Grand Central Posted November 29, 2011 Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 But i went to at least one British semi Final at Plough Lane and i don't think the attendance featured in the top 5 meetings at Wimbledon that year,so what does that tell you? Would that the be the last one held in 1973 at Plough Lane, the one before in 1967, or perhaps 1963? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Indeed, they are not half full of hopeless Eastern Europeans on uncompetitive machinery like the old World Final's were A feeble point.. If you really can't manage a more robust criticism of the World Final system than this (which over a thirty year period from 1964 to 1994 doesn't even stack up..) then I seriously suggest you are bordering on the bankrupt..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 A feeble point.. If you really can't manage a more robust criticism of the World Final system than this (which over a thirty year period from 1964 to 1994 doesn't even stack up..) then I seriously suggest you are bordering on the bankrupt..! from 74-90 though its a pretty valid observation (even though half full is an exageration, a third full is probably more accurate) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 1973 was the one i was thinking of.Might have been to the '67 one...But i would say the Sping Classic,Will's Internationale,Div 2 Riders Championship and NZ v Australia along with The Laurels(possibly) that year would be better gates.maybe a Wimbledon v Hackney or some other team meeting as top 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 IMHO, getting 12 meetings, all with a top quality line up and which all contribute towards who becomes world champion This would be the same SGP in which riders don't want to ride and the organisers are having to scrape the barrel to get a full field? Has there ever been a less competitive rider in a World Final than Starostin in 82 (perhaps Kroeze in 87)? I believe Kroeze was a wildcard because the Netherlands didn't have a qualified rider in the 1987 Final. He was also years past his best by then, and hadn't actually been a bad rider in his prime. And even with this system , they were given more spaces in the semi-finals (14 out of 32 spots) than they deserved on merit - had that not been the case I think you’d have seen at most 1 a year on average. The Continental section actually had far more riders to start with than the Intercontinental section, so if more Brits, Yanks and Scandinavians got the opportunity to ride in the competition (as opposed to being eliminated in their national rounds), then it may have been even tougher for Continental riders to go through. However, the lopsided nature of the qualifying system doesn't mean the entire system was bad, or wasn't something that couldn't have been fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 However, the lopsided nature of the qualifying system doesn't mean the entire system was bad, or wasn't something that couldn't have been fixed. Agree 100%. The fact that the qualifying system for the GPs is not perfect is not a flaw with the GP concept per se, just as the qualifying system used for the old WC is not an argument against the one-off finals as a concept. (The fact is that there is probably no such thing as a "perfect" qualifying system for either). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 1973 was the one i was thinking of.Might have been to the '67 one...But i would say the Sping Classic,Will's Internationale,Div 2 Riders Championship and NZ v Australia along with The Laurels(possibly) that year would be better gates.maybe a Wimbledon v Hackney or some other team meeting as top 5 Which, I think, just goes to show how much things have changed in the last forty years or so. I don't think there is one of those individual classics of that bygone age that could be run today with anything approaching the prestige and stature that they enjoyed back then. None of them would have got the valuable sponsorship that they had then. Few of those meetings would even break even today, would they? Times have just moved on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 They are exactly like qualifiers, steps along the way to the ultimate title - they are certainly NOT in any way comparable with World Finals..! In your opinion maybe but read your own posts and you might discover just a hint of bias :-) In my opinion it just means it takes far more good races to become World Champion, machinery problems and track knowledge are much less likely to provide a World Champion who is not the best rider in the World that year. They aren't qualifying for anything and every single race counts directly toward their eventual finishing position which is nothing like qualifiers. Something that was clearly not the case under the old system. As for the corruption it is less likely to be effective with the increased number of races. Hancock looked back just after making a mistake, no idea what went through his mind and nor do you. However I have been told by a one day World finalist about his being asked to do a favour for another rider and there are several cases written about in autobiographies so it's your guesswork based on very little against documented accounts by those who were there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Which, I think, just goes to show how much things have changed in the last forty years or so. I don't think there is one of those individual classics of that bygone age that could be run today with anything approaching the prestige and stature that they enjoyed back then. None of them would have got the valuable sponsorship that they had then. Few of those meetings would even break even today, would they? Times have just moved on. I agree those meetings now would run at a loss, without proper sponsorship.Also shows how things have changed,when i first started going you might say have thirty home meetings a year with maybe only two individual meetings amongst them.It was like a treat and a nice change to see them because then the league structure was so strong and you only really see individual meetings if you travelled.I did see meetings like The Manpower, Golden Hammer,Pride of the East,Spring Classic at other tracks which then was a nice change from league racing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted November 30, 2011 Report Share Posted November 30, 2011 Which, I think, just goes to show how much things have changed in the last forty years or so. I don't think there is one of those individual classics of that bygone age that could be run today with anything approaching the prestige and stature that they enjoyed back then. None of them would have got the valuable sponsorship that they had then. Few of those meetings would even break even today, would they? Times have just moved on. Agree with you 100%.Times have moved on and like i say,imo the GPs are an improvement on the old system.Although i do think that back in the 70s and 80s there was more strength in depth which makes it harder for new riders to break into the GPs.Think Michanek in one of the Backtrack mags mentioned just how many more riders there were in Sweden back in his day than there are now.Same must go for Britain and a lot of countries. So many riders are riding in so many leagues they must be taking the places that would have gone to home grown riders in other decades. And i have to say Humphrey that good meetings in Germany and also Denmark are few and far between,apart from the Güstrow track which does serve up regular quality racing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 As for the corruption it is less likely to be effective with the increased number of races. I think people are missing the point on the corruption issue. Given what we know, it would seem that most of it revolved around riders 'helping' other riders to qualify in particular meetings, and it would seem largely at points in those meetings when the way the results had gone meant rider x needed a helping hand from rider y. What is to say that couldn't (or even hasn't) happened in the final round of a GP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Actually that was the overseas final. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RlFmm7zTA9Q The 82 inter-continental final saw Olsen and Gundersen allowing Petersen to finish ahead of them to earn him a run-off for the last spot. Off the top of my head, I also recall Ermolenko allowing Hanock to pass him in an Overseas final in the early 90s (though he was far less open than Penhall about it. Yes you are correct. The Americans have never hidden their willingness to help out their fellow countrymen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 The old World Final v GP debate rumbles on... So how many genuine world title contenders have been robbed of potentially taking the title through one dodgy exclusion, injury or engine failure? GPs - can't think of any apart from possibly Knudsen when the system penalized a rider for a bad meeting by eliminating them from the following meeting. World Finals - (off the top of my head) Jessup, Carter, Gundersen, Knudsen, P. Collins, Mauger. I'm sure there are more. So which system has consistently provided the best rider in the world that year as World Champion? Answers on a post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 The old World Final v GP debate rumbles on... So how many genuine world title contenders have been robbed of potentially taking the title through one dodgy exclusion, injury or engine failure? GPs - can't think of any apart from possibly Knudsen when the system penalized a rider for a bad meeting by eliminating them from the following meeting. World Finals - (off the top of my head) Jessup, Carter, Gundersen, Knudsen, P. Collins, Mauger. I'm sure there are more. So which system has consistently provided the best rider in the world that year as World Champion? Answers on a post. A different test i think, winning on a one off evening is harder than winning a series in my humble opinion.Also Olsen Mauger Briggs would of certainly won more titles if the format now was in place in there day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 A different test i think, winning on a one off evening is harder than winning a series in my humble opinion.Also Olsen Mauger Briggs would of certainly won more titles if the format now was in place in there day. I agree with your last point, which would prove the GP system provides the best World Champion. But how do you come to the conclusion that gaining the most points over one meeting is harder than gaining the most points over 11/12 meetings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 I agree with your last point, which would prove the GP system provides the best World Champion. But how do you come to the conclusion that gaining the most points over one meeting is harder than gaining the most points over 11/12 meetings? The pressure i think on a one night conclusion is a different pressure to say winning over twelve rounds.Also you could now win a world title without winning one gp reaching semi,s and finals all year.Not to say it isnt hard now of course it is,like i said a different test now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 The pressure i think on a one night conclusion is a different pressure to say winning over twelve rounds.Also you could now win a world title without winning one gp reaching semi,s and finals all year.Not to say it isnt hard now of course it is,like i said a different test now. Exactly! The incredible tension of a World Final took a special sort of competitor to come to the fore... And let's look at the FACTS... If the World Final was such a lottery how come between 1954 and 1972 (that's 19 years...) only SEVEN men triumphed on WF night. And listen to their names...: a litany of all-time greats: Moore, Fundin, Craven, Briggs, Knutsson, Mauger and Olsen... And in those 19 years those same 7 achieved between them a further 22 rostrum positions.. In other words the old WF DID prove who the best riders in the world were and being best in the world meant pitching yourself into the ultimate challenge of the one-off World Final. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Exactly! The incredible tension of a World Final took a special sort of competitor to come to the fore... And let's look at the FACTS... If the World Final was such a lottery how come between 1954 and 1972 (that's 19 years...) only SEVEN men triumphed on WF night. And listen to their names...: a litany of all-time greats: Moore, Fundin, Craven, Briggs, Knutsson, Mauger and Olsen... And in those 19 years those same 7 achieved between them a further 22 rostrum positions.. In other words the old WF DID prove who the best riders in the world were and being best in the world meant pitching yourself into the ultimate challenge of the one-off World Final. You are right over time,mostly the right riders won the big prize maybe sometimes in the wrong order.The only riders i can really think of who were really unlucky i suppose.Were Jessup[who i never thought was good anough to be world champion Knudsen maybe Carter and there are a few others.Amazing when you put all them greats together in a group see all them except the great Craven and knutsson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatDave Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 You are right over time,mostly the right riders won the big prize maybe sometimes in the wrong order.The only riders i can really think of who were really unlucky i suppose.Were Jessup[who i never thought was good anough to be world champion Knudsen maybe Carter and there are a few others.Amazing when you put all them greats together in a group see all them except the great Craven and knutsson. Don't forget Phil Crump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yes Dave sorry, i see Phil ride everyweek in his Swindon days what a rider,on his streety motor 74,75 76 was flying a pleasure to watch Phil ride. 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.