stratton Posted October 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Both systems are ok by me Im for that Grachan be great wouldnt it, i do see Parsloes point thou.I see his opinion and i respect that and he has made good points.Does it matter whoes right or wrong dosent to me but there does appear to be a ganging up culture on this forum.Maybe i am wrong on that matter to if so i opologise.Parsloes odviously loves the old system, as do i ive excepted that its gps all the way now and those days are gone for ever.I do think there could be changes made dont no what i personally sometimes get bored with gps dont want us to exhaust the gp series.I never will be blinkered in to thinking everything is rosy because it isnt.Are british leagues are struggling quality and financially wise and at the moment the gps are covering over the cracks but for how long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 there does appear to be a ganging up culture on this forum.Maybe i am wrong on that matter to if so i opologise You are, and I accept. Parsloes does himself no favours when he clearly avoids the challenging side of the argument and instead of answering one simple straight question to back up the point he keeps banging on about, he swerves it and tries to divert attention back to the point that he won't back up! If he was right I'd be the first to admit it, but to be proved right you need to show evidence of why you are right if challenged. He couldn't do this so his argument falls to pieces. I think we should leave him in his time warp, enjoy the present and embrace the excitement of the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted October 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 You are, and I accept. Parsloes does himself no favours when he clearly avoids the challenging side of the argument and instead of answering one simple straight question to back up the point he keeps banging on about, he swerves it and tries to divert attention back to the point that he won't back up! If he was right I'd be the first to admit it, but to be proved right you need to show evidence of why you are right if challenged. He couldn't do this so his argument falls to pieces. I think we should leave him in his time warp, enjoy the present and embrace the excitement of the future. I think there are people, on this forum who are passionate about speedway who want only the best for the sport which is great.Hope your rite impartial one the future is good for the sport.There is hope, remember about 3 years ago went and see swindon v belle vue with a mate and see Leigh adams beat Jason Crump 2.1.Jason got Leigh from the back in there third race.Came home thinking how privalaliged i was to have seen 2 great riders in terrific battles and the sport has a lot going for it.Still enjoy going now , i no i do it but i dont want to keep harping about the good old days.There gone now and hopefully the sport will prosper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 I loved the old individual finals, as well as the cut-throat qualifying meetings, but don’t think you can deny that the system achieves the aim of the Worlds Best rider winning in a given year, and having a field which contains at least the top 12 riders in the world in the field. Parsloes – I’ve responded to some of your arguments, have tried to give rational arguments, would be interested in your response. Sooner rather than later I hope... Not doing the sport a whole lotta good to keep have WCs in their late '30s/early 40s!! So Mauger winning in 79 was bad for the sport? Fundin and Nielsen being strong candidates for the WC into their 30s was bad for speedway? How exactly is it bad? Spot on! Darcy and Chris remind me of my all-time hero Peter Collins - and from my perspective the praise cannot get higher than that. PC was a World Finalist as a teenager (I think he was still only 19 in 1973...) and of course so was Michael Lee. Then there was a path for the young and hugely talented to get to a World Championship final Personally I believe Ward when he was World U-21 Champ should've entered the GPs but he opted not to... and like Collins and Lee, Darcy would have been a world finalist as a teenager..except he turned down the opportunity. If Lee or Collins had turned down their opportunity, they wouldn't have been world finalists either. Don't seriously tell me that you don't think Darcy would've qualified under such a set up for the mythical 2011 World Final..!! Given that he couldn't qualify for the GP challenge (i.e. final 16) even without the presence of the top dozen riders in the world, I don't think he would have done. That's not saying he's not one of the top 16 riders in the world (I belive he clearly is), but one of the flaws with the old WC system is that many of the world's best missed out on the final. - and it's also an absolute mathematical FACT that it's far easier to stay in the GPs once in than it is to qualify.. 8 out of 15 guaranteed; though in reality another two or sometimes three more of less guaranteed through the seeded route. Come 9th. or 10th..? Oh give 'em another chance... Be British, yes well you're needed... So it is without question more difficult to break in. This isn't a mathematical "fact" at all. Just because the riders have to finish in the top 8 (or even 11) out of 15 to stay in, doesn't make it easier than finishing in the top 3 out of 80 qualifiers. If that was a "mathematical fact", then it would also be a "fact" that is it is easier for riders to qualify via the qualifiers(finish top 3 out of 80,) than it is to finish on the rostrum of the GP itself (finish top 3 out of only 15). Or from a different sport, easier to get promotion from the Championship to Premierleague (finish top 3 out of 24) than it is for a premier league to qualify for the Champions league (top 4 out of 20). None of those are “facts.” But there were teenagers who made the World Final and were very serious contenders - three of the greatest riders of all time did so: Ronnie Moore, Peter Collins and Michael Lee. Lee and Moore certainly, but I believe they were the exception rather than the rule. Peter Collins made one World Final as a teenager, didn’t finish on the rostrum in any of the qualifiers, and finished 12th in the World Final. Was he therefore more of a contender as a youngster than Emil is in the GPs, or than Darcy would have been if he had accepted his place? In the 80s I believe there was one rider (Knudsen) who made a rostrum as a teenager – so the WC was hardly dominated by teens at anystage. Yes the Poles & Russians back then didn't ride in the British or other western Europe leagues but that surely is no reason to have prohibited them. And you misrepresent how well they did. So let's not be having it made out that they were all totally useless!! In the 60s and early 70s the continental riders deserved their places, at least on Eastern soil. But look at the 1980s. Riders via continental qualifying took 50 out of 160 slots(31%), yet achieved only 1 rostrum finish (3%) and one World Champion (10%). Below is how they did year on year. Continental Qualifiers Year R Pts PPR Ave 80 25 15 0.6 3.0 81 26 23 0.9 4.4 82 25 22 0.9 4.4 83 25 28 1.1 5.6 84 23 15 0.7 3.3 85 25 14 0.6 2.8 86 25 24 1.0 4.8 87 49 35 0.7 3.6 88 25 22 0.9 4.4 89 25 20 0.8 4.0 Total 273 218 0.8 4.0 Inter-continental Qualifiers Year R Pts PPR Ave 80 55 105 1.9 9.5 81 54 96 1.8 8.9 82 55 98 1.8 8.9 83 55 92 1.7 8.4 84 57 105 1.8 9.2 85 55 106 1.9 9.6 86 55 96 1.7 8.7 87 111 205 1.8 9.2 88 55 98 1.8 8.9 89 55 100 1.8 9.1 Total 607 1101 1.8 9.1 I would suggest this proves it was a “fact” that they benefited from an easier qualifying route. Do you believe (and this is a matter of opinion) that Mauger wouldn’t have qualified for 1980 ahead of Petr Ondrasik, or Gundersen ahead of Starostin in 82, or Carter ahead of Adjoran in 85, if the qualifying routes were the same. I believe they would have done, I also believe the final would have been better for the inclusion of these riders who had a genuine chance of winning, rather than riders who had a genuine chance of scoring a couple of points. Even when the qualifying routes was made fairer in the early 90s, you still had genuine title contenders (e.g. Nielsen in 92) missing out because of one poor meeting, an injury at the wrong time etc. My opinion is that this de-valued rather than enhanced the final. This is where I believe the permanent wildcard helps under the current setup, and I believe the system of 3 qualifying routes (GP performance, GP qualifying and wildcards) is the system best designed to ensure the GP contains the worlds best riders. I won’t claim that the GP is perfect, but I don’t think any system is. Yes, the drama and excitement of the one-off World Final is something missed, but in return you get a system which truly finds the best rider in the world, the standard of racing is generally higher (look back at some of the old World Final’s such as Norden 83 or Gothenburg 84 and see how processional the racing was) and due to the point system every rider has something to race for in almost every race of every meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 <unnecessary long quote of above post removed> I appreciate the huge detail of your response and - in contrast to so many other contributors to this particular thread - that you put a point based on facts, so of course I'll respond. My point is that in the past (sorry others for mentioning the 'P' word! ), they'd be no issue of a young gun like Darcy refusing to take part in the World Championship. He would of course take part from its earliest stages or from whenever he was required to and would stand and fall on his ability. So like Moore, Lee, Collins he might make a WF as a teenager ; like them fail to win it (yes, I got it wrong about Mirac but it was long before even my time!!); but be back for more. And all three of them were indeed world champs in their extremely early 20s. The point is that Ward (and some others before him in this very different GP ear) are choosing to say no to even being in the championship... Now I can't explain why they feel this way and choose to do this; but I can as a fan (as that's ALL I am) express regret at this; and wonder, as a personal opinion, if the fact that they do is good for the sport's premier competition... No, of course Ove and Ivan's world titles in their 30s wasn't bad for the sport but both were fighting off the best youngsters to win those crowns not just those of their 'generation' weren’t they! The only thing I'd disagree with you is about the maths of how much easier it is to STAY in the GP system then it is to qualify. Surely it IS the case that once in that 15 you only need to beat (a maximum of) seven other riders to stay in (and we all know finish 9th. and 10th and you’re highly likely to get that 'wild card' too..)- whereas for others it’s a whole qualifying process of 16 riders per meeting, what three or four of those and then top three or four in the final one. Come on, I'm no mathematician but I can clearly see in which pool the maths favour you!! Oh and the point (and stats!) about the poor quality of the 'Continental' (sic) qualifiers in the latter years...? Well sure, there were no Plechanovs or Plechs; but what are you suggesting...: that a country of HUGE significance like Poland should be de-barred from having competitors in the World Championship just because they are (or were..) in a lull..? Yes, the masses will now shout. But hold on... Look at without question the two biggest sporting events in the world now (and in history), the Olympics and the Football World Cup: they have competitors in them with no chance (or very little chance..) of winning but are there because it's a world-wide competition assembled on a national basis. Yes, why should a Bangladeshi sprinter keep out a USA college athlete from the competition with a faster time? Or New Zealand play in the FIFA World Cup with the Czechs not there..? Because it's a championship with restrictions on numbers of competitors from one country or continent; er, because it's a WORLD championship! No, that's NOT fair but ALL proper WCs work that way. And yes, let's take that argument about a 'pure' championship to its limit and let's be clear no Brit, no Chris Harris or anyone else would be representing GB in next year's (or last year's!!) SGP..! Pragmitism, commercial considerations and the global perspective means you configure a WC in the way you do.. That was the case then and sure as hell is now too!! The difference is the equality and opportunity in qualification within those perameters and that's where I think we've gone wrong now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 <unnecessary quote of previous post removed> Yes, its a shame Darcy won't take part. But that's the fault of the Polish league surely, not the GPs. If the British League had put a restriction on the number of World Finalists per team, its quite likely Peter Collins wouldn't have entered until he thought he had a genuine chance of winning - after al, league seedway was always the "bread and butter" of a riders earnings. Emil finished on the rostrum in 2009 as a 19 year old. Hampel is still in his 20s and has finished on the rostrum the last two years, so its hardly just the golden oldies fighting it out? Its also a cyclical thing - at the moment, you happen to have a core of riders who are the best in the world and hapen to be in their 30s. In 2 or 3 years I expect you'll see younger riders such as Holder,Emil, Ward and Hampel dominating the fight wfor the title. My point about continental qualifying was in reponse to one of your arguments against GPs, namely that qualifying is not a "level playing field." Yet, you are now justifying some riders getting an easier qualifying route unde rthe old system. So, should all riders have an equal qualifying route or not, it seems you are saying its wrong that the GP doesn't, but it was right that the old system didn't? FWIW, I agree that the continental riders desrvced some represenation (though not as much as they got), just as I would defend the inclusion of a Brit Wildcar on the GP system. Yes, the Fooball world Cup includes dome teams which have no chance of winning. But when was the last time that a team with a genuine chance of winning didn't qualify? France in 1986? Compare that with the one-off Speedway Champs, where you were missing a genuine contender from the final practically every year! Regarding the maths. So, you believe then that it was a mathematical fact that it was easier to qualify from the inter-contiental final (top 11/16) than from the continetnal final (top 5 out of 16)? But you just acknowledged that the continental riders has an easier qualifying route? You seem to be contradicting yourself there. It is simply not correct to say that it is a mathematical fact that it is easier to stay in the GP than to qualify. (You could say, that for a randomly selected rider currently in the GP, the statistical probability of them qualiying for the next GP is higher than that of a randonly selected rider from outside the GP. But to argue that one route is mathematically easier than the other would require a highly sophisticated algorithm which took into account all sorts of variables). End of the day, its pretty much like the difference between the Premiership and the FA Cup. The FA cup (like the one off WC final)always has the possibility of a romantic, surpirse winner, and the final is always an occasion, even if the game itself is often anti-climatic and missing the best teams. The premiership winner (like the GP)may be decided before the final weekend, but there is still excitement elsewhere in terms of who makes the european slots (rostrum) and avoids relegation (makes the top8). The winner of the Premiership is almost always the best team, and no-oine would for example that Man Utd didn't deserve to win the league, just because they didn't have to beat say Aldershot in doing so (and no one would argue that it was unfair that Aldershot didn't take part in the Premiership because they hadn't won promotion the previous year). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 It is simply not correct to say that it is a mathematical fact that it is easier to stay in the GP than to qualify. (You could say, that for a randomly selected rider currently in the GP, the statistical probability of them qualiying for the next GP is higher than that of a randonly selected rider from outside the GP. But to argue that one route is mathematically easier than the other would require a highly sophisticated algorithm which took into account all sorts of variables). Once IN the GP pool of 15 riders, recent history shows us that finishing in the top ten (this year, eleven) guarantees you staying in it... In order to qualify (as opposed to being selected to join) one has to fight through a number of rounds for three places... How is that not proof (without algorithms or binary or Pythagoras.. ) that "it's simply not correct that it's a mathematical fact"..? Looks very much like the odds are on the side of those in it to me!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Parsloes - so you do believe under the old system it was a "mathematcal fact" that it was easier for those qualifying via the inter-continental final to get to the final, than those qualifying via the inter-contintal final, because they had more places available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 You'd need to see how many qualifying rounds and in each round how many places were up for grabs to do the sums on that one accurately... But that's hardly the issue is it..? Qualifying to be in a final 16 (as in the old WF) certainly involved a lot of hurdles (some easier than others) on the way... Having only to be in the top 11 of 15 to STAY In the GP series is (whatever one thinks) patently easier than that..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 ok, arguing that the continental final might have been a harder qualifying route than the inter-continental??? I don't think I can try rational discssion any further... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 ok, arguing that the continental final might have been a harder qualifying route than the inter-continental??? I don't think I can try rational discssion any further... Well you'd be more rational if you quoted me correctly. I never said anything of the kind...! Seems to me it's you failing to respond to the actual points being discussed...! The point I made was that IF one really could be bothered to explore which route was mathematically easier to the old WF (and frankly WHY would we bother to do that...) you'd need to look at how many rounds each route involved (eg British Q/Rs on GB tracks versus the ones Danes for example took...) and the number of places (could be 8, 6, 4 or whatever) available in each round... Parsloes - so you do believe under the old system it was a "mathematcal fact" that it was easier for those qualifying via the inter-continental final to get to the final, than those qualifying via the inter-contintal final, because they had more places available? btw, just to point out your posting here is completely nonsensical...! Heaven knows what you were actually trying to say!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 - and it's also an absolute mathematical FACT that it's far easier to stay in the GPs once in than it is to qualify.. Parsloes - this is the point I was replaying to. Note, you don't say its mathematically easier, you say its a mathematic fact that it it easier. Using this logic, it would be a mathematical "fact" that it was easier to qualify via inter-contiental final (11 places out of 16) than the continental final (top 5 out of 16). Clearly this is nonsense, as I demonstrated via comparing the performance in the finals of riders qualifying via various routes. To illustrate this one final time. If I personally entered the 100m in the Olympics, and had to finish in the top 11 out of 15 to make the final, I would have no chance of doing so. If I had contest a 100m event against 80 people who had to be aged over 60 and over 150kg, I would have a pretty decent chance. My point is that you cannot look at the number of qualifying spots alone and state that because one option is easier than the other, without taking into account the whole rangve of other variables which contribute to how easy/difficult that task is. Surely that is self evident!!?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatDave Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) If I had contest a 100m event against 80 people who had to be aged over 60 and over 150kg, I would have a pretty decent chance. You'd hafta make it out of the Changing Sheds alive first, you skinny young whipper-snapper - never underestimate the twin facets of old age & treachery amongst your elders and betters. Edited November 3, 2011 by BigFatDave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 IS there a better or more skilful rider around than the new World Champion? A straight answer to to a direct question : NO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 A straight answer to to a direct question : NO THAT'S what I like ... a quick response! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Know Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 getting back to original question, no dont think he will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted February 12, 2012 Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 No , neither do I. There are many brilliant riders that never go on to be World Champion. Looking at a video of Barry Briggs at the 83 WF, he spoke of what was needed to be a world champion. He said there were 16 riders here today, 12 of which are brilliant world-class riders, all capable of winning 5 races straight off. But when the pressure and importance of the occasion take effect, then probably, that 12 is reduced to 3 or 4. Being a brilliant rider is one thing but to be a World Champion: You need self belief in your ability and all those around you, You need to cut yourself off and channel everything you have to the cause, You need to totally believe you’re the best, even when going off a unfancied gate. He said there are not many riders who can do that. Then he went on to name those he thought were in that category. No one doubts Darcy’s a brilliant rider, spectacular and all that, but there seem to be someone inside making, to me questionable decisions. The World Championship should be the pinnacle goal of everybody and when the opportunity is offered to partake it should be grabbed with both hands. Had Darcy held that opinion he would be competing this year, instead of going down the ‘ maybe next year’ route. I believe Darcy puts too much importance into riding with Chris Holder. I know they’re mates, but he should be competing against him rather then holding his hand. I wonder what affect that had on his decision to miss the SGP and ride for his mate’s team in Poland. All these things add up. For me he hasn’t got the total mindset to be world-champion yet. I know he’s only 19, with many years ahead of him. Michael Lee had competed in 3 World Finals at that age, but Darcy still hasn’t shown he’s totally committed to the cause yet. I hope I’m wrong about him, but time will tell….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted February 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 No , neither do I. There are many brilliant riders that never go on to be World Champion. Looking at a video of Barry Briggs at the 83 WF, he spoke of what was needed to be a world champion. He said there were 16 riders here today, 12 of which are brilliant world-class riders, all capable of winning 5 races straight off. But when the pressure and importance of the occasion take effect, then probably, that 12 is reduced to 3 or 4. Being a brilliant rider is one thing but to be a World Champion: You need self belief in your ability and all those around you, You need to cut yourself off and channel everything you have to the cause, You need to totally believe you’re the best, even when going off a unfancied gate. He said there are not many riders who can do that. Then he went on to name those he thought were in that category. No one doubts Darcy’s a brilliant rider, spectacular and all that, but there seem to be someone inside making, to me questionable decisions. The World Championship should be the pinnacle goal of everybody and when the opportunity is offered to partake it should be grabbed with both hands. Had Darcy held that opinion he would be competing this year, instead of going down the ‘ maybe next year’ route. I believe Darcy puts too much importance into riding with Chris Holder. I know they’re mates, but he should be competing against him rather then holding his hand. I wonder what affect that had on his decision to miss the SGP and ride for his mate’s team in Poland. All these things add up. For me he hasn’t got the total mindset to be world-champion yet. I know he’s only 19, with many years ahead of him. Michael Lee had competed in 3 World Finals at that age, but Darcy still hasn’t shown he’s totally committed to the cause yet. I hope I’m wrong about him, but time will tell….. Good post GR theyre is also something that nags away at me i no he is good anough but does he?.This year touch wood all his problems will be out of the way and he can focus on his goal.I believe the series should of made sure he participated this year he is a drawcard but does Darcy worry that much about the W.C?Michael Lee by doing what he did by the age of 19 shows me the series closed shop needs to be changed young riders the future need to be pushed on as soon as possible JANOWSKI is a prime example should be in it full time now not having to wait as he has to.Briggoes points are really good and for me the 3 riders who should of won it were Sigalos Sanders( who at the time of his death was outstanding up there with Nielsen and Gundersen)and recently Leigh Adams who for me was a better rider than Pedersen but as Briggo said you have to have the complete package to be W.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Darcy has proved again and again he has what it takes on the big stage. He's a victim of Poland's GP rider rule this season, he needs to race in Poland to be able to race in the GP circus. He hasn't cemented himself as a number 1 in Poland but when he does no doubt he'll give the GPs a good go. He has potentially got 20 years ahead of him, he can afford to do it his way 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Know Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Darcy has proved again and again he has what it takes on the big stage. He's a victim of Poland's GP rider rule this season, he needs to race in Poland to be able to race in the GP circus. He hasn't cemented himself as a number 1 in Poland but when he does no doubt he'll give the GPs a good go. He has potentially got 20 years ahead of him, he can afford to do it his way think ya right but his big head will be his down fall and partying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.