chunky

...along with : Graham Warren (1950), who fell attempting to pass eventual champion Freddie Williams. Had he stayed in second, the two would have a run-off for the title. Jack Parker (1951). While everyone talks about Jack Biggs, the English Jack emerged pointless from his first outing, on paper, his easiest of the night, A win would have seen him champion, and a second place would have meant a four-way run-off. Sorry, but while Olsen was one of the all-time greats, there's no way that I would put him above Nielsen... Steve

Personally, I would hate to lose the SWC, and think that while it would nice so see a pairs back, it would have to be in addition to the SWC. In any sport, the greatest honour of all is to represent one's country, and now that we have lost all those glorious Test Series, reducing the SWC to a pairs would be a retrograde step for both riders as well as supporters. They tried it a few years ago and it didn't last long... It is nice for a number of countries to get a bite at the cherry, but I did enjoy having a week-long SWC event in one country; it certainly makes it easier for the riders. I see no reason why we couldn't compact the SWC to a weekend event, in the same way that we used to with the NL Fours and Grand Slam. Obviously, injuries could be a concern, but not much more than we have currently. I do think that seeding the host nation to the final is a wise move economically. After all, I was at White City in '79 and '82! Steve

Easy to say that, but not necessarily less significant. Remember that Loram won the 2000 GP as a result of a terrible refereeing decision. He lifted and wiped out Rickardsson, who was the inexplicably excluded. Had the decision been different, Rickardsson would have won. Steve

You are of course correct, Rob. I think we could be struggling to beat Vic, now... Steve

While it is possible that some kind of "deal" was offered, I agree that nerves simply got the better of him. When one looks at that Heat 19 lineup, Split Waterman could not have been ruled out as a possible winner of the race; at that stage, he had 9 points in the bag, and however unlikely it may have seemed, he was still in contention for the title. Williams had 6, and Lawson 5, going into the race. Biggs didn't have to worry about winning it, but just had to finish in front of one of those two. That's why nerves seem the most logical conclusion. Obviously, he had another bite at the cherry (albeit against much stiffer opposition), but was probably still ruing that Heat 19 disaster... Steve

I think you'll find that riders did that in order to get a position in the lineup that gave them some well-spaced rides, rather than concentrating on gate positions. With the old 20-heat format, a rider had to go off every gate at least once, so the most they could do is to hope that they had good gate positions when up against their main competition. Still, in those days, most tracks had enough dirt on them so that it was quite possible to come from the back. Gate 2 at Coventry was the exception, I think! Steve

Don't know if you were there, sidney, but I'm sure that Parsloes will remember the 1980 Grand Prix final at Wimbledon. Dennis Sigalos won in conditions that I would put up there with Gothenburg in 1977. Steve

Hang on Bob; didn't we say a few weeks ago that Goochy was 37 when he made his World Final debut? That would make him two years older than Henny, who was born in 1952. Of course, he also qualfied as reserve for Norden in 1983... Steve

According to my programme, Stape scored 10 (2, 2+1, 3, 3), and Neil 4 (0, 1+1, 3). The result from Heat 4 was : Lovaas, Stapleton, Cameron, Saunders (F/EX) The result from Heat 7 was Cameron, Stapleton, Morton, Lomas. Steve

Think you will find that David was Cyril's nephew, actually. Steve

Even though I am now digressing slightly, norbold's earlier post about there not being an online resource for this information perhaps gave me the nudge I needed. Being the anorak that I am, I have compiled a number of spreadsheets regarding individual World Finals, some concerning valuable statistics, and some not so valuable statistics, merely interesting! I hope to have all the information posted on a new website over the next few months. Steve

I actually have a spreadsheet with all this information, so it's easy for me to list them. I have included all finals for each rider. Cyril Roger - 1949, 1950, 1952, 1955, 1959 Split Waterman - 1950 - 1954 (inclusive) Danny Dunton - 1950 Arthur Payne - 1950, 1952, 1953 (Res) Dick Bradley - 1951 - 1953 (inclusive) Fred Brand - 1954 Freddie Williams - 1950-1953 (inclusive), 1954 (Res) Chum Taylor - 1960 Eric Boothroyd - 1956 Derek Close - 1952 Geoff Mardon - 1951 (Res), 1953, 1954, 1959 Billy Bales - 1955 Olle Nygren - 1953, 1954, 1955, 1958, 1959 Rune Sormander - 1953, 1957 - 1962 (inclusive) Jack Geran - 1957, 1958 Bryan Elliott - 1960 Ron Johnston - 1955, 1956, 1958, 1960 George White - 1957, 1959 Ian Williams - 1957 Steve

Thank you. Steve

I don't have to have the last word... Steve

Depends how much natural talent you've got... Steve

At least we have a balanced post here... That is the theory, but it doesn't work like that in practice (see my previous post). That is our point exactly. However, as talented as Joe was/is, he never developed that talent into the success it deserved. Sadly, this has degenerated into argument over "black and white" and grey areas. There is nothing wrong with a healthy discussion, but when terms such as "codswallop" and "preposterous" are used, that's when things get ugly. There are no rights or wrongs when it comes to the opinion of whether Kenny or Joe had the "most natural talent". However, it is wrong to state that success is automatic, or perhaps greater, as a direct result of "natural talent", which is the point I am trying to make. Steve

Still having trouble with the English language, are we? Why do you twist everything I say? I said there is no direct correlation, and I stand by that. Yes, Carter, Moran, and Ward have achieved things early in their careers, partly - but not wholly - as a result of natural talent. However, there are many riders out there who had bags of natural talent, but due to a lack of effort, determination, and/or confidence, never achieved anything. Let's put it this way, and see if you can understand what I am saying... Natural talent is no guarantee of success. FACT. Lack of natural talent is no guarantee of failure. FACT. If you can't grasp that, then I don't know what to do. Again, I am speaking from experience. It doesn't seem to work with you when I do it, does it? Steve

So, now it's a case of "I'm right and you're wrong!", eh? How mature... What part of this are you not getting? ImpartialOne clarified this earlier: IT'S NOT ABOUT ACHIEVEMENT! Simply because an individual achieves more - and perhaps in a shorter space of time - than another, it is NO INDICATION OF NATURAL TALENT. There is no direct correlation. Natural talent alone doesn't get you anywhere. Effort, dedication, and confidence are what turn talent - or lack thereof - into success. Steve

16 3/4, actually... Steve

Sorry, but I don't agree. While Lee was an extremely talented rider, I still believe that PC and Screeny were far more natural. I think that like Nielsen, and also Briggs, Lee had to work harder to achieve his success as a result of his physical stature. As a result, they were less "naturally-gifted" than the two I mentioned. As has already been said, I would class the Morans in the same category. Steve

I honestly that think one of the major problems on this thread has been the inability of some to read (and write) - and comprehend - the English language. There is not one person who has contributed to this thread that has claimed that Joe Screen was a better rider than Kenny Carter. No, he wasn't "in the same league" as you put it, but does that mean that he wasn't a more naturally talented motorcyclist? No! It just means that he never reached the same level, and didn't achieve as much. When superstars like Mauger and Nielsen freel admit that they were less talented than many others - who achieved far less - that should give you some idea what we are actually saying. From what I saw - and from what I heard from other riders - Joe Screen was perhaps the most naturally-gifted rider to emerge in the last forty years. Other than PC, that is... Steve

Both Briggo and Ronnie Moore were good friends with my mother; we once spent the weekend at Briggo's place in Southampton. Do you really think that I would disrespect a family friend? When Barry started racing in the UK, many were calling for him to be banned, as he was considered a danger to others! His style was awful, and he had trouble controlling the bike. Did people feel the same about Ronnie Moore, or Mark Loram, or Joe Screen? Fortunately, Briggo worked hard to learn his trade, and did so very quickly. It was that effort and confidence in his own ability that made him an all-time great. You are still not getting it. A person can be much more naturally gifted at something, without ever achieving anything like the success of others less talented. Success in sport is all about effort. determination, and confidence, and as I said earlier, I am speaking from experience. Steve

[quote There you go, reading words that are not there again. [/quote To make it simple for you only in my opinion] screen wouldnt make the top 30 best british riders of all time.Thats even if he had [natural ability] talent,commitment whatever you like.Carter certainly in top 20].Impartial one in your opinion, who was the better rider SCREEN or CARTER? quite simple i think Sidney : You are now giving me a headache. Why do you persist in twisting everything people say? NOWHERE does ImpartialOne claim that Screen was better than Carter. The only claim is that Joe was a far more naturally-gifted motorcyclist, a fact with which most people - myself included - will agree. No, that doesn't mean he was better. Barry Briggs was perhaps the most ungifted rider as far as natural talent and ability, but he worked hard at making the best of what he had. Joe Screen had more natural talent in his little finger than Briggo had. Steve

I think that sidney is having trouble understanding what you are saying; I'm with you. Sidney : Kenny Carter WAS a brilliant and talented speedway rider. However, his success came largely as a result of hard work, and an incredible determination. Joe Screen was much more of a "natural" motorcyclist, but never had that little extra mentally to achieve the same sort of success. That's not being disrespectful to either Joe or Kenny in any way, but a simple fact. Carter's determination brought him incredible success on tracks that others considered "unrideable"; Screen could be untouchable on a track that suited him, but had trouble adapting to others. If you look at any sport, you will find that determination/effort/confidence will eventually bring more success than natural talent and potential. Simply put, it doesn't matter how good you are if you can't handle the situations that are thrown at you. Steve