Next Issue Of Classic Speedway - Oct 2011

[iris123]

This looks like a most recent weekend update to what I had previously brought attention on wikipedia to in regard Maitland December 15 1923!

 

JACK KEEN,

ERITH, KENT

There you go Jack.In black and white.....just like i was saying.There's your evidence,whoops!where's your evidence? Wikepedia,don't you just love it

Edited October 24, 2011 by iris123

[BigFatDave]

Norbold; all your in-depth research and obfuscation still doesn't amount to a hill of beans - I ask you for the final time, where in the first post on this thread do I attack anyone?

[norbold]

You didn't attack anyone in your first post. Happy now, Dave?

 

Right, now you're happy, can you please answer the crucial question, what evidence do you have that the West Maitland meeting on 15 December was the first to be held "under the banner of speedway"?

[BigFatDave]

You didn't attack anyone in your first post. Happy now, Dave?

 

Right, now you're happy, can you please answer the crucial question, what evidence do you have that the West Maitland meeting on 15 December was the first to be held "under the banner of speedway"?

Of course I'm not happy - I've been falsely accused of attacking people from the start of the thread, and I don't think much of your apology either. So you admit that you lied about my postings in order to further your argument and deliberately introduced red herrings into the debate, have I got that right?

What gives you the right to demand that I answer your questions, after the way you've acted towards me?

Incidentally, I've seen the plaque, which was unveiled by former Australian Captain and Glasgow favourite Buck Ryan in 2003, at Maitland.

[norbold]

So, in other words, you have no evidence to support your claim that the first meeting "held under the banner of speedway" was on 15 December 1923 other than a plaque, put up in 2003, that says "it is widely accepted that..." In other words no contemporary evidence at all.

[BigFatDave]

So, in other words, you have no evidence to support your claim that the first meeting "held under the banner of speedway" was on 15 December 1923 other than a plaque, put up in 2003, that says "it is widely accepted that..." In other words no contemporary evidence at all.

So, in other words, you refuse to apologise for lying about what I wrote - do I have that right?

[norbold]

Oh, for God's sake, Dave, give it a rest.

 

You said:

 

 

I'll give you one more chance: cast your mind back to the beginning of this thread and explain to me where I attacked anybody in the first post, please.

 

If you are unable to back your statement up then not only do I suggest that the rest of your argument falls by the wayside, but also I reckon an apology is in order.

 

 

So, in other words, you refuse to apologise for lying about what I wrote - do I have that right?

 

Please point out to me where I ever said you attacked anybody in your first post. I have not once made that accusation.

 

Your snide comments only started after I asked a legitimate question which you couldn't answer, that's the point at which you started making personal attacks on me. Not in your first post. I have never said you did attack anyone in your first post. Nowhere. Not once. I can't apologise for something I didn't do. Do you understand that? Your first post consisted of a quote from Ian Hoskins with an addition of your own supporting Hoskins. It did not attack anyone, but nor did I ever say it did. It's a neat trick, Dave, to try and divert the discussion away from the real topic because you have no evidence to back up your claims, but trying to do it by accusing me of something I haven't done is not really helpful to anyone. OK?

 

Oh, by the way, I have not at any time said your first post constituted an attack on anyone. Now can you please leave the discussion to those who wish to find out the real place of that meeting on 15 December 1923 and are prepared to discuss it rationally?

[iris123]

The arguments about where was the first Speedway meeting will always be disputed. Maybe we should find out what the word speedway actually means and where did it come from. The word speedway became into being around the period of 1890 to 1910. The word meant a stadium for either cars or motorbikes and came from USA. There is a town in Indiana USA called Speedway (population 12,500) So could this mean that speedway roughly as we know it started there during this period, which is a lot earlier than anything in England or Australia.

It would seem the town got its name from the race track.According to the towns website it was "incorporated" in 1926.But the race track was from the first days called a "speedway".

From the Indy website

March 11, 1909: The Indianapolis Sun (later The Indianapolis Times) makes reference to the track as the Indianapolis motor speedway, rather than the motor parkway,

 

And the first ever race meeting was for motorcycles on a tar surface which was found to be dangerous and was soon changed to a brick surface.And a in a local paper in 1909 refers to "speedway races",although this was specifically the car meet i guess where a number of people were killed

speedway races

 

 

And here is one of the earliest films(1913) featuring motor racing.Not that much of interest i guess,apart from the fact it features Barney Oldfield,who so it say's on Wikepedia didn't brake in the corners like other drivers,but slid like motorcyclists....

The Speed Kings

 

 

And here is an interesting piece from the Indian Motorcycle website about producing racing bikes without brakes near the end of WW1

 

"Of all the inspired "wrenches" who picked up Indian's engineering reins after Oscar Hedstrom's departure, the two most remarkable were Hedstrom's long-time assistant Charles Gustafson and Charles B. Franklin, an Irish immigrant who had ridden for the "Indian Rules" team that swept the Isle of Man TT in 1911.

 

Under their leadership, Indian celebrated the War's winding down by firing a broadside that resounded throughout the entire racing world, the introduction of the first dedicated board-track factory racer ever offered for sale directly to the public.

Featuring a four-valve-per-cylinder, overhead-valve engine and a lightweight rigid frame without such "nonessentials" as brakes, fenders or throttle (the bikes were run with the carbs wide open), the Model H carried a top speed of over 120mph and a sticker-shocking price of about $375, roughly a third more than a fully equipped Chief of the era. Because not many club racers were both wealthy and brave enough to buy and race one, relatively few were built, but those few --particularly when "loaned" to professional riders by the factory -- took home trophies and track records almost everywhere they competed"

Edited October 25, 2011 by iris123

[BigFatDave]

In response to your personal attack on oldone, I wrote:

A sure sign that someone's losing an argument on here is when they attack the Poster, not the Post, Norbold.

 

You replied:

Says the man who has consistently done nothing else since this thread started!

 

Please point out to me where I ever said you attacked anybody in your first post. I have not once made that accusation.

 

 

Oh, by the way, I have not at any time said your first post constituted an attack on anyone. Now can you please leave the discussion to those who wish to find out the real place of that meeting on 15 December 1923 and are prepared to discuss it rationally?

What's this, Scotch Mist? By implying - erroneously - that I attacked people from the first post in the thread, then continually denying the fact you're doing your side of the argument no favours at all.

 

If you call having a discussion continually inserting red herrings and asking inane questions then I question your ability to take part in any reasoned debate. You seem to be obsessed with denigrating Johnnie Hoskins, a man widely credited with being the first true Speedway Promoter, rather than acknowledging the fact.

[olddon]

In response to your personal attack on oldone, I wrote:

 

 

You replied:

 

 

What's this, Scotch Mist? By implying - erroneously - that I attacked people from the first post in the thread, then continually denying the fact you're doing your side of the argument no favours at all.

 

If you call having a discussion continually inserting red herrings and asking inane questions then I question your ability to take part in any reasoned debate. You seem to be obsessed with denigrating Johnnie Hoskins, a man widely credited with being the first true Speedway Promoter, rather than acknowledging the fact.

 

BFD - why argue with the man who over the weekend "rewrote speedway history" or at least the wikipedia version!

 

JACK KEEN,

ERITH, KENT

[Grand Central]

BFD - why argue with the man who over the weekend "rewrote speedway history" or at least the wikipedia version!

 

JACK KEEN,

ERITH, KENT

 

Like many others, I'm sure, I've been watching this thread without commenting.

 

But could you just clarify for us watchers, Jack.

 

Are you really just PRETENDING to be the thickest person ever regarding wikipedia or are you really this unworldly?

 

If we are to understand anything else about your writings we really need to know becuase you just seem to be making a huge fool of yourself as it is.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Grand Central

[norbold]

You seem to be obsessed with denigrating Johnnie Hoskins,

Ah yes, so I am,that's why I have already written on this thread:

 

As it happens I have the highest regard for Johnnie Hoskins. He was the promoter at New Cross when I started going to speedway. As you can see I still regard New Cross as MY team in spite of following West Ham and Ipswich in later years. There is no doubt that Hoskins was the showman supreme of speedway and did much to promote speedway and make it popular throughout Australia, Britain and indeed the world. We do owe him an enormous debt for popularising our sport and making it what it is

and

Johnnie Hoskins was a great speedway promoter and character; a man who did a tremendous amount to popularise the sport. No-one disputes that.

An obvious attempt at denigrating the man. :blink:

[Humphrey Appleby]

It would seem the town got its name from the race track.According to the towns website it was "incorporated" in 1926. But the race track was from the first days called a "speedway".

 

Indeed. I stayed overnight in Speedway in April, and it's clear the town grew up around the race track and was named after it.

 

Indianapolis race track was originally built as a proving ground for the emerging motor industry in the area, largely because public roads at that time were so poor. It was originally located some way outside Indianapolis in open countryside, and the area only became built up later.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Humphrey Appleby

[BigFatDave]

BFD - why argue with the man who over the weekend "rewrote speedway history" or at least the wikipedia version!

 

JACK KEEN,

ERITH, KENT

It's impossible to debate with him, Jack; he's got all the fervour of a religious zealot, and anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him is either senile or misguided - just ask him.

When caught out, as he has been repeatedly on this thread, he descends to abuse and introducing red herrings to obfuscate the argument. I'm done with him, but at least we may have sold a few more copies of the mag, so it's not all bad .

[olddon]

It's impossible to debate with him, Jack; he's got all the fervour of a religious zealot, and anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him is either senile or misguided - just ask him.

When caught out, as he has been repeatedly on this thread, he descends to abuse and introducing red herrings to obfuscate the argument. I'm done with him, but at least we may have sold a few more copies of the mag, so it's not all bad .

 

That appears to be a general trend of some other posters as well. I'm being slammed by Grand Central. He's calling me names and claims not to understand my posts. I agree with you BFD - it all seems to be a waste of time. There's a call for debate by them but when you place an alternative viewpoint they just set out to make you look ridiculous. I'll wait until I have read the Ian Hoskins article in 'Classic Speedway' which, I predict, is also likely to get a hammering by "the experts."

JACK KEEN,

ERITH, KENT

[iris123]

That appears to be a general trend of some other posters as well. I'm being slammed by Grand Central. He's calling me names and claims not to understand my posts. I agree with you BFD - it all seems to be a waste of time. There's a call for debate by them but when you place an alternative viewpoint they just set out to make you look ridiculous. I'll wait until I have read the Ian Hoskins article in 'Classic Speedway' which, I predict, is also likely to get a hammering by "the experts."

JACK KEEN,

ERITH, KENT

There is a general trend that one or two on here don't seem to be contributing much to a debate You "like" a certain theory and don't seem to want to look at any evidence that goes against your opinion.

Not only has it been pointed out that the same type of event had taken place in Australia before Maitland in 1923,but i have put evidence that shows 1. Motorbike meetings had taken place years before on tracks called speedways 2.races there were called speedway races 3.Bikes were being produced without brakes for racing 4.The same riders who raced on the board tracks one day would be racing on dirt tracks another 5.Barney Oldfield who was racing on the same tracks as the motorbikes was sliding round rather than using brakes 6.We know that riders like Don Johns etc were also sliding. Now whether they got the idea from Barney Oldfield or he got the idea from them it doesn't really matter(i don't know when bikes were powerful enough to slide,but i have seen that at the IoM bikes had an easier course at first because they were not powerful enough to get up the hills..1907ish).All the elements were in place in the US that make up speedway racing.It is also recorded that a few of the US riders did go to Australia.Seem to recall one at least was there in 1922 which would fit because it seems the type of racing that took Australia by storm was happening in the US some years before.It was probably happening in Australia a few years before Maitland.Now i don't know what evidence Ian Hoskins will come out with,but it will most probably be nothing that can be substantiated by proof.Just his opinion and what his father "told" him,i would guess.I await your report when you read the mag.

Until then it would be nice to get back on topic and stop all the sidetracking

Edited October 26, 2011 by iris123

[BigFatDave]

There is a general trend that one or two on here don't seem to be contributing much to a debate You "like" a certain theory and don't seem to want to look at any evidence that goes against your opinion.

Now i don't know what evidence Ian Hoskins will come out with,but it will most probably be nothing that can be substantiated by proof.Just his opinion and what his father "told" him,i would guess.I await your report when you read the mag.

Until then it would be nice to get back on topic and stop all the sidetracking

Couldnt agree more, Iris! Just to confirm what the topic is, I posted a quotation from Ian Hoskins spruiking his article in the upcoming issue of Classic Speedway, and added my own kick-off line for the topic - see below:

 

I'm sure everyone who's been to Maitland and seen the commemorative plaque under the Grandstand would agree - this is the birthplace of Motorcycle Speedway and Johnnie Hoskins was the Godfather.

 

,... so there we have it, a message to everyone who's been to Maitland and seen the plaque; any other comments are deliberately misleading and should be seen as such. In particular, suggestions by some on here that some of the actual participants in the meeting are senile are disgraceful, and not worthy of reply.

[norbold]

It's impossible to debate with him, Jack; he's got all the fervour of a religious zealot, and anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him is either senile or misguided - just ask him.

When caught out, as he has been repeatedly on this thread, he descends to abuse and introducing red herrings to obfuscate the argument. I'm done with him, but at least we may have sold a few more copies of the mag, so it's not all bad .

 

My first contribution to this debate was that it was like a debate between Creationists and, for want of a better word, evolutionists.

 

The creationists say the Bible says God made man so it must be right. The evolutionists have painstakingly built up a picture since Darwin of just how man came about through an evolutionary trail going back millions of years. There is still no definitive answer to the final trail that led to us, but enough has been discovered and proved to show that Man did indeed evolve and was not just created by God. Creationists still do not believe this position in spite of the fact that the only "proof" they have is what it says in the bible. All evolutionary evidence is just dismissed as either fake or that the timescale is all wrong etc.

 

In speedway we have the Creationists who fervently believe that Johnnie Hoskins "invented" speedway and those who have painstakingly built up a picture of just how speedway came about through an evolutionary trail going back decades. There is still no definitive answer to the final trail that led to speedway, but enough has been discovered and proved to show that speedway did indeed evolve and was not just created by Hoskins. The Hoskinists still do not believe this position in spite of the fact that the only "proof" they have is what it says in an old letter to the Speedway Star and on a plaque. All evolutionary evidence is just dismissed for some reason which is not even as clear as the Creationists do re the evolution of man.

 

Now, here's a thing for you, Dave. You say that the meeting of 15 December 1923 was the first meeting to be held under the banner of speedway. When asked for some evidence for this you continually refer to the plaque put up at West Maitland, which, incidentally, is not quite as unequivocal as you seem to suggest as it says it is "widely accepted" that the first speedway meeting was held there. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. The fact is that until recently it was "widely accepted".

 

However, the point is that just because it says something on a plaque doesn't make it true. There is another plaque at the Camden Motordrome which is headed, "Prominent Riders who Appeared at the Motordrome, Camden S.A. from Sat Dec 28th. 1935-April 1940" There is then a list of all the riders who "appeared there". 10th down in the second column is the name Tom Farndon. So, as it appears on a plaque it MUST be true, eh, Dave?

 

How do you account for the fact then that Tom Farndon died on 30 August 1935 following a crash at New Cross and couldn't possibly have ridden at Camden between 28 December 1935 and April 1940? And yet, if it's written on a plaque it must be right? There is no need to investigate whether what is written on the plaque is actually correct. Far better to take the plaque's word for it. It saves having to do a lot of hard work in investigating the true origins of the sport.

 

I have to admit I have resorted to a bit of abuse but it is born out of sheer frustration on behalf of those who have spent years of their lives trying to piece together the origins of speedway and with those who have made no effort at all but just simply refuse to looks at the facts and say "Goddidit" or, in this case "Hoskinsdidit". I tried to make this a serious debate early on by talking about the American pioneers and the tracks that staged "speedway" before West Maitland. The only real reply I got to this from BFD was, "No-one is denying that most if not all of these riders had raced before, so why do you keep banging on about it? What we are saying is that this meeting, on 15 December 1923 at Maitland, was the first one under the banner of SPEEDWAY." I have tried asking several times what BFD means by "15 December 1923 at Maitland, was the first one under the banner of SPEEDWAY," but so far the only answer I have had is that it says so on the plaque. That is not the response of a serious historian or someone who cares about finding out the truth of the matter. Yes, I do keep banging on about the meetings held before Maitland because they show that Maitland wasn't the first.

 

I've also mentioned the report in the local paper of 17 December 1923 which, at no time, refers to the racing that took place as part of a bigger Carnival programme as speedway but calls it motor-cycle racing and even mentions the fact that there have been other similar meetings at other venues previously. So far, olddon has not commented on this, preferring instead of a contemporary account to rely on wikipedia.

 

Some of my abusive comments are born out of this complete and utter frustration with people who refuse to look at the facts as they are and stubbornly cling to their views without answering the relevant points raised by serious historians. Though I have to say, when it comes to hurling abuse, I can't help feeling that BFD is hardly more sinned against than sinning. I would still like to know what those who support the idea that Johnnie Hoskins "invented" speedway think is different about all the similar meetings that were held in Australia before 15 December 1923. And don't say because it says so on a plaque! What was the difference between the meeting on 15 December 1923 and the one, say, at Thebarton Oval on 24 January 24 1923 on a cinder track?

[olddon]

http://www.legtrailerart.com

 

LEGTRAILERS By speedway artist John Proud.

Through the medium of my painting I wish to take you back to a time when the crowds were huge, the dirt was deep and speedway riders used a style known as legtrailing.

This is my tribute to the Dirt Track Pioneers...

Strangely, dirt track racing evolved from a sport which had nothing to do with dirt. A century ago bicycle racing was all the rage in the USA. Special veldromes were erected to stage the racing. On these tracks some of the cycle races were paced by motorcycles. It wasn’t long before the motorcyclists began to stage races too.

This new sport quickly outgrew the cycle velodromes. Timber was plentiful and labour was cheap. Spurred on by former cycle racing promoters like Jack Prince, massive, banked oval tracks were built in many parts of the country. As the tracks grew in size, so did the bikes. Within a few years huge 1000cc. machines, without brakes, clutches or exhaust pipes were thundering round the near vertical wooden walls. It was spectacular – and it was dangerous. And not just to the riders.

A series of fatal accidents involving spectators led to a move away from the boardtracks. By the nineteen twenties US promoters began to favour holding their sport on the many horse racing ovals which dotted America. There riders developed a riding style which exploited the tracks’ dirt surface. Malwyn Jones is credited with being the first rider to corner using a broadside technique known as the ‘pendulum skid’. Soon a controlled slide became the accepted way to corner on all US dirt tracks.

Then, in late 1925, three American riders, Cec Brown, Sprouts Elder and Eddie Brinck decided to try their luck in Australia, where, unknown to them, exciting things had been happening…

Two years previously, a young New Zealander had strolled into a railway station in Sydney, Australia and placed the last of his cash on the ticket counter.

‘How far will this take me ?’ he asked the clerk.

‘West Maitland,’ came the reply.

The Kiwi didn’t hesitate. ‘OK’, he said. ’Gimme a ticket.’

The young man’s name was John Stark Hoskins. His friends called him Johnnie. Already Johnnie Hoskins had packed more into his thirty odd years than most people manage in a lifetime. As it happened the good people of West Maitland had a place for just such an adventurer. The Agricultural Society was looking for someone to breathe new life into the events at their Showground. Johnnie was made for the job.

At first things didn’t go too well. Johnnie tried the town band, dancing on the green, even goat racing. He needed something new – something different. Then, one Saturday night, he let the local motorcycle club loose on the trotting track. The result was chaos - but the crowds loved it. Johnnie had his new idea and a new sport was born.

Soon things got even more spectacular. ‘You gotta let us put our foot down in the bends, Johnnie.’ the riders moaned. Off came the footrests and the riders began to experiment with quicker ways of getting round the corners.

Then, into this Aussie mayhem, came three Americans who knew all about cornering motorcycles on dirt.

The new sport rapidly became the rage in Australia. Enthusiastic visitors from England were also impressed. They urged Hoskins and other Australian promoters to try their luck in Britain. So in 1928 an intrepid band of pioneers set out for Europe.

Their arrival caused a sensation. Huge crowds flocked to see this new ‘dirt track racing’ as it was called. Riders became household names overnight. Fortunes were made. Of all the dirt track stars none shone brighter than the American – Sprouts Elder. The lanky Californian was a supreme showman as well as a brilliant, spectacular rider. Everyone wanted to see him ride and he was able to collect huge fees in appearance money alone.

For two seasons Elder and his Douglas dominated the British scene. Then the novelty of the new sport began to wear off. Speedway racing needed a shot in the arm. This came in the form of league racing. The sport was saved. However the discipline of team riding did not appeal to the devil-may-care Elder. To the dismay of his fans Sprouts packed his bags, pocketed his money and returned to the USA.

Back home Elder ran into trouble. Poor financial speculation cost him his fortune. He became a speedcop in his native Fresno. There, he was seriously injured in a crash and became disabled. When his wife died, he took his own life. It was a sad end for a man who for two years thrilled the fans who crowded the speedways of Britain.

The early stars of British Speedway were either Australian or American, but it wasn't long before the local lads were giving these experts a run for their money. Soon the likes of Roger Frogley, Jack Parker, Frank Varey and the Langton brothers were mixing it with the best.

The locals did so well that the best of them were barred, along with their overseas colleagues, from the early league teams. To accomodate the best talent a Star Riders Championship was organised and in 1930 there were ten Englishmen in the final. By 1932 the Championship was open to all and the following year it was won by one of the greatest English riders - Tom Farndon.

Tom was a Coventry lad who started racing at his local track before moving to the wide open spaces of the Crystal Palace. There he became a true superstar. At one time he held the track recoed at every National League circuit. His ability to ride on any track was emphesized when his team moved from the 440 yard oval at Crystal Palace to the tiny 'frying pan' at New Cross which was only half the size. Tom still had the beating of allcomers.

Farndon was red hot favourite for 1935 Star Riders Championship when, the night before the final, he crashed in a meaningless second half race at New Cross. Tom was rushed to hospital where he died two days later. It was a tragedy which, up till then, had no parallel in British speedway history.

Arguably it could be said that Johnnie Hoskins saved Wembley Stadium. The arena was built for the Empire Exhibition of 1924, but by the end of the decade its owner, Sir Arthur Elvin, was struggling to make ends meet. He needed something to fill the stadium week after week. He thought the new Dirt Track League might be the answer. Wisely he asked Johnnie to assemble a team. Using his influence with the best riders Hoskins got together a squad which was almost invincible. Crowds of 80,000 became the norm. Wembley was saved.

However Hoskins and Elvin fell out over Johnnie's desire to take a team to Australia and Hoskins left Wembley to take over the promotion at West Ham. The big Custom House track in London's East End was made for Johnnie. The crowds loved his stunts and celebrity guests. Hoskins built his team around his star man Bluey Wilkinson.

Wilkinson was no overnight sensation when he first arrived from Australia. But, by the mid 'Thirties he was up among the best. He should have won the first World Championship in 1936, but the scoring system went against him. Two years later he made no mistake, beating his great friend Jack Milne (USA) by just one point. Then he quit. His left knee could take no more.

In 1940 Bluey was back home in Australia awaiting call up to the RAAF. He didn't get the chance to serve. On the way back from a cinema trip with his wife Muriel he was killed in a road accident.

At the end of World War Two Johnnie Hoskins was quick to reopen his tracks at West Ham and Newcastle. It was at the latter that I saw my first Speedway meeting.

My dad, a lifelong motorcycle fan, took me to see a match between Johnnie’s Diamonds and Birmingham. I remember it still. The weather was awful. Maybe the meeting should have been called off. But Brough Park was full and no one seemed keen to disappoint those sport starved fans. The big shot, foot forward riders didn’t shine that night. Instead the star of the evening was an Aussie named Syd Littlewood. Syd was a legtrailer – and I had my first hero.

Every succeeding Monday night I watched for legtrailers. There were quite a number of riders who still practised the technique and, thanks to Johnnie Hoskins shrewd promotion, I got to see some of the pioneers of the sport. Among the favourites I cheered on were Oliver Hart, Bert Spencer, Ted Bravery, Max Grosskreutz and George Newton – to name but a few.

It was all a long time ago. I still go to Speedway meetings. I enjoy the sounds and the smells. And I marvel at the brave young men who earn a living by making motorcycles go sideways. But old men like to look back. Was it really better when the engines roared unsilenced, the track was deep with cinders and the riders cornered their machines by trailing their left legs out behind?

Posted on site by

JACK KEEN,

ERITH, KENT

Edited October 28, 2011 by olddon

[Nigel]

Dear David as you so kindly pointed out my short comings in the use of english can I return the compliment? for it seems you cannot distinguish the difference between a red herring and a metaphor, please dont take up fishing, your incorrect accusations of the same will seriously deplete stocks. (Ps dont forget to check my spelling)

 

For the delectation of all

 

R. M. Sammy Samuels one time editor of 'Motor cycling' and 'Speedway News' was also manager of an Indian motorcycle agency in London, this gave him the opportunity to go to the USA in 1911 where he witnessed 'Dirt Track Racing'. Years later he commented that Johnnie Hoskins had only reinvented an old idea. (From Motor cyling) Sammy was a good friend of Hoskins.

 

When the sport came to England 5yrs after Maitland it was called 'Dirt Track racing' as it was in OZ

The advert for the first High Beech Meeting (Published in many later books) clearly states "Dirt Track Racing as seen in the USA and Australia".

 

The "Banner at West Maitland" was "Electric light sports carnival" the word Speedway never used.

 

Flat earthers, please consider these are (a)Facts (b)Opinion ( c) hearsay (e)something from a riders fading memory (d)I dont understand cos I am dim as a 20 watt bulb.

 

Plaques. There is a castle not far from me and halfway up the wall is a plaque and it reads , "The Duke of Denbigh was born here, well I do not believe for 1 minute the Duke of Denbigh was born half way up a wall

 

Plaque indeed

 

I am suprised that people believe that a race around an (800yd?) grass covered trotting track was not only a speedway meeting but the first. God knows what the New Zealanders must think as they had been doing the same years before Maitland 1923, their champion Percy Coleman went to the USA in 1919 to Race on the "DIRT TRACKS". I supposed the Darwin doubters will say Hoskins invented grass track racing in NZ

 

I only hope I dont come up before a jury containing some of the wind up merchants on here, (Innocent I am) they would have me banged to rights. As their ability to discern facts is apparently limited.

 

Grammer and spelling not checked

Edited October 27, 2011 by Nigel