fatface

In that case, I must have mis-interpreted you. It just sounds like you are making excuses when you say: "He had been very good at Bradford in the past, but that all changed after Erik's accident." I certainly never saw any indication Nielsen's racing was in any way effected by what happened to Erik Gundersen and have never heard of Nielsen or anyone close to him suggesting that was the case. For me, he under-performed and Moran and Jonsson were simply better on the night.

Nonsense. Who are these historians? Some official custodians of speedway history? I haven't heard of them. As several others have suggested, all we can do is speculate. My inkling is that he could have made it in Britain. But it's no more than that, an inkling. I certainly couldn't argue with any certainty that he would have been a Penhall, Autrey or Ermolenko. He could just as easily have been a Lucero, Pfetzing or Ingels. The point is that none of us know. So to stick him in the world's all-time top 20 with such scant evidence on the international stage is a bit silly.

In the whole field, Kelvin Tatum was the only other rider who had even been on a World Final rostrum. Hans Nielsen was a point better than anyone else in the BL averages. He was the defending champion, a three-times winner. And you didn't think he was favourite?! The way he took Tatum shows this was a man very much up for the fight. Any suggestion that he was lacking any edge due to Erik Gundersen's accident is pure speculation at best and a figment of your imagination at worst. This is not a man who is holding back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeTydgtELM0 Why are you always making excuses for Hans Nielsen's World Final failures?

Don't recall that one myself and it's a virtual certainty I was there. But then, I'm a big Morton fan, you're clearly a big Sudden Sam fan. I suppose our favourite memories of our favourite riders are the ones we are most likely to hang on to. In terms of individual success, someone like Sam would certainly rank higher than Mort. But I think this thread is much more about two riders punching above their weight when they came together as a pair. Which is why people have - quite correctly - mentioned Phil Collins/Alan Grahame and John Jorgensen/Rick Miller as good examples. When Morton and Collins won the 84 World Pairs, both were arguably (PC certainly) past their best. But they got the better of Gundersen and Nielsen that day, who proved they were the top two individuals in the world that year. That's what a great pair can do. Morton and Collins together were greater than the sum of their parts. I'm not sure you could say the same for Ronnie Correy and Sam Ermolenko. They actually went out in the semi-finals of the World Pairs one year, which is pretty unthinkable for riders of that quality. They did get their hands on the trophy in a different format eventually, but it was very much a Greg Hancock-led victory.

Ahem, back to Mike Bast. The following link makes interesting reading. It shows that on home turf, against the world's best, Mike Bast could more than hold his own and he was comfortably the best of the Yanks. http://www.internationalspeedway.co.uk/usavrow.htm It's pretty obvious he didn't have the desire to take his talents to the international stage - so there's little point discussing that. But had he made the decision to apply himself to British racing - based on this - I suspect he could've cut the mustard.

Seems the Football World Cup has changed - I did not know that. Still, it was worth making that one mistake just to have the delicious irony of you telling me to "keep up". :-) On the rest, I am bang on. I have worked in athletics for the last 10-11 years, so you'll have to trust me on that one. If you still have doubts, there's a link below which should convince you. Not sure what you are on about when you say 'quite often defending champs no longer compete in the track and field championship' either. Berlin 2009 winners Bolt, Bekele, Idowu, Ennis, Campbell-Brown and the vast majority of defending champs were fit and well, present and correct for Daegu 2011 (in the same events too). Probably best if you try not to hammer that point home and discus it no further, until someone relays the truth to you. http://mobi.supersport.com/athletics/international/news/110621/Bolt_will_bypass_Jamaican_meet Anyway...back to speedway. Interesting topic. I - like virtually - everyone on this thread can only go on facts, stats and second hand opinions of those in the know. I'd have to say yes, Mike Bast could have been a force. If he was the leading rider in the US for so many years in an era that brought through Penhall, Autrey, Schwartz, then you'd have to say if they could cut it, then he probably could too. Don't be fooled by the 1977 Intercontinental at White City either. There was another guy well off the pace that day - Bruce Penhall. I've always suspected that the skills required to ride a big track are more easily acquired than the subtle throttle control required for small tracks. If Bast's American contemporaries adapted, then I reckon he would have too. Clearly, he had a comfortable existence in the US and didn't have the hunger for international success that Penhall did. In terms of lifestyle, you'd have to be really motivated to leave California for Cradley!

Agreed. It was Nielsen's to lose going into it. It was a enjoyable night though - some really good racing. It was months and months later when the FIM announced Moran had tested positive at the Overseas Final. I really wanted Shawn to win that night, but I shudder to think if he had won that run-off. How daft would the sport look then?

Dead right. FIFA World Cup? Absolutely farcical - hosts and defending champions are automatically granted a place. IAAF World Athletics Championships? Drivel - each defending gold medallist automatically qualifies. Formula One World Championship? Meaningless - all the top drivers are chosen by the top teams. Rugby World Cup? Utter nonsense - all top nations are all seeded. Grand Slam Tennis and Golf? What a joke - all the world's top ranked players don't have to go through qualifying.

Team riding was never his forte though was it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc8PBZPhx2k

Why? What big meetings did he ever win to prove that line of argument?

I always thought Rick Miller and John Jorgensen was a combination that punched above their collective weight. But otherwise, this topic is a dead duck - EVERYONE knows that Mort and PC were the best pair ever! :-)

Agreed. Credit where credit is due. This is not the greatest quality, but watch Olsen here. Last from the start but with a brilliant last bend move on Mauger in the 71 World Final. Overtaking at its best, against the best in the biggest competition. http://www.youtube.com/user/speedwayondisc#p/u/0/gd1o19GW4WE

Erm, think you're just speaking for yourself there Sidney. An enjoyable debate indeed, but not one I am admitting any defeat on whatsoever. Where I suspect I will have to admit defeat is to Impartial One and Chunky's propensity for always having to have the last word. In that area, they are formidable.

Agreed. I thought he walked the line of being a very hard rider and being a dirty rider. But he was always watchable. I'd put Preben Eriksen in the same bracket. Apparently - like Evitts - he too is a very nice chap.

If the vigorous terms I have used in this discussion offend you, then I apologise. Bear in mind they are attacks on opinions and not personalities. I wouldn't do that, quite simply because I don't know any of you. So I will just assume you are all thoroughly decent blokes and blokesses. Others have chosen to suggest other people are immature, fawning or even asking whether they are wired up correctly. That's their approach, that's up to them. The statement "Screen is 20 times more gifted than Carter was" is one I would strongly challenge and believe thoroughly justifies the use of words such as "codswallop" in response. Others have gone with "laughable" and "utter tosh". There have been other remarks on this thread that would also deserve a similar response: "Joe Screen has more natural ability in his little finger than Briggo" and "Jason Garrity has more natural ability on a bike than Carter". But I digress. On the "20 times more gifted.." point, I have presented a fact-based argument to validate my view. Others have presented more first-hand and anecdotal evidence in support. You might not like the terminology, but the opinion remains the same.

Preposterous. It may be an uncomfortable truth for you, but achievement at an early stage of a career is a fair indication of how talented someone is. Kenny Carter, Kelly Moran and more recently, Darcy Ward achieved things so early in their careers because they had/have natural talent. Kenny Carter was not riding a faster bike than anyone else when he started out at Newcastle as a raw 16 year old. He did not have Ivan Mauger alongside him in the pits then. He was just a scruffy Yorkshire kid who was bloody talented at riding a speedway bike. It's stating the bleeding obvious that hard work, professionalism and dedication are then what is required to progress to the top level. But I am increasingly thinking that the only way is to state the bleeding obvious to some people.

I understand the discussion perfectly well thankyou. What maybe harder for you to grasp is that I think your opinion is utter codswallop. Both Kenny Carter and Joe Screen were very talented riders and that is why they both made an immediate impact on the sport. Talent is why Kelly Moran was able to finish 4th in his first World Final aged 18. However, of Carter and Screen, Carter was undoubtedly the greater talent of the two because he achieved far more, far quicker.

I'd be interested in hearing more about these two. I recall Carter virtually running Sigalos into the pits bend fence on his way to winning the 82 BLRC (maybe a bit of revenge on the yanks for LA?). On Tatum - Evitts, I don't know much about that particular rivalry. But from what I - and others - have seen, it seems Evitts was prone to the odd grudge or two. I recall a few coming-togethers with Andy Smith and Evitts, which reached its nadir with Evitts leaving Smudger in the Odsal fence with a broken leg.

You are right no-one has, so I'm not sure why you are highlighting something no-one has said? What has been said is that Joe Screen was far more naturally talented than Kenny Carter. I - and several others - would hotly dispute that statement. It's one thing saying Screen was 20 times more talented than Carter, it's quite another backing that up with some evidence. To reiterate, it has been pointed out that Carter had no schoolboy grounding in speedway or grass-track, yet rose from being a Newcastle reserve in his first season to being an England international in his second season. Screen had the benefit of a vast schoolboy grass-track career and quickly made progress in speedway and was an England international in his third season. By year 3 of his career, Kenny Carter was a member of the England World Team Cup squad, Screen achieved this in year 4 of his career. By year 4 of his career, Kenny Carter had finished 4th in the World Final. By year 4 of his career, Joe Screen was 15th in the British Final. If I haven't done so already...I could bore you silly with this stuff! The point is Kenny Carter had much less grounding in the sport, yet still made far quicker progress than Joe Screen managed. There's the evidence that Carter was the greater talent. From the other side of the argument, all I have heard so far is "erm, Screen looked better on a bike". Yes and so did Lisa Whibberley.

If - as you now claim - you don't believe Kenny Carter to have been without natural ability, then you should probably learn to express yourself better. Joe Screen 20 times more gifted than Carter?! 20 times more gifted than me perhaps, but certainly not a rider who achieved much more in a much shorter space of time. Also without the schoolboy grounding that Screen benefitted from.

Some fascinating stuff here. I hadn't realised Swindon-Oxford was such a spicy one, so it's great to read all about it here. Picking up on the Wolves-Cradley tales, I'm sure I recall the two clubs setting up some sort of end of season 20 heat challenge between them in the early 90s. To outsiders it would seem meaningless, but clearly to each camp it was anything but! I'm a bit surprised to see Crump-Pedersen and some of the other modern GP ones here. I really haven't felt that intense head-to-head at all between any two individuals in the GP era. For me, Hans Andersen-Scott Nicholls might qualify as a decent rivalry, but nothing to compare with some in the past.

Of course! Gundersen v Nielsen! How could I overlook that one?! World Championship and club rivalries. I believe it also drew together Olsen and Mauger as head-to-head foes again.

Something new to get our teeth stuck into and maybe even a possible topic for Tony Mac to cover in Backtrack? Who do people see as our sport's greatest rivalries? Here's my quick off-the-head run down: MAUGER - BRIGGS An on-track one that I suspect still rumbles on today as businessmen MAUGER - OLSEN Classic master v pupil rivalry that covered not only World Championship tussles, but also memorable battles for league supremacy with their repective clubs CRAVEN - FUNDIN Too young to have seen either. But from what I have read and heard, two contrasting but well-matched foes. I'd like to hear some witnesses put some flesh on the bones WOLVES - CRADLEY Those is the West Midlands can articulate this one much better than me. GLASGOW - EDINBURGH A clash that became must-see for me when I was a student in Scotland. The dislike was evident with the naive experiment of the Scottish Monarchs racing at Shawfield in the early 90s. PENHALL - CARTER Possibly the most heated of the them all, which included probably the most controversial incident in our sport's history Be good to hear others thoughts :-)

Some very muddled thinking on this thread. The one point I have to zoom in on is the one that suggests Kenny Carter had a lack of natural talent. Utter garbage. He was the youngest rider ever to be selected for England (1979 v Australasia). Only a postponement prevented him being the youngest England international ever. This was only his second year in the sport. So if he was not a natural, then had he spent years and years honing his ability to reach this level so quickly? No. Unlike guys like Loram, Screen, Dugard and others, he had not spent a large proportion of his schoolboy days with his leg over a speedway or grass-track bike. He had only been riding speedway for less than two years when he was deemed good enough for England. No natural talent? Think again.