orion Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Well yes, but out of the averages-toppers only three (Autrey, Simmons & Louis) never won the WF and all three of them made the rostrum... Sticking with averages what's been the position then with the average-toppers since the inception of the SGP in '96 then? Please keep up.There is literally no way the old WF was a lottery. We've already gone over this...!!! For god's sake look at the evidence before you make a comment as patently daft as this!! IF people had better gates than others then it is a lottery if you drew bad you had next to no chance of winning ...Just glad to see that the modern fan likes to see a fair world champion crown rather than a lucky one . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Never proved anythink ..the old one off final was lottery and was won on the draw most of the time ...it's reminded of a fishing match when the person who drew a bad peg had no chance of winning . By saying that Orion you are in a way putting a downer on the likes of Greats CRAVEN,WILLIAMS,OLSEN,MAUGER ,BRIGGS,FUNDIN ,MOORE ,NIELSEN ,KNUTSSON,,GUNDERSEN, COLLINS ,LEE ,PENHALL,MICHANEK.Have a opinion but that comment well no comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 By saying that Orion you are in a way putting a downer on the likes of Greats CRAVEN,WILLIAMS,OLSEN,MAUGER ,BRIGGS,FUNDIN ,MOORE ,NIELSEN ,KNUTSSON,,GUNDERSEN, COLLINS ,LEE ,PENHALL,MICHANEK.Have a opinion but that comment well no comment. Well yea as if they had been drawn another number they may have not have won ...the only true champions are the one's frm the Gp's as it always shows the true world no 1 from that year . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Well yea as if they had been drawn another number they may have not have won ...the only true champions are the one's frm the Gp's as it always shows the true world no 1 from that year . Next year in the gp.series only GOLLOB,CRUMP,HAMPEL,JONSSON,HANCOCK, have any chance of winning the world title in my opinion and three of those are not going to go on for ever which is a worry for the sport.Dont matter though if you come 11th you will probably be in it the year after?I dont understand Orion why you have a huge downer on the one off final its part of the history of the sport why knock it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Well yea as if they had been drawn another number they may have not have won ...the only true champions are the one's frm the Gp's as it always shows the true world no 1 from that year . Where do you get this nonsensical point of view from? You clearly know NOTHING about the history of the old World Final if you think it was a "lottery" and heaven only knows what you're rambling on about when you go on about the "draw"..!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Next year in the gp.series only GOLLOB,CRUMP,HAMPEL,JONSSON,HANCOCK, have any chance of winning the world title in my opinion and three of those are not going to go on for ever which is a worry for the sport.Dont matter though if you come 11th you will probably be in it the year after?I dont understand Orion why you have a huge downer on the one off final its part of the history of the sport why knock it. I have a hugh downer as it rubbish just because it was part of history means you can't say that ? ..Kerry Packers world series is a part of crickets history and that was crap as well . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 I have a hugh downer as it rubbish just because it was part of history means you can't say that ? ..Kerry Packers world series is a part of crickets history and that was crap as well . Is th gp series that good? ive seen it from both sides have you? of course the gpseries has took speedway on and i will always support it.The reason i support it is because the likes of Rickardsson Crump, Gollob, Hancock are great champions and i admire them greatly.And there will be other great champions too in the future but what you said was that the past was RUBBISH .What a slur on every rider who entered it whether they come first or last.By the way Kerry Packers series might have been crap but that opened the way for cricketers now too earn a good salary from Cricket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatDave Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 .Kerry Packers world series is a part of crickets history and that was crap as well . I can't let that pass through to the keeper, Tony, World Series Cricket drastically changed the nature of cricket, and it's influence continues to be felt today. In fact it would be easier to compare WSC with the SGP series in the way it revolutionised the sport, putting the World's best players against each other on a regular basis, and with such things as drop-in pitches - read temporary tracks -.gradually becoming the norm in Oz. Cricket under lights is another offshoot which today is commonplace; the use of helmets is universal and due in no small part to the grinding schedule today's players are far more fitter than their predecessors. Did you actually see any of the games? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) Where do you get this nonsensical point of view from? You clearly know NOTHING about the history of the old World Final if you think it was a "lottery" and heaven only knows what you're rambling on about when you go on about the "draw"..!! Of course the draw played a big part. I can't recall the exact format but some riders would get two gate ones, others would draw two gate fours, etc. The draw was also pre-determined by the finishing order in the previous round which many riders used to their advantage. I'm pretty certain that 2nd place in the Inter-Continental Final gave you a better draw on paper for the World Final than winning it. I believe the gate draws are the same now but the difference is that 1) they are drawn after practice and not determined by the previous round, and 2) it changes from round to round. Edited December 3, 2011 by ImpartialOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Is th gp series that good? ive seen it from both sides have you? of course the gpseries has took speedway on and i will always support it.The reason i support it is because the likes of Rickardsson Crump, Gollob, Hancock are great champions and i admire them greatly.And there will be other great champions too in the future but what you said was that the past was RUBBISH .What a slur on every rider who entered it whether they come first or last.By the way Kerry Packers series might have been crap but that opened the way for cricketers now too earn a good salary from Cricket. Not a slur on anyone ..the format was crap not the riders .No great champions because it was mainly a lottery ...only know can someone be called a fair and true champion . Don't have a downer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Not a slur on anyone ..the format was crap not the riders .No great champions because it was mainly a lottery ...only know can someone be called a fair and true champion . Don't have a downer No great champions i cant really say you are a true supporter to say that but its your opinion and i respect it .Buy the way did you see many one off finals?I did six. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 No great champions i cant really say you are a true supporter to say that but its your opinion and i respect it .Buy the way did you see many one off finals?I did six. None, as i said i like to watch events with skill rather than an event that was decided by was number you had on your racejacket . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 None, as i said i like to watch events with skill rather than an event that was decided by was number you had on your racejacket . Well you could be a good wind up merchant,or you have no idea what you are on about probably the latter.i dont even think you watched a one off final? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Not a slur on anyone ..the format was crap not the riders .No great champions because it was mainly a lottery ...only know can someone be called a fair and true champion . I can come on here and say black is white but it doesn't make it so... You can say the old WF was a lottery but the FACTS totally and utterly refute this...! IF it was a lottery explain how 40 years of finals in the period 1950 to 1989 produced just 18 winners... a lottery would mean more like 35 plus different winners in that time, surely...?! You need to be congratulated for something, though - your postings today saying the old WF was crap and a lottery do have the disntinction of being the most utterly pathetic garbage spoken (and let's face it there's been some competition!!) in the whole history of the BSF!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 I can come on here and say black is white but it doesn't make it so... You can say the old WF was a lottery but the FACTS totally and utterly refute this...! IF it was a lottery explain how 40 years of finals in the period 1950 to 1989 produced just 18 winners... a lottery would mean more like 35 plus different winners in that time, surely...?! You need to be congratulated for something, though - your postings today saying the old WF was crap and a lottery do have the disntinction of being the most utterly pathetic garbage spoken (and let's face it there's been some competition!!) in the whole history of the BSF!! Most of those 40 finals would have had a another result if drawn in another raceorder such were the fine margins of a one off world final ..only a dummy like you could think otherwise how many winners there were over that time means nothing . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 I can come on here and say black is white but it doesn't make it so... You can say the old WF was a lottery but the FACTS totally and utterly refute this...! IF it was a lottery explain how 40 years of finals in the period 1950 to 1989 produced just 18 winners... a lottery would mean more like 35 plus different winners in that time, surely...?! You need to be congratulated for something, though - your postings today saying the old WF was crap and a lottery do have the disntinction of being the most utterly pathetic garbage spoken (and let's face it there's been some competition!!) in the whole history of the BSF!! Interesting to note that you pick your years so specifically again. Why start at 1950 when there were only 4 finals before that? Oh yes, 4 finals, 4 different winners. Why stop at 1989 for instance? It only ran another 5 years after that. Oh but hang on.. We had a different champion every year from 1988 to 1994 didn't we? So I will use that to my benefit and say that the last seven years of the competition provided seven different champions. It's called manipulating an argument. In contrast, the GP has been in existence for 17 years with just 8 different champions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Interesting to note that you pick your years so specifically again. Why start at 1950 when there were only 4 finals before that? Oh yes, 4 finals, 4 different winners. Why stop at 1989 for instance? It only ran another 5 years after that. Oh but hang on.. We had a different champion every year from 1988 to 1994 didn't we? So I will use that to my benefit and say that the last seven years of the competition provided seven different champions. It's called manipulating an argument. In contrast, the GP has been in existence for 17 years with just 8 different champions. Yes I'm fully aware of those facts but it doesn't take away from the FACT that there were that many (I'd argue few...) champions in that 40 year period. And that clearly shows that the WF format was NOT a lottery/fixed/rubbish or all the other things some on here are claiming!! It doesn't say much for those who seek to defend the current closed shop GP series we now are saddled with, that they have to make wild accusations which are either inaccurate or down-right lies about the old system! If the SGP is such a good system then let that stand or fall on its own merits rather than make attacks which are just plain daft about the previous system... Or are you going to find all those articles written in the Speedway press over the decades we had the previous system, saying that the WF was unfair because, er, someone got a different gate position or someone else or - what was the other thing? - oh yes, brown paper envelopes were exchanged before every race!! You won't find those articles btw, coz no-one thought this because actually such arguments are utter fiction! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIE-JA Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Most of those 40 finals would have had a another result if drawn in another raceorder such were the fine margins of a one off world final ..only a dummy like you could think otherwise how many winners there were over that time means nothing . Are you on drugs or something? It doesn't matter which format has been used over the years, one of the pre season favorites usually wins. There have not been many 'shock' World Champions. Zenon Kasperzak didn't win a World Final and it wan't because he had an unfavorable draw. He was a class rider, just not good enough to beat the likes of Nielsen, Gundersen etc at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Are you on drugs or something? It doesn't matter which format has been used over the years, one of the pre season favorites usually wins. There have not been many 'shock' World Champions. Zenon Kasperzak didn't win a World Final and it wan't because he had an unfavorable draw. He was a class rider, just not good enough to beat the likes of Nielsen, Gundersen etc at the time. Who said anythink about outsiders or pre season favorites winning ? no matter what the draw certain riders still can't win but there is loads of times when the champion would not have been the same but for the gate draw . In speedway meetings haveing he best gate twice rather than once can be massive and no more so in one off World Finals . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 4, 2011 Report Share Posted December 4, 2011 Who said anythink about outsiders or pre season favorites winning ? no matter what the draw certain riders still can't win but there is loads of times when the champion would not have been the same but for the gate draw . In speedway meetings haveing he best gate twice rather than once can be massive and no more so in one off World Finals . Who said anythink about outsiders or pre season favorites winning ? no matter what the draw certain riders still can't win but there is loads of times when the champion would not have been the same but for the gate draw . In speedway meetings haveing he best gate twice rather than once can be massive and no more so in one off World Finals . The best riders will win off any gate anyway,exspecially if its there night, and they are fireing and everything is going right.I dont think Mauger won 6 titles all off gate one did he and by having lucky gates.I think Orion you are on a different planet, to most of us. 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.