Parsloes 1928 nearly

Perfectly calm thanx! But appreciate the concern!!

Think what you like but have a look and you'll see NO-ONE has done so. More to the point orion hasn't; and tbf it's only him who thinks this any way! I've no knowledge of the Jan O. Pedersen final but what seems to be being said of that was he had some kind of extra advantage at the start in all his rides... that's got nowt to do with gate positions then has it!!

There's been a deafening silence from you on the subject of any occasion when gate positions made the massive difference you claim.. A good reason for that as there are NO examples. You are talking out of your proverbial I'm afraid... Er, I think our ageist friend Master Orion meant it was you who's the OAP, sidney!! I may be an OAP - but i'm bloody NOT!!!!! But as you say, I was lucky enough to go to a number classic WFs and no, I can truthfully say that NO-ONE there or commenting on them then or since has EVER suggested that gate positions were in any way significant in deciding the outcome. When the likes of Collins and Olsen so often passed riders from behind, tell me orion how did that make anyone's starting position or indeed start itself in any way significant!? My young (!) friend sidney sums it up, your argument is literally laughable!!

Indeed. I too found waihekeaces1's contribution interesting and thought-provoking and I thank him/her for it. Interesting though that our friend Orion's gone very quiet on the subject!!!

Well indeed. I'd kinda like to know how Orion ever thinks any rider gets a 15 points maximum in a 20 heat indiv. if - as he claims - gate positions matter so much!? The thing about the WF was even in shocking conditions where the word 'lottery' would one thinks possibly be applied, quality came to the fore. There's no question whatsoever that the best rider in the world in 1977 was PC: his imperious performance in the Inter-Continental Final at White City (when he kept passing from behind - er, can't think therefore that gate positions mattered much to our Peter!); but of course a terrible injury befell him on the eve of travelling to Sweden for the Final. PC's closest rival was Olsen. In Gothenberg the rains came with a ferocity I've never seen before with a meeting carrying on. Surely in such conditions anyone could win the Final - especially as home favourite Michanek like PC, was so badly injured he tooo had to lifted on and off his bike. But actually it was the only WF when the top three was the top three riders of the era: Mauger, PC and Olsen.. Not the order we wanted but probably the best example ever of how there was a special breed of top rider capable despite a range of external circumstances of excelling on the night. The three of them would be creasing up with laughter at suggestions that gate positions had anything to do with that! And before you say, yes I know I said PC was the best rider in the world in '77 but lost and trust me it was a near-tragedy that he lost out on that title, but the blood and guts and sheer excirtement of the indiv. WF was a price worth paying as this was the ultimate test... Is the closed-shop, cosiness of the SGP the ultimate test..? Not in anything like the same sense, no...

Yep - you're still deep in that hole!!!!

At the level we're talking about with the riders of the ability we're talking about, no I absolutely do NOT think that the gate positions mattered. Nor was it EVER a matter of debate at the time! Oh and btw, as apparently the gate positions are the same in the 20 heats section of the SGPs why are they not also hugely flawed under your 'reasoning' by that..?! But there's only one person dodging the question: tell us, you've made the utterly ridiculous comment (several times now...) that the old WF was a rubbish event and a lottery because it all depended on what gate riders got.. I know this is not something you can prove as it's errant nonsense, but you made the 'point' so go on, illustrate it with some examples!

Er, well I'm saying that there was no evidence that - for example - when Anders Michanek swept to an immaculate 15 points maximum in '74 and then Olsen did likewise the next year at Wembley and then PC's superb racing in the '76 Final, that there was ANY way in which 'gate positions' (yawn!) had any bearing on it whatsoever... So come on, rise to the challenge presented, tell us ANY WF where someone won because they, er, had better gate positions than anyone or is it everyone else (I actually can't fathom out your 'argument' at all to be truthful..!)?

Check out some footage of Peter Collins, Ole Olsen and at his peak Ivan Mauger (as examples) on YouTube and you tell us if having different gates made any difference to their ability to win races in World Finals..!! The expression used for all that messing around at the gate is gardening; and truly in this case you've dug yourself one heck of a big hole..!

Yes I'm fully aware of those facts but it doesn't take away from the FACT that there were that many (I'd argue few...) champions in that 40 year period. And that clearly shows that the WF format was NOT a lottery/fixed/rubbish or all the other things some on here are claiming!! It doesn't say much for those who seek to defend the current closed shop GP series we now are saddled with, that they have to make wild accusations which are either inaccurate or down-right lies about the old system! If the SGP is such a good system then let that stand or fall on its own merits rather than make attacks which are just plain daft about the previous system... Or are you going to find all those articles written in the Speedway press over the decades we had the previous system, saying that the WF was unfair because, er, someone got a different gate position or someone else or - what was the other thing? - oh yes, brown paper envelopes were exchanged before every race!! You won't find those articles btw, coz no-one thought this because actually such arguments are utter fiction!

I can come on here and say black is white but it doesn't make it so... You can say the old WF was a lottery but the FACTS totally and utterly refute this...! IF it was a lottery explain how 40 years of finals in the period 1950 to 1989 produced just 18 winners... a lottery would mean more like 35 plus different winners in that time, surely...?! You need to be congratulated for something, though - your postings today saying the old WF was crap and a lottery do have the disntinction of being the most utterly pathetic garbage spoken (and let's face it there's been some competition!!) in the whole history of the BSF!!

Where do you get this nonsensical point of view from? You clearly know NOTHING about the history of the old World Final if you think it was a "lottery" and heaven only knows what you're rambling on about when you go on about the "draw"..!!

Well yes, but out of the averages-toppers only three (Autrey, Simmons & Louis) never won the WF and all three of them made the rostrum... Sticking with averages what's been the position then with the average-toppers since the inception of the SGP in '96 then? Please keep up.There is literally no way the old WF was a lottery. We've already gone over this...!!! For god's sake look at the evidence before you make a comment as patently daft as this!!

Not sure where you think I differ from what you've posted!? By 'World Final-style" meetings I was referring to the likes of the Wills Internationale (actually an FIM meeting created to be staged in London because the capital had lost the WF in '61..) and the Spring Classic - which the likes of Simmo and Crump won. And I agree with you, though high quality fields, these meetings were NOT the WF. You appear to be contradicting yourself as you're admitting (as I also argue) that such meetings did not have the same sort of pressure attached to them that the WF had. Which was indeed my point in the first place! And the weakness of 'big' indiv. sometimes called 'open' meetings now..? Well, yes that's sad biut true - but frankly has nowt to do either way with the SGP system...

Hmm, well certainly not the case in the decade we suddenly appear to be debating... By any indicator anyone chooses to take, Mauger, Collins, Olsen and Michanek were great, great stars. Lee was also a great champion though perhaps future events meant history doesn't judge him as high. As it happens, even though 'Tiger'' Louis was one of my all-time heroes I actually don't think that in the '70s there were any riders who 100% deserved a world title who didn't win one.. Yes Simmo, Crump senior and the likes of Jessup and Sanders went close and certainly in the case of the first two (plus Louis) proved they could win World Final-style meetings, they were just that bit behind the big four of that decade who between them, of course, won every WF save the infamous 1973 one... Incidentally would be interesting to see the top of the averages in the years '70 to '79..: I wonder how many outside that big four achieved that distinction.. Does anyone have those details?

Hmm, well the Pole in third in'73 had a name you know! It was Zenon Plech and he later finished second in another WF! One of the best riders ever NOT to have been World Champ. Yes I did stop at '72 but I could've continued on and the stats would've been little different. I wasn't btw trying to show that the WF produced more consistent winners than the GPs, what I was showing that those who appear to think that the one-off WF system was a total lottery, all down to luck on the night, subject to brown envelopes of cash deciding winners etc. is just NOT the case. And this was because it took a certain quality of being able to cope with the huge tension and excitement of the WF to claim the ultimate prize. Many great riders from that era couldn't cope with that... The GP system replicates very little of that and to win under the current system requires excellence yes, but of a slightly different type...

Exactly! The incredible tension of a World Final took a special sort of competitor to come to the fore... And let's look at the FACTS... If the World Final was such a lottery how come between 1954 and 1972 (that's 19 years...) only SEVEN men triumphed on WF night. And listen to their names...: a litany of all-time greats: Moore, Fundin, Craven, Briggs, Knutsson, Mauger and Olsen... And in those 19 years those same 7 achieved between them a further 22 rostrum positions.. In other words the old WF DID prove who the best riders in the world were and being best in the world meant pitching yourself into the ultimate challenge of the one-off World Final.

A feeble point.. If you really can't manage a more robust criticism of the World Final system than this (which over a thirty year period from 1964 to 1994 doesn't even stack up..) then I seriously suggest you are bordering on the bankrupt..!

They are exactly like qualifiers, steps along the way to the ultimate title - they are certainly NOT in any way comparable with World Finals..!

Hmm, but it's NOT 12 World Finals is it..? It's far more comparable to being around 9 or 10 'Inter Continental' or, er, 'Overseas' Finals - in other words meetings with great quality in terms of the riders in them, but only 'qualifying' rounds building to a bigger picture. Only if a meeting is going to be decisive in seeing riders head to head for the destiny of the actual world championship that night can a SGP be considered analgous to the old World Final.. All really rather ironic, as when it comes to League racing of course, our paymasters Sky have insisted we ditch the season-long format (tried and trusted for decades) with a sudden death play-off. Effectively League racing and the World Individual Championship have both changed fundamentally but in diametrically opposite directions!!

It is disappointing to see this thread now take a direction where the old World Final system is being depicted as if completely tainted by corruption... There's no more evidence to say this is the case, than there is with the current system is there..? Why, when I dared to suggest that in one famous SGP race perhaps one rider MIGHT possibly not have tried just as hard as he might to keep a particular rider from passing him (with NO implication whatsoever of corruption..) I was pilloried for doing so; but now (ironic considering recent BSF events..) it seems fine to suggest that the whole previous system was crooked. To base such an argument on some isolated and possibly mythological incidents, is like saying that relegation battles in football are fiddled because of the allegations made about Don Revie's Leeds back in the '60s; that match fixing happens throughout that game based on the imprisonment of Sheffield Wednesday's Tony Kay, Peter Swan and ‘Bronco’ Layne for doing so also in that decade; or that the dodgy dealings of far east bookmakers spread betting in Champions League Finals makes every result in that competition suspect... Of course one can do that, but it's a sorry state of affairs if it comes to that; and I think love or hate the old WF system, people do our sport no justice at all or the great stars from that era to make such glib comments that corruption was endemic back then...

II do readily acknowledge that. And I appreciate your well-presented and constructive arguments. Though have to say I'm puzzled at this sudden trend by posters on here to start describing the old system as riddled with corruption, thrown races etc. Really..? I think these are slurs people should be careful to repeat especially as no-one's backing them up with any facts! The one point I think is highly debatable in your argument is (surprise, surprise!) the one numbered, er, (1). Surely this IS the point... You're in the GP along with 14 others; you only realistically need to finish top 10 or 11 to remain in it. The fact that the three qualifiers are not as high a standard as the others already in it does absolutely mean that for the existing top 8 or 10 or 11 (or whatever number keep their place each year...) it is easy to stay in... I know what people will say, well these clearly are then the riders who deserve to be in it... Okay but it doesn't stop it being an absolute fact that it IS for these riders a relatively easy thing to stay within the GP series.. Look at the last two years, the only two survivors from the very first year 1995 have won the last two World titles! Hardly an advert for the GPs encouraging new talent. And yes I agree both were without doubt the best in the world so deserve to be champs but as I say there does need to be a future without them and I can't see the SGP currently giving us that future...

Would be great if someone would give Mark Baldock a chance. As far back as 2008 Mark was impressing big style at Iwade beating Tom Perry into third place (ie Mark was second behind the Dutchman Benjamen Borgers) in a Dragons indiv meeting. And of course this year Mark won the season-long Lydd Club Championship. Not the youngest but Mark deserves a chance alongside the teenagers... He made his NL debut for Hackney in the 'awks last meeting this year and I think if Cookie does run a junior Hammers outfit in the NL, Baldock will get his chance...

With all due respect IF the GPs were so great how come it's under the GP system that the decline you so accurately depict has most acclerated under...?! You may well be right that we would never see massive crowds at a WF again, though frankly I'd bet my house on more people attending a WF at Cardiff/Wembley/Olympic Stadium than currently attend the British GP... After all, it wouldn't be less would it; and whether you like it or not, there is a sizeable number of people who are Speedway die-hards who are utterly disillusioned with the relative pointlessness of the early round British SGP... Also the old system can no more be 'proven' "unfair and wrong" than the current one! What id DID deliver was a superb one-off night of excitement which frankly is utterly lacking in the multi-round system. AND it allowed those with the guts and quality to have a fair crack of the whip of breaking into it..

What was your question..?