GS550

Under that logic Ivan Mauger may well have been robbed of many of his titles whereby he beat and dominated every other rider, for the sake of a one off last race spectacle. You might as well toss a coin. Ludicrous.

Credit where credit's due, pretty much spot on as you say. You should have put a lottery ticket on when you were at it. And a lot better than my 'absolute mince' posts on this thread.

And you never joined in once did you. Its a speedway forum mate. You know wot they say about if you're finding it too hot in the kitchen.

No mate, you must be mistaking me for somebody else. I've not even been a member of this forum for 30 years. I guess I'm about 10 rounds up at the minute.... lets have a deciding heat/post and give away my runaway lead. Nah, that would be criminal.

What on earth are you on about??!! Tell you what. Lets not bother with any races. Just have a one off race at the end eh. Utter nonsense. If you want to select the best rider and the most worthy 'champion' then the rider that dominates the others over 5 heats each is the way to do it. If instead they want to be 'Mickey Mouse' about it for the sake of having a spectacle last heat then arbitrarily decide the winner by awarding it to one of the also rans. Ludicrous. Over to you....

And the format is wrong. So as you ducked the point the last time I say again.... If Ivan Mauger had reeled off 5 straight wins, dominated every other rider and way ahead of the pack in the points tally, it is ludicrous to then have a one-off race between him and the "also rans" to somehow decide it. You might as well toss a coin. Ludicrous. The reason why you duck the issue is you can't defend the indefensible. I know it, you know it.

.....not when you've had a whole day/night of heats already and such as "Mauger" (or other similarly "streets-ahead-of-the-competition" out and out champion) has comprehensively beaten every other rider and is way ahead in the points tally..... then, no, to scrap all that has gone before and have just one race to somehow decide it is ludicrous. Its already been decided - by the previous full programme of round robin (no pun intended) heats. Over to you....

Who said? Not me that's fer sure. What's "tragic"?? Where?? Seems you're the "uppity and upset" one? I'm just looking at a speedway forum mate, a spade's a spade an all that. If Ivan Mauger had reeled off 5 straight wins, dominated every other rider and way ahead of the pack in the points tally, it is ludicrous to then have a one-off race between him and the "also rans" to somehow decide it. You might as well toss a coin. Ludicrous. Here. Have a win gum and take it easy.

Well in that case no point in having a speedway forum at all is there - if every time you compare it to "issues in the world". I only raised within the context of speedway, on a speedway forum so get a grip.

That's not the point. The point is that the "rules" enable a rider that is sub-standard to be crowned the winner. It is not about selecting the best - but it should be. That's the point. It is ridiculous the rules enable that the leading rider that has comprehensively beaten every other rider can then be usurped by a rider way behind him in 6th position that has struggled by comparison and clearly not of the same calibre to then be awarded the title for the sake of having a spectacle one off last race. It is unprofessional and amateurish, it is 'Mickey Mouse' which fits with the rest of what the BSPA are doing these days.

That doesn't make it right. If it is wrong it is wrong - full stop. I agree with Midland Red and Third Man on this. Ludicrous whereby a runaway leader is robbed of the trophy by a stroke of luck in a one-off heat and the trophy awarded to somebody that was way back in the field in the progressive heat scores - hardly worthy of being crowned 'champion'. Why not carry forward the points won in the progressive heats so that they still contribute to the final result, e.g. the top four face each other in a "final" deciding heat whereby the final heat's points of 3 for the win, 2, 1, 0 are just added to the progressive score. If its already effectively been decided before the final heat by a runaway leader (sounds to me like a runaway leader should be rewarded accordingly and awarded the meeting as winner) but if you really want to influence the match by having a weighted points score for the final of say 5,4,3,0 added to the progressive heats scores then at least the progressive heats scores would not be lost.

Keep that up and you'll be sat on the naughty step Your team did well so, so we'll let you off.

Sounds like meself. I post and within seconds i realise i misread something. Except whereas its a one off for you, that's pretty much all my posts.

And what about your colours. Still waiting for your response to post #66

Well done on the win. Agree with your thoughts about fixtures and low crowds. Best of luck to the Comets for next season.

Indeed

Not to be confused with a 'coloured persons wotsit supper'

Unknowns? Of course that guy Donald Rumsfeld took them to a whole new level, something about:- "There are known knowns. The things we know that we know. There are also known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know." Just when I thought the headache had passed.

I sympathise. If you have two knowns and one unknown it can be found, e.g. "A" minus "B" equals unkown "C". Or if "A" is unknown then add "B plus C". Trouble is if there are too many unknowns then you can't do anything, even wiv a spreadsheet. Tbh your explanation was easier. Think I gave meself a headache doing the algebra stuff.

Incredible. For some considerable time you have been espousing (on other threads) that to be of any real worth riders should have an away average of more than 8 and you have been castigating both Lawson and Summers because their away averages are not in excess of 8 points. And not only Lawson and Summers but also Glasgow on other threads as you have castigated Glasgow for having only one rider with an away average in excess of 8. And each time you've received responses pointing out the futility of that stance given the relatively few riders in the whole league with an away average of more than 8. Now you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" your own ethos. You've listed a team that has only one rider with an away average of more than 8, the rest well short of that away average - you are asked to explain and your response is somehow oblivious to your own ethos asking the above quoted question. Amazing. Is your response just a wind up?

Sorry mate, think I'm the culprit on that one. Just wondered what you meant or maybe meant sommat else. Think said forum police are on the look out for me so you should be alright.

So how many of your handpicked 1 - 7 have away averages of more than 8 ?? Is it just the one ?? Surely this goes against your ethos that you've been espousing and castigating Glasgow for. I've asked again seeing as you ducked the question when I asked before on this thread. I guess we could be waiting a while.

....looks like you just volunteered.

Eh?? Are we allowed to say that kind o' thing these days? Take it you meant sommat else.

I also tried to work out what you're saying. You say "Jack Smith has never lived up to expectations" - well if he was say in his mid or late 30's that might make sense but he's only a teenager in his first season so "has never" doesn't seem to be an appropriate categorisation. You then say "which is a shame because he has been one of the better 2 pointers in the league" - so all things being relative he's done well according to your own statement.