stratton Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I tend to think you have latched onto Parsloes and run with his ideals without giving much thought to what you post. You ask what is difficult about finishing in the top eight against the sixteen best riders in the world. Well turn it around and ask what was difficult about finishing in the top 8 - 11 of much easier qualifying rounds, which is what the latter stages of qualification to an old world final required. It's not really a matter of opinion, more a proven fact, that the old system was massively unfair denying riders the chance to even enter, wheras now anyone that wants to can enter Michael Lee, Dave Jessup, Malcolm Simmons, Gordon Kennett, Steve Bastable, Chris Morton, Tony Davey, John Davis, Les Collins, Peter Collins, Reg Wilson, Doug Wyer, Alan Grahame, Jim McMillan, John Louis, Dave Morton Take that bunch of riders and remember their 1978 form. At least 8 of those were good enough to reach the world final that year but the nature of "fairer to all" qualifying meant no matter how good only 4 could progress. Ok but then look at some of the riders who graced Wembley that year at their expense Jerzy Rembas, John Titman, Ilka Teromaa, Jan Verner, Marek Cieslak, Jiri Stancl, Petr Ondrasik I dont know what Parsloes ideals are, i myself are thinking about NOW am not thinking about the past how it worked . I am thinking about now how it could be better and fairer and when you name the riders you did it shows me the strength of talent now is nowhere near as high.Therefore you shouldnt have many hard luck stories there.8 qualify because they were the best over that year 1 place left injury or unfortunate ok i will be generous leave another spot open.That leaves 6 spots for others to go for no seeding no excuses about commercial issues.And if Bjerre, Lindgren, Lindback, Pedersen,Harris qualify year after year they deserve it not given to them on a plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Sidney - I don't pretend to be an expert. I DO however HATE unfairness. To answer your question directly. I would like the GP Series to be run in the same format as at present but with the Rider with MOST Points from five Rides being the Winner. I would have NO Semi Finals or Final. If a Rider has achieved a fifteen Point Maximum - he deserves to win the GP without having to Race off for it. Again it's down to FAIRNESS. I don't care about extra Races - again this is NOT what the Championship should be about. The BEST Rider should win and not be prevented from doing so by an engine failure, fall etc. If he has has scored the MOST Points on the night - then - self evidently, he IS the best Rider. After that it is REALLY simple. Instead of all these 'GIFTED' places - I would like to see NO, ZERO, ZILCH places awarded. I would like to see Qualifying Rounds for all Riders - no exclusions from that. If Greg Hancock failed to qualify - hard luck. He wouldn't be World Champion that year. Same for Crump, Gollob et al. The WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP should mean something - not just having, more or less, the 'same old, same old' Riders EVERY year. If someone has a bad night - and they don't qualify for the Series, again tough - BUT - THAT is Sport - THAT is Competition. The Championship should be about beating ALL IN SUNDRY to reach the ultimate goal which is WORLD CHAMPION. You did ask sidney.................................................................... And what if that fall or engine failure comes in one of his five heats, he doesn't win under your format anymore than the e/f coming in the final means he doesnt win now. Its just swings and roundabouts. What it would mean if that were a one off event is that his world title hopes are up the swanny. A GP system allows time to recover. You say here you want to see the best man win the world title and yet yesterday you were bemoaning the fact that someone of Szackiels ilk couldn't now be champion under a GP system. He was clearly not the best in the world in 73. So what is it you actually think? is it that the best man should be world champion as you post here or that a no hoper like Szackiel being world champion in 1973 over the likes of Olsen, Michanek, Mauger etc is good for the sports credibility I dont know what Parsloes ideals are, i myself are thinking about NOW am not thinking about the past how it worked . I am thinking about now how it could be better and fairer and when you name the riders you did it shows me the strength of talent now is nowhere near as high.Therefore you shouldnt have many hard luck stories there.8 qualify because they were the best over that year 1 place left injury or unfortunate ok i will be generous leave another spot open.That leaves 6 spots for others to go for no seeding no excuses about commercial issues.And if Bjerre, Lindgren, Lindback, Pedersen,Harris qualify year after year they deserve it not given to them on a plate. I certainly dont think the GP system is perfect, it clearly isn't, and I dont like riders being seeded for commercial reasons but that said which riders who have been seeded were not genuinely amongst the best 16 in the world ? Woffinden maybe, but even Harris for all the outcry is probably among the worlds top 16, just!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 And what if that fall or engine failure comes in one of his five heats, he doesn't win under your format anymore than the e/f coming in the final means he doesnt win now. Its just swings and roundabouts. What it would mean if that were a one off event is that his world title hopes are up the swanny. A GP system allows time to recover. You say here you want to see the best man win the world title and yet yesterday you were bemoaning the fact that someone of Szackiels ilk couldn't now be champion under a GP system. He was clearly not the best in the world in 73. So what is it you actually think? is it that the best man should be world champion as you post here or that a no hoper like Szackiel being world champion in 1973 over the likes of Olsen, Michanek, Mauger etc is good for the sports credibility Yo And what if that fall or engine failure comes in one of his five heats, he doesn't win under your format anymore than the e/f coming in the final means he doesnt win now. Its just swings and roundabouts. What it would mean if that were a one off event is that his world title hopes are up the swanny. A GP system allows time to recover. You say here you want to see the best man win the world title and yet yesterday you were bemoaning the fact that someone of Szackiels ilk couldn't now be champion under a GP system. He was clearly not the best in the world in 73. So what is it you actually think? is it that the best man should be world champion as you post here or that a no hoper like Szackiel being world champion in 1973 over the likes of Olsen, Michanek, Mauger etc is good for the sports credibility You have misunderstood his point and i agree with him 5 rides each over 11rounds no semi finals or finals simple.If good anough a fall or ef wont matter.Semi and finals i dont like if someone gets 15 why should he lose a final to someone who scores 7.Speedway is a simple sport if Jason Crump a ex] scores 10 pts in 11 rounds his total is 110 simple outsiders as you say will never win at this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Yo You have misunderstood his point and i agree with him 5 rides each over 11rounds no semi finals or finals simple.If good anough a fall or ef wont matter.Semi and finals i dont like if someone gets 15 why should he lose a final to someone who scores 7.Speedway is a simple sport if Jason Crump a ex] scores 10 pts in 11 rounds his total is 110 simple outsiders as you say will never win at this system. Thats a valid argument and I would not disagree with it, currently you could score 22 points and be second to someone on 15. I know its never happened to that extent but it could and it is a flaw if viewed like that but you must take the two things as separate entities. The individual GP winner is the guy who wins the final, irrespective of points, that is the reward for qualifying for and winning that race. The accumulation of points throughout the season is a separate challenge to decide the World Champion. The number of GP wins isnt the determing factor in that. Its only the same as race wins not being the determining factor in a conventional 20 heat format. Someone could have 4 wins and lose to someone with only 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Actually, I think most people are happy with a system in which the World Champion is the best rider in the World that season. Which the SGP does achieve, pretty much every time. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :unsure: You are at the cutting edge of debate aren't you!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) But Sidney the fact is that in any generation you only get two or three Michael Lees, you don’t get 9 or 10. Of the current generation, only Emil and Darcy bear comparison to Lee – and they have both been offered the chance through the much maligned permanent wildcard. Holder/Jankowski arguably the next best of the young talents – Holder qualified on merit, Jankowski I am sure will get his chance next year – and quite possibly may have done this year if it hadn’t been for the Polish 1 GP rider rule. As I’ve said previously, young riders if anything are advantaged by the system, as if they fail they have a second chance through the permanent wildcard. Also, the under 21 GP series is IMHO a great learning experience for them. Also, if Ronnie O Sullivan is the best player in the world, can you explain how he is not ranked in the top 16. Doesn’t that indicate that he is actually no longer best in the world? There are currently 3 spots up for grabs, if they got rid of the wildcard there would be 7, without getting my calculator out I make that 4 extra spots. Perhaps you could let me know where I went wrong – did I forget to carry the one? Anyway, I agree to a degree, but realistically they are always going to need to keep a couple of permanent wildcard slots up for grabs. This allows for a) entry for riders who are genuine contenders but missed out on qualifying due to injury (Emil/Nicki in 2010) allow the very top youngsters who miss out in qualifying to be given the chance in the series (Emil, Darcy, potentially Jankowski/Batchelor) c) to make sure that there is representation from each of the major speedway nations (probably a commercial necessity – and personally I have no issue with 1 spot guaranteeing a Brit or potentially a Dane/Swede a place. Most major sports have some slots “reserved” based on nationality rather than pure ability/results). So: I’d have top 8 still qualify. 2 permanet wild cards. I would say two (at least one anyway) direct out of the “qualifying” meetings (otherwise you could potentially end up with NO new faces year on year!). And then 3 from the GP Challenge, to be contested by 9-14 from the GP (15th doesn’t deserve another bite at the cherry in my view], 3-10 from the qualifiers and top 2 from the under 21 GP (to give yoof an extra chance). I also reckon the "challenge" meeting should be held over two days (to reduce the chance of one engine failure/bad decision deciding the outcome) similar to the 87 Amsterdam World Final, but with GP style semis/finals at each day to allow extra points to be added, and hence incrase the scope for a rider who had a poor day 1 to still scrape a place by bagging 24 pomts on the second day. Exactly the sort of post which makes people dismiss you as nothing more than bitter and stuck in the past –nothing constructive to add? In what year was the GP title not won on merit by the best rider in the world? To answer your question. 2000 - The World Championship was won by the most CONSISTANT Rider in the Series - certainly not the BEST. Mark Loram. As for my being bitter and stuck in the past - well I am sorry but I think my Post regarding how I would like to see the GP System work was actually VERY positive. It was also FAIR which is more than the System is today. As folk have said - the 'old' System had it's problems too, which is very true - I agree. I have outlined what I consider to be a FAIRER and BETTER System FOR THE GP SERIES and you accuse me of being stuck in the Past. I don't think so!!! As regards BITTER - mines a Pint. Edited January 17, 2012 by The White Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I'll agree with that. Speedway sells and promotes itself too cheaply. There is no glamour in its promotion or making the general public believe that they must be there. Look at what has happened in darts. A more piontless and dull sport would be hard to find but it has been promoted very well over the last few years. How many darts comps do we see on tv each year? 2 perhaps? Qualifiers and World Championship in the same season, old way, best way Edited January 17, 2012 by Trees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 How many darts comps do we see on tv each year? 2 perhaps? Qualifiers and World Championship in the same season, old way, best way Was the prize money for the final between them 200 ,000 or was that wrong? nearly collapsed who fronted the money from whom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Was the prize money for the final between them 200 ,000 or was that wrong? nearly collapsed who fronted the money from whom. The prize money in the PDC event was £1,000,000.00. £200,000.00 was the winners purse. I take it Trees is joking with 2 events a year right. Probably nearer 2 dozen with Premier League Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 The prize money in the PDC event was £1,000,000.00. £200,000.00 was the winners purse. I take it Trees is joking with 2 events a year right. Probably nearer 2 dozen with Premier League What a shock, i watch darts thats the sort of money that should be in speedway surely are product is better than theres? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 What a shock, i watch darts thats the sort of money that should be in speedway surely are product is better than theres? No Sidney, unfortunately not. Darts is nowadays a very very well marketed sport, it provides a real good evening of entertainment either live or in front of the TV sceen. It has re invented itself from its seventies guise, as have most forward thinking progressive sports. Speedway is still rooted in the fifties with its presentation, or lack of. It needs a radical overhaul but the sport doesn't posess the people with the necessary talent to do it and so plods on from 1 disastrous season to the next before it finally can carry on no more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted January 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 No Sidney, unfortunately not. Darts is nowadays a very very well marketed sport, it provides a real good evening of entertainment either live or in front of the TV sceen. It has re invented itself from its seventies guise, as have most forward thinking progressive sports. Speedway is still rooted in the fifties with its presentation, or lack of. It needs a radical overhaul but the sport doesn't posess the people with the necessary talent to do it and so plods on from 1 disastrous season to the next before it finally can carry on no more. Oldace you have knocked it on the head for me, Speedway like i said before is miles behind Snooker and darts for progression.Stuck in the dark ages . But Sidney the fact is that in any generation you only get two or three Michael Lees, you don’t get 9 or 10. Of the current generation, only Emil and Darcy bear comparison to Lee – and they have both been offered the chance through the much maligned permanent wildcard. Holder/Jankowski arguably the next best of the young talents – Holder qualified on merit, Jankowski I am sure will get his chance next year – and quite possibly may have done this year if it hadn’t been for the Polish 1 GP rider rule. As I’ve said previously, young riders if anything are advantaged by the system, as if they fail they have a second chance through the permanent wildcard. Also, the under 21 GP series is IMHO a great learning experience for them. Also, if Ronnie O Sullivan is the best player in the world, can you explain how he is not ranked in the top 16. Doesn’t that indicate that he is actually no longer best in the world? There are currently 3 spots up for grabs, if they got rid of the wildcard there would be 7, without getting my calculator out I make that 4 extra spots. Perhaps you could let me know where I went wrong – did I forget to carry the one? Anyway, I agree to a degree, but realistically they are always going to need to keep a couple of permanent wildcard slots up for grabs. This allows for a) entry for riders who are genuine contenders but missed out on qualifying due to injury (Emil/Nicki in 2010) allow the very top youngsters who miss out in qualifying to be given the chance in the series (Emil, Darcy, potentially Jankowski/Batchelor) c) to make sure that there is representation from each of the major speedway nations (probably a commercial necessity – and personally I have no issue with 1 spot guaranteeing a Brit or potentially a Dane/Swede a place. Most major sports have some slots “reserved” based on nationality rather than pure ability/results). So: I’d have top 8 still qualify. 2 permanet wild cards. I would say two (at least one anyway) direct out of the “qualifying” meetings (otherwise you could potentially end up with NO new faces year on year!). And then 3 from the GP Challenge, to be contested by 9-14 from the GP (15th doesn’t deserve another bite at the cherry in my view], 3-10 from the qualifiers and top 2 from the under 21 GP (to give yoof an extra chance). I also reckon the "challenge" meeting should be held over two days (to reduce the chance of one engine failure/bad decision deciding the outcome) similar to the 87 Amsterdam World Final, but with GP style semis/finals at each day to allow extra points to be added, and hence incrase the scope for a rider who had a poor day 1 to still scrape a place by bagging 24 pomts on the second day. Exactly the sort of post which makes people dismiss you as nothing more than bitter and stuck in the past –nothing constructive to add? In what year was the GP title not won on merit by the best rider in the world? Now you are on a roll,can you tell me why theyre should be more than the top 8 who automatically Qualify for the series.Keep 2 spots open therefore that leaves 6 places up for grabs for the bottom 8 of the gp and 8 others who are chosen. Is this fairer in your opinion?no commercial reasons no seeding through a straight battle for 6 places which will maybe give fresh blood a chance if deserving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Actually, I think most people are happy with a system in which the World Champion is the best rider in the World that season. Which the SGP does achieve, pretty much every time. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. well of course, no systems perfect, so I can't see any way of guaranteeing the best rider would win every time. So not sure what your point is? A s someone else said on a post ok leave a place for a injury/illness [ect] that would leave 7 spots up for grabs i would abolish the qualifying of getting into the g.ps not great in my opinion.That would leave maybe having 2 meetings 8 lowest gp riders against 8 of the RIDERS over the year or period who have impressed in leagues and events who want to enter also maybe the u21 champion.Therefore the most deserving will get in the 7 spots and over 2 meetings have a real chance of qualifying.I also think this would be great for speedway what a carrot for riders to aim for i really think this could work.If say Pedersen Lindgren have to go in the 2 meetings the cream over 2 meetings will get there anyway but having 7 spots what an incentive for a young and hungry rider trying to further his ambitsions.[ WONT HAPPEN THOUGH.] So, to clairfy, you'd remove the permanent WC spots from the GP as these are unfair. However, all the spots in the Challenge meeting/s for riders from outside the series would be effectively seeded? So no places at all up for grabs on a "pure" (i.e. none subjective) basis for riders from outside the series? I'm not saying that I enbtirely disagree, but that seems extremely contradictory - care to explain the logic? Would there be some formula to work out who the best 8 "outsiders" were (formula based on averages. World Cup performance etc?). Also, to clarify another point, you're also removing the meeting wildcards? To answer your question. 2000 - The World Championship was won by the most CONSISTANT Rider in the Series - certainly not the BEST. Mark Loram. As for my being bitter and stuck in the past - well I am sorry but I think my Post regarding how I would like to see the GP System work was actually VERY positive. It was also FAIR which is more than the System is today. As folk have said - the 'old' System had it's problems too, which is very true - I agree. I have outlined what I consider to be a FAIRER and BETTER System FOR THE GP SERIES and you accuse me of being stuck in the Past. I don't think so!!! As regards BITTER - mines a Pint. So, who do you reckon was the best rider in the World in 2000? Billy Hamill? Quite possibly, but I think that the knock-out formula was a flawed concept. Can you think of any examples under the more “conventional” formats? And tbh, if there are only a couple of examples from 17 years, that’s a much better ratio than the old WC. My bitter comment was directed at your earlier post, if that was tongue in check, then I apologise. No issues at all with your subsequent proposal, I don't agree, but happy to see a constructive suggestion. And personally, Pilsner over Bitter every time. Now you are on a roll,can you tell me why theyre should be more than the top 8 who automatically Qualify for the series.Keep 2 spots open therefore that leaves 6 places up for grabs for the bottom 8 of the gp and 8 others who are chosen. Is this fairer in your opinion?no commercial reasons no seeding through a straight battle for 6 places which will maybe give fresh blood a chance if deserving. I’d keep the “hometown” wildcard for each meeting, so there are actually only 7 slots up for grabs from outside the top8. I think it’s important that there is at least one new face in the series each year, that is why I would have at least guaranteed one spot available for riders from outside the series. As mentioned above, I believe your suggestion has some merit (I’m sure Parsloes will see red though!), and may well result in a stronger field for the GPs (as the “selected” challengers are likely to be stronger than those who qualify from outside under the current system), but I actually think it is less fair than the staus quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 well of course, no systems perfect, so I can't see any way of guaranteeing the best rider would win every time. So not sure what your point is? So, to clairfy, you'd remove the permanent WC spots from the GP as these are unfair. However, all the spots in the Challenge meeting/s for riders from outside the series would be effectively seeded? So no places at all up for grabs on a "pure" (i.e. none subjective) basis for riders from outside the series? I'm not saying that I enbtirely disagree, but that seems extremely contradictory - care to explain the logic? Would there be some formula to work out who the best 8 "outsiders" were (formula based on averages. World Cup performance etc?). Also, to clarify another point, you're also removing the meeting wildcards? So, who do you reckon was the best rider in the World in 2000? Billy Hamill? Quite possibly, but I think that the knock-out formula was a flawed concept. Can you think of any examples under the more “conventional” formats? And tbh, if there are only a couple of examples from 17 years, that’s a much better ratio than the old WC. My bitter comment was directed at your earlier post, if that was tongue in check, then I apologise. No issues at all with your subsequent proposal, I don't agree, but happy to see a constructive suggestion. And personally, Pilsner over Bitter every time. I’d keep the “hometown” wildcard for each meeting, so there are actually only 7 slots up for grabs from outside the top8. I think it’s important that there is at least one new face in the series each year, that is why I would have at least guaranteed one spot available for riders from outside the series. As mentioned above, I believe your suggestion has some merit (I’m sure Parsloes will see red though!), and may well result in a stronger field for the GPs (as the “selected” challengers are likely to be stronger than those who qualify from outside under the current system), but I actually think it is less fair than the staus quo. We will have to agree to differ. My 'mmmm' comment was sort of tongue in cheek - not totally if I'm honest. Regarding the 'Pilsner' - if we ever meet up - I will buy you one. I watch my Speedway at Brough Park by the way - if you are ever up there - look for the bloke in the Aussie Hat. Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 We will have to agree to differ. My 'mmmm' comment was sort of tongue in cheek - not totally if I'm honest. Regarding the 'Pilsner' - if we ever meet up - I will buy you one. I watch my Speedway at Brough Park by the way - if you are ever up there - look for the bloke in the Aussie Hat. Ian We will have to agree to differ. My 'mmmm' comment was sort of tongue in cheek - not totally if I'm honest. Regarding the 'Pilsner' - if we ever meet up - I will buy you one. I watch my Speedway at Brough Park by the way - if you are ever up there - look for the bloke in the Aussie Hat. Ian TWK Brough park on your supporters Premier news bit , was on about a meeting being held for the staff the track on that picture looks great . Loads of dirt on it,when i last went in 84 it was as rough as a dogs backside nice people though friendly and a nice pint.Will go back sometime thought it looked a tough track to master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbird Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I tend to think you have latched onto Parsloes and run with his ideals without giving much thought to what you post. You ask what is difficult about finishing in the top eight against the sixteen best riders in the world. Well turn it around and ask what was difficult about finishing in the top 8 - 11 of much easier qualifying rounds, which is what the latter stages of qualification to an old world final required. It's not really a matter of opinion, more a proven fact, that the old system was massively unfair denying riders the chance to even enter, wheras now anyone that wants to can enter Michael Lee, Dave Jessup, Malcolm Simmons, Gordon Kennett, Steve Bastable, Chris Morton, Tony Davey, John Davis, Les Collins, Peter Collins, Reg Wilson, Doug Wyer, Alan Grahame, Jim McMillan, John Louis, Dave Morton Take that bunch of riders and remember their 1978 form. At least 8 of those were good enough to reach the world final that year but the nature of "fairer to all" qualifying meant no matter how good only 4 could progress. Ok but then look at some of the riders who graced Wembley that year at their expense Jerzy Rembas, John Titman, Ilka Teromaa, Jan Verner, Marek Cieslak, Jiri Stancl, Petr Ondrasik Wot the Rembras who lost a runoff for 3rd? You say here you want to see the best man win the world title and yet yesterday you were bemoaning the fact that someone of Szackiels ilk couldn't now be champion under a GP system. He was clearly not the best in the world in 73. So what is it you actually think? is it that the best man should be world champion as you post here or that a no hoper like Szackiel being world champion in 1973 over the likes of Olsen, Michanek, Mauger etc is good for the sports credibility funny that darts keeps getting mentioned cause in darts they still celebrate Kieth Dellars shock win - gets mentioned every year. but in speedway people still complain about Jerzy Whos win in 73. World Finals from 1936 to 90s and just one truly shock winner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Wot the Rembras who lost a runoff for 3rd? Yes indeed he did, with 11 points, of course a minimum of 6 or 7 points were available that night just by beating the other no hopers, add in the 2 ? points he gained on the strength of others engine failures and it was not really a remarkable performance and doesn't change the fact that he was no where near as good as a host of riders already eliminated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yes indeed he did, with 11 points, of course a minimum of 6 or 7 points were available that night just by beating the other no hopers, add in the 2 ? points he gained on the strength of others engine failures and it was not really a remarkable performance and doesn't change the fact that he was no where near as good as a host of riders already eliminated Now, now... I know you're being very vocal here and making all sorts of utterly bizarre claims but you CAN'T be getting away with this one! The "no hopers" that Rembras finished either level with or above included: THREE former and/or future champs in Mauger, Michanek and Lee and three others who finished at least once on a World Final rostrum, Simmo, Jessup and Autrey! You are perfectly entitled to your view but twisting reality and frankly trying to rewrite history doesn't exactly strengthen your case I'd have to say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Now, now... I know you're being very vocal here and making all sorts of utterly bizarre claims but you CAN'T be getting away with this one! The "no hopers" that Rembras finished either level with or above included: THREE former and/or future champs in Mauger, Michanek and Lee and three others who finished at least once on a World Final rostrum, Simmo, Jessup and Autrey! You are perfectly entitled to your view but twisting reality and frankly trying to rewrite history doesn't exactly strengthen your case I'd have to say! I dont have a case to answer, I am not on trial, I have an opinion, an opinion borne out of over 45 years of speedway involvement. It is my opinion that the World Speedway Champion, or any sports World Champion for that matter, should be the one who has proved he is the best over an entire season having competed against, and scored more points than any of his rivals. Yes Rembas lost a run off for third but even had he won that run off would you consider him the third best rider in the world that year. Like I said Rembas and the others I mentioned were in reality no hopers, most of them only having got there by virtue of a much easier qualifying route due to there nationality Edited January 19, 2012 by oldace 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.