Carter Where Does He Rate With The Great British Riders?

[kaiser]

Joe Screen was perhaps the most naturally-gifted rider to emerge in the last forty years. Other than PC, that is...

 

Add Mort, Lee, and Loram, who all in my view were of a highter natural talent. Ultimatley its all down to opinions. Joe was good, just not that good!!!

[fatface]

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?

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.

[ImpartialOne]

Still not getting it I see. It's not about achievements. I'll say it again, it's not about achievements.

 

You could stick an average rider on Tomasz Gollob's bikes for a season and he would improve dramatically. Proof?

 

Steve Collins was, with all respect, a fairly poor rider most of the time. He wobbled his way around at the back and when he wasn't crashing he looked like coming off. Then one night at Cradley he borrowed Gundersen's bike and beat Kenny Carter. Yes, Kenny Carter! Now that was some achievement but does that mean he had more talent than Carter?

 

I've already provided examples of why I think Screen was more gifted than Carter if you care to look. Whilst there are many who agree with you falcace, there are many more who won't. All you've given us is that Carter was faster than Screen. That's not what we are discussing.

[Split]

Maybe I missed it in all these posts but I can’t see any mention of Jack Parker in this thread.

 

His best performances in worlds finals were 2nd (1949), 4th (1937) 5th (1951) and 6th (1950). Thank you Wikipedia!

He almost certainly would have been world Champion at least once if the competition had been held during the war years.

 

Of the British riders I’ve seen, Peter Craven was head and shoulders above the rest. I was privileged to see him win his second world title at Wembley in 1962.

[fatface]

Still not getting it I see.

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.

[ImpartialOne]

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.

It's just your opinion. It's only undoubted in your mind. This is not calculable, it's personal opinion who was the greater talent. However, talent and achievement are two completely separate things. You can have both, one or neither. Carter achieved what he did largely on belief, wealth and grit. Screen achieved what he did largely on talent.

[chunky]

I understand the discussion perfectly well thankyou. What maybe harder for you to grasp is that I think your opinion is utter codswallop.

 

So, now it's a case of "I'm right and you're wrong!", eh? How mature...

 

However, of Carter and Screen, Carter was undoubtedly the greater talent of the two because he achieved far more, far quicker.

 

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

Edited November 9, 2011 by chunky

[fatface]

Simply because an individual achieves more - and perhaps in a shorter space of time - than another, it is NO INDICATION OF NATURAL TALENT.

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.

Edited November 9, 2011 by falcace

[ImpartialOne]

[chunky]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

It doesn't seem to work with you when I do it, does it?

 

Steve

 

 

 

[chunky]

 

[Grand Central]

As far as I can see both falcace and Impartial One are both heading towards a circular argument with each other and with themsleves over who does or does not constitute the greater natural talent. And how it can be measured or quantified. I just don't think it can be done like that.

 

Falcace's point is that the more NATURAL talent a rider has; the more you will be able to see it as soon as they first put their leg over a bike. His success will be immediate.

Whereas the rider who has less natural talent but dedicates himself with drive and determination won't do so well at the outset but his success will come later as that application to the task bears fruit.

 

My experience of both Joe and Kenny goes back to their very early days.

I must have seen Joe's first rides in the Yorkshire Junior Grass Club as a young teenager and for the next few years. And I certainly was at The Shay for Kenny first rides (and almost all the rest as well).

 

There is no doubt they were very different riders and very different boys/men. But I don't think it's possible to make ANY differentiation between them in terms of natural talent at all.

 

It is true that Kenny was unbelievable in those first second halves at The Shay in 1978; his talent was obvious and immense. I was amazed at what I saw and I don't think anyone who saw those first rides and then his rapid progress thereafter was EVER in any doubt that he would be a superstar. It was obvious straight away.

 

Joe, of course, had tons of Grass experience and hours and hours of Speedway practice all over the country before he rode the first professional ride for Belle Vue. BUT going back to those first grass track rides as a Junior when he first started it was JUST as outstandingly obvious that he was going to be incredibly special. He was miles and miles better than any other Junior starting out.

 

Honestly you are all just arguing about nothing here.

 

Immense natural talent. Both of them.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Grand Central

[chunky]

At least we have a balanced post here...

Falcace's point is that the more NATURAL talent a rider has; the more you will be able to see it as soon as they first put their leg over a bike. His success will be immediate.

Whereas the rider who has less natural talent but dedicates himself with drive and determination won't do so well at the outset but his success will come later as that application to the task bears fruit.

 

That is the theory, but it doesn't work like that in practice (see my previous post).

 

BUT going back to those first grass track rides as a Junior when he first started it was JUST as outstandingly obvious that he was going to be incredibly special. He was miles and miles better than any other Junior starting out.

 

That is our point exactly. However, as talented as Joe was/is, he never developed that talent into the success it deserved.

 

Honestly you are all just arguing about nothing here.

 

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

 

 

 

[stratton]

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

Great listening to everyones opinions, ive learned something myself and would say is there a right or wrong no all opinions only.The only thing i would say is Carter never got to wear he stood in speedway by just hard work and[ grit ]which is associated with kenny.Wear that places kenny in your pecking order up to the individual,i thought if anything he found riding easy.By the way i liked his speedway style which to me was a old 60s 70s riders style.My dad said this once,and looking back what a great example Ian Cartwright,and Kenny Carter.He said Ian who i liked and thought was a third heat leader at best learned the ropes at 2nd halves the shay and Crewe progressed to be a international a commonwealth finalist, 2 british finals by real hard work and dedication think he averaged over 9 once.Wheres Kenny blasted straight in bang a international within 3 years. Cartwright[again i admire for what got from his hard graft and Carter who found riding fast quite easy.

[stratton]

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

Lee used his frame and weight to great advantage what a talent also i liked P.C and i would say it was a close thing between them.Lee i remember aged 17 i think scored ten points in the silver plume at the abbey.17 YEAR olds going straight in and beating the likes of Mauger and Olsen in 76 who then were mega forces in the sport.P.C I didnt see him loads at hyde rd at his peak a few league meetings and b.l.r.c and i no know mike wouldnt live with him there. But MIKE at his best i would fancy mike to win more times at other tracks.Very close but lee the better rider and TALENT for me and dont forget mike won the longtrack something peter didnt do.

[fatface]

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".

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.

[ImpartialOne]

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.

Sorry, I've had another go on the ready reckoner and it's come out this time at 16.46 x more talented.

 

Also, I've just spoken to Joe, he's been to the doctors and apparently the talent has spread from his little finger and is now all up one arm.

[stratton]

Sorry, I've had another go on the ready reckoner and it's come out this time at 16.46 x more talented.

 

Also, I've just spoken to Joe, he's been to the doctors and apparently the talent has spread from his little finger and is now all up one arm.

I thought there was an air of opology from Falcace fair play he didnt need to all his points valid and made in good faith.Myself and Falcace will have to admit defeat but its been fun all the same.

[ImpartialOne]

I thought there was an air of opology from Falcace fair play he didnt need to all his points valid and made in good faith.Myself and Falcace will have to admit defeat but its been fun all the same.

Totally agree on all points, especially the bit about fun, which we should never stray too far from, and the defeat bit.

[stratton]

Totally agree on all points, especially the bit about fun, which we should never stray too far from, and the defeat bit.

Yep it has been fun,cant win them all i suppose.