on that one since it was shown to be nonsense
  5. Indeed they did Rob, but racing in Poland was even up to the late 80s, a great leveller vetween the East and West. In 1970 in Wroclaw 2 poles on Rostrum, same in 1973 in Katowice, no rostrum 1976 (Plech was 5th) and 1 rostrum place in 1979. The 4 finals in Poland in the seventies had 5 of the 12 rostrum places occupied by Poles Out of the other 6 finals of that decade how many of the 18 rostrum places did the Poles occupy? I will give you a clue, it is less than 1
  6. Where did those races take place though, I would hazard a guess Szcackiel's wins were all behind the iron curtain?
  7. Twice in the 60s the Poles finished ahead of GB when the final wasn't in Poland and not once in the seventies No matter what spin you try to put on it the Poles, outside of their own country (with a few exceptions, Plech. Jancarz etc) were really not that great until the fall of communism and free movement, equally competing in Poland always lowered the standard of thw westerners so on home soil they could, and invariably did, beat the best
  8. But apparently that is what sport is all about, having a world champion who is not very good, rather than one who is proven to be the best over an entire season.
  9. Within a few posts you have completely changed your view. Earlier you were adament that a substandard rider shouldn't be there on the strength of Nationality as it is unfair on genuine world class riders Now you think that is what sport should be about Make your mind up man
  10. You must remember that back in the seventies the East European tracks were alien to anything the western riders were used to and it made the Poles seem miles better than they really were. Rather like Exeter used to be over here, very mediocre riders could appear world beaters round the county ground but not anywhere else, if there had been a world final at Exeter in the mid 80s and seeded 5 home riders it is not inconceivable that one would have won, it wouldnt make them world class though
  11. With respect Rob you are young and going off things you have read and seen in books and such. As someone around at the time trust me Szcackiel was very lucky to win. As well as being gifted 5 places, as hosts everything possible was done to favour the Poles, albeit Plech was really the chosen one bur blew it. He was simply a journeyman who had his best match ever combined with the dice being loaded in his favour and the sport ended up with a laughing stock world champion, although in Ians mind this is how he would like it to be once again
  12. You have to love him dont you. We now have possibly 15 of the best 16 riders in the world competing for the world championship and it is a farce because of 1 rider who isn't there on merit Then he cites 1973 as how it should be with 5 riders not there on merit and one of those who was nowhere near world class getting a lucky win.
  13. All pretty much standard issue on the speedway terraces to this day.
  14. Now you are starting to argue with yourself Ian In the past you have extolled the virtues of the old system where the underdog can be world champion, you have cited 1973 as a typical example od this. In 1973 we had a very poor rider who hadn't qualified to be there winning the event and yet you think this was great but you think it not right that Woffy is there. And in that year 5 riders were gifted places on the strength of nationality. The swedes were given 5 the year after although they held a final to decide the five, the Brits were given 4 in 1978. For what it is worth plenty of people agree with you on the Woffinden thing but you lose credibility when you keep suggesting a tried, and patently worse, system be implemented
  15. I can understand that people like, or otherwise, certain aspects of the sport (tac rides, play offs etc) but I really cant comprehend how anyone can advocate a sytem whereby the sports world champion can be nowhere near the best in the world at his chosen profession. The excitement of an underdog winning something is OK for a clubs once a season individual event (although no one has them anymore) but not as a way of determining a world champion
  16. You dont have to imagine that scenario, similar happened most years pre 1995. Of course those wanting a return are usually the ones who took a friend to a league match who loved it until the tac ride was used then the fantasy friend immediately didn't want to go again. You can usually substitute tac ride for guest rider, R/R etc or whatever the argument is at the time. Now I remember having a conversation with a fantasy friend on Sept 6th 1976. Fantasy Friend "That Pete Collins must be quite good, world champion eh, did he beat Olsen easily" Me "Well no he didnt beat him at all actually" FF "Huh" Me "Well each rider has 5 rides and the one with the most points wins" FF "OK that seems reasonable so other riders beat Olsen then" Me "Eh well no actually because despite being one of the best riders in the world Olsen wasn't there thanks to 2 exclusions in an earlier round" FF "So in a season of 1000s of races you are telling me that an exclusion and an engine failure in just two of them means he cant be world champion, well no way am I going to watch that sport"
  17. I remember when my kids used to make statements like that. It was cute in a 4 year old. "I wont talk to you unless you apologise" Dear god!!!!
  18. Jesus Christ man, wind your neck in. You have gone on over the years about the lack of a qualifying process. A patently untrue stance that until recently you and your cohort trotted out over and over.
  19. Ian you have constantly used untruths in your quest to discredit the SGP. Fine if you dont like GP racing and prefer one off finals, there are plenty feel the same but you have gone to ridiculous lengths to get your point across.
  20. 5 different winners in 5 years doesnt back that cobblers up does it. When did that happen in the "variety" fuelled 60s or 70s or 80s
  21. Indeed he is, and I have no problems with him not liking the GP but when he starts making patently untrue statements then it is frustrating. Yes World Finals were magnificent events, I went to many and always enjoyed them but the system of qualifying was so badly flawed in that many top riders were prevented from qualifying and many no hopers were seeded in order to ensure a crowd. A qualifying process that was fair and open to all was always totally impractical, it would have needed many qualifiers and repercharges and more qualifiers than would be humanly possible. There is nothing wrong with opinion but to keep merely saying the same thing when it is completely untrue starts to make him (and Derek, and the other silly bint) look a little foolish
  22. For goodness sake, that is what the current system is all about. You have been banging the drum for a return to world champions like Szackiel and Muller
  23. So you want a system that denies the best riders in the word a chance to qualfy, like the one we used to have. A system where a country like England had PC, Chris Morton, Malcolm Simmons, John Louis, Gordon Kennet, Dave Jessup, Doug Wyer etc. All capable of making the World final in 1978 but for a qualyiying system that allowed no more than 4 of them through. Or a country like the USA in the late 70s who had Penhall, Sigalos, Schwartz, the Morans, Autrey all world class but no more than 2 could go through. There has never ever been totally open qualifying whereby the worlds best 16 could make the final. Ok so we now have 4 seeds who are usually among the best in the world but that is preferable to having 5 seeds who were never anywhere near the best in the world merely because the continentals were gifted 5 places in the world final. I too attended many finals and enjoyed them immensely but it beggars belief that now that we have a genuine world championship contested by arguably the best 16 riders in the world, that anyone would hanker for a return to a system so flawed as in the old days.
  24. Of course, but when you look back you are judging all those riders on their form at the peak of their careers, not at that particular time Ermolenko wasn't a contender by 96, Loram, although good, still hadn't made that breakthrough to world class. Gollob was only at the beginning of his career in 95, he was nowhere near the world class rider he was to become.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy