World Champions That Never Were

[waiheke1]

Cant agree with that Sigalos was brilliant in some of the tests and the one i saw beat Nielsen from the back in the open at White City for me would beat Carter six times out of ten.Penhall is the key here if he had stayed around i don't believe the Danes would have one as many titles and history could of been written differently who knows.

I think we are actually pretty much in agreement sid. I'm convinced penhall would have won more title, and that would have meant the danes winning less.

Sigalos in my view was a greater nnatural talent than carter and both had excellent equipment.

Sigalos in 80 was some way ahead of c arter, but carter was comfortably the better rider in 81. 82 was arguably the best seadon either had - in a gp series its likely carter would have been battling penhall for the title, and sigslos battling Nielsen for 3rd. Both were slightly disappointing in 83, and were arguably overtake n by theDanes and a resurgent lee. BBoth started 84 brightly before beinh injured. Carter would have had a real shot of winning in 85 but for injury, but if both had continued beyond there sigalos may have been the better bet if breaking the Danish dominance. Head to head in msjor meetings (tests, wtc and workd pairs, world finals and qualifying meetings and blrc) they actually come out even at 23-23, though sigalos tally is boosted by beating carter 4-0 in 1980, carter hsving the dlight edge in subsequent seasons.

[stratton]

I think we are actually pretty much in agreement sid. I'm convinced penhall would have won more title, and that would have meant the danes winning less.

Sigalos in my view was a greater nnatural talent than carter and both had excellent equipment.

Sigalos in 80 was some way ahead of c arter, but carter was comfortably the better rider in 81. 82 was arguably the best seadon either had - in a gp series its likely carter would have been battling penhall for the title, and sigslos battling Nielsen for 3rd. Both were slightly disappointing in 83, and were arguably overtake n by theDanes and a resurgent lee. BBoth started 84 brightly before beinh injured. Carter would have had a real shot of winning in 85 but for injury, but if both had continued beyond there sigalos may have been the better bet if breaking the Danish dominance. Head to head in msjor meetings (tests, wtc and workd pairs, world finals and qualifying meetings and blrc) they actually come out even at 23-23, though sigalos tally is boosted by beating carter 4-0 in 1980, carter hsving the dlight edge in subsequent seasons.

Fair play your stats well are spot on eaces" as usual, we are on the same wavelength. Carter you know i rated highly i know you did because you see more of him ( lucky sod) than me.That era really was a decent one some special riders around we were both lucky to watch a few.

[The White Knight]

Fair play your stats well are spot on eaces" as usual, we are on the same wavelength. Carter you know i rated highly i know you did because you see more of him ( lucky sod) than me.That era really was a decent one some special riders around we were both lucky to watch a few.

I agree with that sidney - a truly GREAT time to be watching Speedway.

 

No 'rose coloured spectacles' here, just the plain truth.

[fatface]

I actually don't think there is anybody who didn't win it who WOULD DEFINITELY have won it under different circumstances. As a student of the history of the sport and far too young to be witness, probably Jack Parker and Tom Farndon are the best shouts.

 

As for more recent times, Tomasz Gollob had the title of "best rider never to win...." absolutely stitched up until he went and won it. He really blew that one ;-)

 

Can't go with Billy Sanders or some other names mentioned. I thought he punched above his weight getting on the rostrum. 1984 was his big chance: virtually guaranteed to be a new champion, relatively inexperienced field, big names missing/injured (Carter,Lee,Sigalos) and he was a renouned track expert. He didn't do very well though did he? I'd have Carter, Sigalos, Morton, S Moran, Knudsen all above him from that era alone.

[stratton]

I actually don't think there is anybody who didn't win it who WOULD DEFINITELY have won it under different circumstances. As a student of the history of the sport and far too young to be witness, probably Jack Parker and Tom Farndon are the best shouts.

As for more recent times, Tomasz Gollob had the title of "best rider never to win...." absolutely stitched up until he went and won it. He really blew that one ;-)

Can't go with Billy Sanders or some other names mentioned. I thought he punched above his weight getting on the rostrum. 1984 was his big chance: virtually guaranteed to be a new champion, relatively inexperienced field, big names missing/injured (Carter,Lee,Sigalos) and he was a renouned track expert. He didn't do very well though did he? I'd have Carter, Sigalos, Morton, S Moran, Knudsen all above him from that era alone.

Morton not a chance he never ever had a chance at any given time to be world champion in my view.What a great rider though,great value at Hyde Rd superb not as good as PC though he would not be above any of those you have mentioned because of his gating.

[fatface]

Morton not a chance he never ever had a chance at any given time to be world champion in my view.What a great rider though,great value at Hyde Rd superb not as good as PC though he would not be above any of those you have mentioned because of his gating.

Agreed. Mort is my all-time favourite, but he didn't quite have what it took to win the big one. That's why I couldn't really add his name - nor the rest - to any list of world champs that never were. I still say Mort's CV stacks up favourably against Billy Sanders though. Over 100 caps, Intercontinental and British Final wins, BLRC, World Team and World Pairs gold medals - as top scorer too. It's a pretty stellar CV.

[stratton]

Agreed. Mort is my all-time favourite, but he didn't quite have what it took to win the big one. That's why I couldn't really add his name - nor the rest - to any list of world champs that never were. I still say Mort's CV stacks up favourably against Billy Sanders though. Over 100 caps, Intercontinental and British Final wins, BLRC, World Team and World Pairs gold medals - as top scorer too. It's a pretty stellar CV.

Spot on Falcace, very similar indeed,the difference is Sanders had two rostrum places it does not make his cv better though.My memory is before his terrible loss ,i just felt he had really raised his game and was only thirty years old, and would of been in the mix with the Danes for a few years.Only a feeling mind no Fact involved, going back to Mort what a great rider he was.People say about Ward now being exciting to watch me included,Chris was more exciting as a rider in my view worth the entrance fee alone his pass of Carter in the 83 NRC at Hyde Rd was legendary.

[waiheke1]

I actually don't think there is anybody who didn't win it who WOULD DEFINITELY have won it under different circumstances. As a student of the history of the sport and far too young to be witness, probably Jack Parker and Tom Farndon are the best shouts.

 

.

Of the modern era, perhaps the closest is jessup in 1980, who would have been very likely to have won under a gp system that year. Not a certainty, but by some distance the best rider in the world that year.

Can't go with Billy Sanders or some other names mentioned. I thought he punched above his weight getting on the rostrum. 1984 was his big chance: virtually guaranteed to be a new champion, relatively inexperienced field, big names missing/injured (Carter,Lee,Sigalos) and he was a renouned track expert. He didn't do very well though did he? I'd have Carter, Sigalos, Morton, S Moran, Knudsen all above him from that era alone.

I fully agree, would have sanders below all those, and I would add jessup to the list as well.

 

If I use my rsnkings system, sanders comes below all those riders in the 80s, regardless of if you take best 3 or 5 seasons, or cumulative over the decade. the only exception would be if you took single season peak, in which case the 83 sanders was better than anything mort managed and equal to 82 sigslis.

[25yearfan]

Most of the riders mentioned were riders with the ability to win the world speedway championship but all had flaws which was why they didn't!

 

Chris Morton - Great rider but never close to being world champion and I don't think he'd of been consistant enough in a GP series!

 

Kenny Carter - definitely had the ability and desire but not the temperament, made bad choices of back up crew, had too many things going on in his head and his strong desire worked against him. He may have won the title if the GP series had been around in 81-85.

 

Billy Sanders - Great rider who had the ability but very similar to Carter was too hot headed!

 

Sigalos - Injury messed him up but had the ability but another negative factor against him was he was a wealthy man outside of speedway so this may have softened his desire which I think is a big reason why he drifted away from the sport in the mid 80's after the injuries.

 

Dave Jessup - Had bad luck with engine failiures or was it bad maintainance?

Like another poster says the year his King's Lynn teammate Michael Lee became World Champion, 1980, Jessup was more consistant over the season and would likely have won it if the GP system had been around then!

 

Jack Parker won the unofficial world championship before it was became official in 1936 and went very close afterwards. The excellent natural talent that was Mark Loram in 2000 did it but apart from that win (which in my opinion was one of the luckiest wins in the history of the sport cause everything fell for him when he wasn't over dominant, what was it just one GP round win in 2000 when he became champion?)I'd probably say Jack Parker done more!

 

Leigh Adams in the modern era was terrific but I feel didn't quite have enough of the ruthless desire to make it hhappen while someone like Pederson with less ability but more ruthlessness did!

 

One, if not the greatest ever rider Ivan Mauger had less ability than all of these but his overall package of desire, stable lifestyle and professionalism was far superior!

[The White Knight]

Most of the riders mentioned were riders with the ability to win the world speedway championship but all had flaws which was why they didn't!

 

Chris Morton - Great rider but never close to being world champion and I don't think he'd of been consistant enough in a GP series!

 

Kenny Carter - definitely had the ability and desire but not the temperament, made bad choices of back up crew, had too many things going on in his head and his strong desire worked against him. He may have won the title if the GP series had been around in 81-85.

 

Billy Sanders - Great rider who had the ability but very similar to Carter was too hot headed!

 

Sigalos - Injury messed him up but had the ability but another negative factor against him was he was a wealthy man outside of speedway so this may have softened his desire which I think is a big reason why he drifted away from the sport in the mid 80's after the injuries.

 

Dave Jessup - Had bad luck with engine failiures or was it bad maintainance?

Like another poster says the year his King's Lynn teammate Michael Lee became World Champion, 1980, Jessup was more consistant over the season and would likely have won it if the GP system had been around then!

 

Jack Parker won the unofficial world championship before it was became official in 1936 and went very close afterwards. The excellent natural talent that was Mark Loram in 2000 did it but apart from that win (which in my opinion was one of the luckiest wins in the history of the sport cause everything fell for him when he wasn't over dominant, what was it just one GP round win in 2000 when he became champion?)I'd probably say Jack Parker done more!

 

Leigh Adams in the modern era was terrific but I feel didn't quite have enough of the ruthless desire to make it hhappen while someone like Pederson with less ability but more ruthlessness did!

 

One, if not the greatest ever rider Ivan Mauger had less ability than all of these but his overall package of desire, stable lifestyle and professionalism was far superior!

I don't believe Mark Loram actually won a GP when he won the World Championship. He was, however, the most consistent Rider over the Series that year.

[stratton]

Most of the riders mentioned were riders with the ability to win the world speedway championship but all had flaws which was why they didn't!Chris Morton - Great rider but never close to being world champion and I don't think he'd of been consistant enough in a GP series!Kenny Carter - definitely had the ability and desire but not the temperament, made bad choices of back up crew, had too many things going on in his head and his strong desire worked against him. He may have won the title if the GP series had been around in 81-85.Billy Sanders - Great rider who had the ability but very similar to Carter was too hot headed!Sigalos - Injury messed him up but had the ability but another negative factor against him was he was a wealthy man outside of speedway so this may have softened his desire which I think is a big reason why he drifted away from the sport in the mid 80's after the injuries.Dave Jessup - Had bad luck with engine failiures or was it bad maintainance?Like another poster says the year his King's Lynn teammate Michael Lee became World Champion, 1980, Jessup was more consistant over the season and would likely have won it if the GP system had been around then!Jack Parker won the unofficial world championship before it was became official in 1936 and went very close afterwards. The excellent natural talent that was Mark Loram in 2000 did it but apart from that win (which in my opinion was one of the luckiest wins in the history of the sport cause everything fell for him when he wasn't over dominant, what was it just one GP round win in 2000 when he became champion?)I'd probably say Jack Parker done more!Leigh Adams in the modern era was terrific but I feel didn't quite have enough of the ruthless desire to make it hhappen while someone like Pederson with less ability but more ruthlessness did!One, if not the greatest ever rider Ivan Mauger had less ability than all of these but his overall package of desire, stable lifestyle and professionalism was far superior!

A great post and all of what you said is true to a point, the things i would say that went against certain riders i thought Jessup at times could of been more professional could of had a more professional set up.Carter had his flaws got the tyres wrong in 82,his Dad had the final say against Ivan's advice which cost him.Sigalos and Penhall were wealthy did it make a difference? Yes i think so Sanders was hot headed Leigh Adams what a rider a true pro unlike Pedersen who would take off his granny to win ok he has three titles but he does not hold a candle to Leigh in my opinion.

Of the modern era, perhaps the closest is jessup in 1980, who would have been very likely to have won under a gp system that year. Not a certainty, but by some distance the best rider in the world that year.

I fully agree, would have sanders below all those, and I would add jessup to the list as well.

If I use my rsnkings system, sanders comes below all those riders in the 80s, regardless of if you take best 3 or 5 seasons, or cumulative over the decade. the only exception would be if you took single season peak, in which case the 83 sanders was better than anything mort managed and equal to 82 sigslis.

Your ranking system is very interesting,and i was surprised that you said the 83 version of Sanders was better than anything Mort did.To the list you have named i would have to add Simmo,Crump(sen) and Adams to it.(no order).Carter no rostrum places, Simmo,one, Crump one, Sanders two, Adams two GP rostrum places one unplaced in the one off finals, Knudsen one rostrum, Jessup one rostrum, Sigalos one rostrum.How can you decide? very difficult, down to the individual, i would say though i would have Knudsen and Jessup at the bottom of that lot. Edited September 3, 2014 by sidney

[Sotonian]

The excellent natural talent that was Mark Loram in 2000 did it but apart from that win (which in my opinion was one of the luckiest wins in the history of the sport cause everything fell for him when he wasn't over dominant, what was it just one GP round win in 2000 when he became champion?)

The move to a GP series removed the chance of fluky winners, rewarding consistency. What criteria do you consider necessary before a win is not classed as lucky?

[stratton]

The move to a GP series removed the chance of fluky winners, rewarding consistency. What criteria do you consider necessary before a win is not classed as lucky?

It was not lucky,Mark did what he had to do and he is now in the roll of honour.But as others have said it was a flawed system he never won a GP that year but still won the title.Also in my memory in the old one off finals, i cannot remember any fluky winners even Szczakiel and Muller deserved to win there titles.Also generally all the greats won it at sometime or another,it did stand the test of time it was not broken.The GP series is a great product, but to be honest we all know it really only came in because it is a money spinner for SOME.A gravy train the sport as a whole does not benefit from this series but certain individuals do.

[customhouseregular]

In my humble opinion the best rider never to become World Champion was Gote Nordin. The man was pure class.

[fatface]

I've heard it said more than once that Mark Loram was a lucky winner in 2000. I couldn't disagree more. Over the whole series, no-one performed better. I think his worst finish was 5th or 6th. People should also remember that the strange scoring system back then where each GP winner was given 25 points, 5 more than the runner-up and a huge 9 more than fourth place. So, for Mark to win overall that year - despite never collecting the over inflated score for winning the final - actually enhances his victory in my eyes. It is not as if he was incapable of winning GPs, he did win them, just not in 2000.

Edited September 4, 2014 by falcace

[Gavan]

Mark Loram was not a lucky world champion i wish people would stop saying that.

 

The gp series every year rewards the most consistent rider that is fact.

In 2000 Mark was the most consistent rider.

He made every semi final that season.

The gp back in 2000 was a six series as opposed to double that now. So that made it more likely then that you could be world champion without winning one. You still could today i guess.

 

Mark Loram wasnt as good as say Tony Rickardsson but he took his chance and wasnt lucky. The only part of the system that was flawed was the fact that if you kept winning you had the best gates.

 

Do people think Mark would have been more deserving if he had say won 2 of the rounds and had a couple of 9th place finishes thus still amounting the same points total?

6 different tracks and was top 8 every time. A deserved World champion without doubt. The thing is Mark could have at least made the rostrum in 1999 when he missed the 1st gp as he wasnt in the series but rode in the next 5

[Grachan]

.Carter had his flaws got the tyres wrong in 82,his Dad had the final say against Ivan's advice which cost him.

 

It's often said about Carter's tyres in 1982, and because Ivan Mauger said it then it's seen as gospel.

 

The thing is, Carter was won his first 3 rides so his tyres couldn't have had too ngative an effect. And looked on for a second place until Penhall knocked him off. Then, of course, his head went totally, but I think that had Penhall been excluded in that race then Carter would have won the re-run and been on a maximum going into his last ride.

 

So he certainly had it in him, but sometimes things just go against you. If he was ever going to win then it would have been that year.

 

With regards Jessup, I never really saw him as World Champion material, but maybe that was because he rode for Reading.

[25yearfan]

["Sotonian"]

The move to a GP series removed the chance of fluky winners, rewarding consistency. What criteria do you consider necessary before a win is not classed as lucky?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Loram was without a doubt the most consistant rider in 2000, therefore deserved to be World champion that season but I still maintain he had everything run for him that year and his record in other seasons shows that he wasn't a regular serious contender for the World title!

[stratton]

It's often said about Carter's tyres in 1982, and because Ivan Mauger said it then it's seen as gospel.

 

The thing is, Carter was won his first 3 rides so his tyres couldn't have had too ngative an effect. And looked on for a second place until Penhall knocked him off. Then, of course, his head went totally, but I think that had Penhall been excluded in that race then Carter would have won the re-run and been on a maximum going into his last ride.

 

So he certainly had it in him, but sometimes things just go against you. If he was ever going to win then it would have been that year.

 

With regards Jessup, I never really saw him as World Champion material, but maybe that was because he rode for Reading.

For me the Carter/Penhall was a 50/ 50 incident Carter came off second best if he had excepted second he might of had a run off still for the title? i would of fancied him to win it.Carter could never except second,and even Lee said he thought at times he was dangerous and rode on the edge.Jessup i also thought was never world champion material,he often had good results by borrowing MIke Lee's aquipment was a rider i never really took to even though he was a class rider.

[25yearfan]

Mark Loram winning the title in 2000 would of been similar to someone like Chris Morton having everthing run right for him if the GP series had been around in the mid 70's to mid 80's!

 

Simon Wigg was a terrific rider who if I believe had concentrated more on speedway than his 1st love grasstrack/longtrack for a little while may have been World Champion?