oldace

There seems to be confusion over two issues here. To the best of my knowledge it has always been up to an individual nation how to use up their allocated spaces in that years world championship. Some (most) used a series of qualifiers, although it wasn't unknown for a country to then over rule that process and pick who they wanted in the latter stages anyway. Others merely picked a representative. Often a qualifier, or a chosen representative didn't want to travel anyway so someone else was picked. Whether there are or aren't qualifiers is not down to the SPG organisers or the FIM. In a theoretical world of a return to a one off final exactly the same would apply whereby it would be up to the BSPA/ACU how they used up their allocation in a theoretical overseas final. Your gripe seems to be with the BSPA/ACU rather than the SGP

Is your keyboard up the swanny or did you intend that look. It's a little difficult to wade through, ditch the exagerrated bolding up Sidney

Kennet! OK he was a small track expert but to say he never mastered the big ones isn't right. He was pretty darn good round White City in his 3 years there!!!!. Dave Jessup always rode bigger tracks round the white line and at Hyde Road, Sheffield etc it was easy for the likes of PC, Mort, Dougie Wyer to pick him off. Falcace is spot on though. As long as he has a quick enough bike a rider who learns his trade on a small track will get round a big one ok. Not quite so in reverse, someone learning their trade at say Sheffield may struggle to adapt to a smaller track. There are always exceptions though.

I had forgotten how poor a world final line up that was, looks even worse with the removal of Moran's name as well doesn't it. I think most people recognise Shawn Moran as second that year anyway, it's only the record books that dont show it. The perils of night nurse eh.

No. Moran was stripped of second but the other positions were no altered, Wiltshire was still third

I dont have a case to answer, I am not on trial, I have an opinion, an opinion borne out of over 45 years of speedway involvement. It is my opinion that the World Speedway Champion, or any sports World Champion for that matter, should be the one who has proved he is the best over an entire season having competed against, and scored more points than any of his rivals. Yes Rembas lost a run off for third but even had he won that run off would you consider him the third best rider in the world that year. Like I said Rembas and the others I mentioned were in reality no hopers, most of them only having got there by virtue of a much easier qualifying route due to there nationality

Sorry didn't see this one!!! Ryan Fisher of the USA has been in GP qualifiers for at least the last two years. James Wright, Ben Barker, Eddie Kennet, Chris Harris, Danny King, Simon Stead all were in last years qualifiers. The qualifying process started with 80 riders from all over the world, over 5 rounds again staged all over the world. Actually I dont think there was a nation that races speedway who didn't have a competitor, Argentina, Hungary, Slovenia, Germany, The Ukraine, Italy, The USA were all represented These are not high profile events hence you probably didn'y know they existed but the riders are getting the chance, just that there are no Brits good enough to take it!!!

I dont think I or anyone suggested it is easy to qualify, in reality those pursing the qualifying competition route are chasing 3 places, that said they are in the main chasing them without the current best 16 in the world in their path. I don't fundamentally disagree with you that the SGP currently is in no way perfect, the qualification process could be improved. Where I do disagree with you is your assertion that the old system was fairer to all when it clearly wasn't. What is certain though is however the riders ended up there the SGP guarantees a worthy world champion, a rider who proved he was the best all season long, not a rider who had a one off brilliant night. The truth is probably no system will please everyone but basing Cardiff attendance against current league track averages, lets say 1500 is the league average, then currently Cardiff if attracting 25 times the average track attendence. In 1981 average attendence would be 4000? meaning Wembleys 72,000 was 18 times the national average. I suspect I have erred on the high side of current attendance and the low side of the past which seems to indicate people in general are more in favour of the SGP, it has the attention of the less partisan supporter.

Yes indeed he did, with 11 points, of course a minimum of 6 or 7 points were available that night just by beating the other no hopers, add in the 2 ? points he gained on the strength of others engine failures and it was not really a remarkable performance and doesn't change the fact that he was no where near as good as a host of riders already eliminated

Autrey had problems with the AMA in the late seventies, largely over how they ran their events to decide their 1 or 2 qualifiers from the American Final. Just 2 in an era that had Penhall, Autrey, Kelly Moran, Mike Bast, Bobby Schwartz etc. Prior to this though Americans had no means of qualifying for the world final unless they raced here. The World Championship up to the seventies was very much a closed shop, entry only allowed if you raced here, the BSPA took that even into the eighties denying PC entry in 1981 when he was the top BL performer the year before. Fortunately the modern GP system allows a rider the opportunity to try and qualify wherever he is from and wherever he plies his trade

What year was it that Bast would have got his first chance, 1975? not sure but as you say he was already operating at his peak by then. In truth though I dont think he was in the mind set of Penhall for instance in being prepared to give up the big bucks and nice lifestyle chasing a dream of being World Champion. The sport was very slow to latch onto the fact that a World Championship shouldnt be confined to British or British based riders. It took until well into the seventies before this happened

It was a little dig at others who use the same phrase against the GP. Not to be take seriously!!!!!!!

No Sidney, unfortunately not. Darts is nowadays a very very well marketed sport, it provides a real good evening of entertainment either live or in front of the TV sceen. It has re invented itself from its seventies guise, as have most forward thinking progressive sports. Speedway is still rooted in the fifties with its presentation, or lack of. It needs a radical overhaul but the sport doesn't posess the people with the necessary talent to do it and so plods on from 1 disastrous season to the next before it finally can carry on no more.

The prize money in the PDC event was £1,000,000.00. £200,000.00 was the winners purse. I take it Trees is joking with 2 events a year right. Probably nearer 2 dozen with Premier League

You are at the cutting edge of debate aren't you!!!!!!!!!!

Thats a valid argument and I would not disagree with it, currently you could score 22 points and be second to someone on 15. I know its never happened to that extent but it could and it is a flaw if viewed like that but you must take the two things as separate entities. The individual GP winner is the guy who wins the final, irrespective of points, that is the reward for qualifying for and winning that race. The accumulation of points throughout the season is a separate challenge to decide the World Champion. The number of GP wins isnt the determing factor in that. Its only the same as race wins not being the determining factor in a conventional 20 heat format. Someone could have 4 wins and lose to someone with only 3.

And what if that fall or engine failure comes in one of his five heats, he doesn't win under your format anymore than the e/f coming in the final means he doesnt win now. Its just swings and roundabouts. What it would mean if that were a one off event is that his world title hopes are up the swanny. A GP system allows time to recover. You say here you want to see the best man win the world title and yet yesterday you were bemoaning the fact that someone of Szackiels ilk couldn't now be champion under a GP system. He was clearly not the best in the world in 73. So what is it you actually think? is it that the best man should be world champion as you post here or that a no hoper like Szackiel being world champion in 1973 over the likes of Olsen, Michanek, Mauger etc is good for the sports credibility I certainly dont think the GP system is perfect, it clearly isn't, and I dont like riders being seeded for commercial reasons but that said which riders who have been seeded were not genuinely amongst the best 16 in the world ? Woffinden maybe, but even Harris for all the outcry is probably among the worlds top 16, just!!!

I tend to think you have latched onto Parsloes and run with his ideals without giving much thought to what you post. You ask what is difficult about finishing in the top eight against the sixteen best riders in the world. Well turn it around and ask what was difficult about finishing in the top 8 - 11 of much easier qualifying rounds, which is what the latter stages of qualification to an old world final required. It's not really a matter of opinion, more a proven fact, that the old system was massively unfair denying riders the chance to even enter, wheras now anyone that wants to can enter Michael Lee, Dave Jessup, Malcolm Simmons, Gordon Kennett, Steve Bastable, Chris Morton, Tony Davey, John Davis, Les Collins, Peter Collins, Reg Wilson, Doug Wyer, Alan Grahame, Jim McMillan, John Louis, Dave Morton Take that bunch of riders and remember their 1978 form. At least 8 of those were good enough to reach the world final that year but the nature of "fairer to all" qualifying meant no matter how good only 4 could progress. Ok but then look at some of the riders who graced Wembley that year at their expense Jerzy Rembas, John Titman, Ilka Teromaa, Jan Verner, Marek Cieslak, Jiri Stancl, Petr Ondrasik

I agree about Hans. Although in the main the actual world champions and the theoretical world champions under a GP would be roughly the same, not in the same years but roughly the same title, the exception to that for me would be the period 83 to 92, Nielsen could easily have took 10 straight titles in those years, he was that good

Quite right Sidney, Ivan was a great rider and you may or may not be right about him winning more under a GP system. The point is it would be because a GP system rewards greatness, not because of the fact he was in it every year, he was in the world final every year from 1966 to 1979, 14 years in a row.

Sidney you are completely missing the point, there are 11 spots available to qualify for. 8 of these are qualified for via a season long series of events, a rider must finish in the top eight against the best 16 in the world. This is the hardest most difficult means of qualifying ever devised in the championship history. 3 more places are available to via a different season long series of events, these are undoubtedly easier than the first method as the standard of riders is somewhat less, this method is available to anyone if they wish to pusue it. Finally the last 4 places are allocated on a seeding basis taking a number of factors into account, this is exactly like the old system where a country would be allocated anything up to 6 places when they hosted a world final. Some countries merely hand picked these riders others held an in house qualification. Often this created finalists no where near good enough to be there, in other cases, like 1978, it limited the brits to a maximum of 4 places when in reality they had double that amount deserving of the chance to be there. The current system is in no way perfect but rest assured it is 100 times fairer than what wen before. Like I have said I loved the old Worl Finals but in no way could they be termed a proper world championship like exists today.

I think people like to see the best rider be crowned World Champion, not some guy who just got lucky on the night, and incidentally in your ideal world of qualification for all Szackiel wouldn't have evne been there being one of the nearly 20 Poles seeded to the 4 finals they hosted in the 70s. As much as the old system was badly flawed a deserving rider did win most years, the exceptions being 1973 and 1983

So those three won 15 between 1956 and 1979 (24 years) The other winners in those intervening years were Moore in 59 Craven in 62 Knutson in 65 Olsen in 71/75 and 78 Szackiel in 73 Michanek 74 and PC in 1976. Now which of those were the unworthy ones who would have made way for these extra wins your big three would have got. Actually I think Ivan would have won less under a GP system, he certainly wouldnt have won his last two in 77 or 79. Maybe 73 but Michanek was flying that year. Collins could easily have taken three in a row 76 to 78 but equally Olsen was most deserving winner at Wembley in 1978. Had a proper world championship existed then then its a fair bet the riders who won them would have got probably roughly the same amount of titles, maybe in different years, except Ivan who would probably have ended up with 5 at best and Szackiel who would not have got any

Of course Ward is one of the best riders in the world (top 16 I would say not top 8) Thats why he was offered a wildcard place having failed in the quaifiers, an option that would not be open had it been the old World Final system, in that once you are out you are out. You post completely contrary opinions on the same thread on a daily basis. You argue that young riders like Ward are denied a chance in the current system, when its shown they are not you decry the system that allows it

So consistently being in the top eight of the best 16 riders in the world is easier than consistently being in the top 8 - 11 of a field ranging from p1ss poor to reasonable to make a world final. Strange logic you use