chunky

It was still possible to win a World Championship without ever winning a race.

People have been pointing out that one of the flaws of the GP system, and now the SON, is that a rider(s) COULD win a World Championship without ever winning a race. It was also possible to do that with the old World Final system. Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean that it wasn't possible.

Probably because they thought you had to have a fever or something just because you showed up to watch them!

I actually played there! Well, not football, but darts. The club used to be the home venue for the Oxfordshire County team.

Hate to be pedantic, but that is considered the bottom of Bishopsford Road; it changes to London Road the other side of Wandle Road. My mate Jeff lives opposite. Imperial Fields (or whatever it was before) used to be a training ground for Chelsea.

We've ALL had run-ins with Shov on these forums, but he's really not a bad guy. We have met also. It's just tough discussing things sometimes because he is always right! Particularly when I'M always right...

Steve is one of the most frequent - and controversial - posters on the BSF. He is a Poole fan...

It could have happened in the old World Finals, yet nobody complained about that...

It was an every race counts system last year - and there were flaws. The old World Final system was an every race counts system - and there were flaws.

Even though there were flaws with it - there will be with ANY system - I agree with you...

That's not important! If I want something done my way, then they should do it, dammit!!!

As you say, Burnley only rode in five league matches. The last meeting at Burnley was an open meeting on July 7. The track closed down for good after that.

I've only just managed to get all mine after eight years in storage, so I feel your pain! If I come across it, I will post it on here.

Actually, they are not interchangeable, Bob. People have always done that, but it's just more prevalent now. It's based on how people interpret words when they hear the contractions "would've", "could've", and "should've". They interpret it as "could OF" etc. Think about the usage, based on questions and answers: Q - Have you done what I asked? A - Sorry, I should have (should've). It's a direct response. The question "OF you done what I asked" doesn't make any sense. It's the same these days with people not understanding the difference between "then" and "than"; the two have totally different meanings, and are not interchangeable. Referring to the second part of your comment, there were lots of words not in common usage when you left the UK, that are now! "Bottle" is one that still means nothing to North Americans, as a "bottle job" to them means you've coloured your hair!

Could it have been a handicap meeting like the Olympique at Wolverhampton? That tended to have compacted scoring...

I don't have a "beef" with you; I have a "beef" with your attitude at times. You jump to conclusions, and are judging someone who may have a perfectly valid reason for getting deliveries. It doesn't have to be a case of them not "getting off their arse". In my case, I think I would be justified in getting deliveries, but I just choose not to. I am just very careful. Other people may be in a similar position, but prefer the extra safety of delivery. They shouldn't be attacked for that, particularly when you don't know the full story.

On the flip side... I go out and do my shopping, and I am surrounded by idiots not taking precautions, or just not being sensible and considerate. I AM careful, and I DO take precautions, but what if I get infected? No, I'm sure you don't give a crap about me. Actually, I don't either. However, my wife is high-risk, and I don't want her to come down with it. I've already come close to losing her twice this year, and I really don't want to push it. How do you know the people you are advising to get off their arses aren't in a similar position? I actually know of multiple individuals that are... You talk about doing the "decent human thing", but you obviously aren't a Christian, as real Christians don't sit on their arses judging others about whom they know nothing...

You sound like me... The big problem is that we don't have any idea what it will be like in three months, six months, a year, or whatever. The problem is that nobody being allowed to do anything is not a solution...

Not quite like that, but one that still annoys me to this day... 1985 was our first year in the NL, and we drew Steve Shovlar's mob in the first round of the Cup. We won 40-38 at their place, and in the second leg at Plough Lane, we destroyed them 62-16. When they came back later for the league match, they beat us 41-37 - a result that had a huge impact on our chances of winning the league. So, that was a 50-point swing...

Actually (not that this would surprise you), but Huxley is one I always include in my list of "elite" riders, along with Vic Duggan...

Of course it wasn't deliberate, but that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. The problem is that there are always so many "ifs", but sadly, "ifs" never make it into the history books...

Yeah, I realised that after I said it; I just didn't have time to get back on and correct it! So, What is the rule for points on dead heats for more than two riders? Yeah, we're REALLY complicating this now...

It is an average of 7.5 per rider, but obviously for it to be won with 7.5, it would require ALL dead heats...

So, when I say I'm an anorak - I mean "I'M AN ANORAK"! For some reason, I just love weird stuff like this - same as my GP claim. For those who don't know - particularly if you thought last year's GP scoring was "perfect", it was possible for a rider to win EVERY GP, and still not qualify for this year in the Top 8. Fact...

Actually, I just did a quick run through here. I had ten on 8, four on 7, and two on six... There are many options, but they all come out to an eight-point winner!