Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 But now we are here just answer the questions put to you.....Parsloes:Do you agree that because riders like Ivan Mauger,Langfield,Airey couldn't enter the qualifiers when not riding in Britain that the old system was not a(your words) "proper world championship".Or put it another way.....would you say that as they knew the consquences,that by not riding in Britain they had made the choice not to ride in the world championships?Riders from America not being allowed to ride in the world championships meant it couldn't in your opinion be worthy of the title world championship? My knowledge of the World Championships only goes back to the early 1970s but there were certainly Australasian based qualifiers in those days. It is true that for a long period during the 50s and 60s there weren't American qualifiers but affer Autrey's pioneering trip here the USA were then included int he system and held qualifiers. I think tbh it's time you ANSWERED some of our questions rather than keep asking ones of us, but now the latest have been answered maybe you will.. I see you've ignored my point that it's far more relevant to debate the CURRENT system than hark on about the past! Still this IS in the 'Years Gone By' section!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Can we agree to disagree on this topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 If the GP series had existed for ever-we would see a number of official World Champions who would never have been champions(Sczaciel and Muller obviously)-and some new champions-how about Graham Warren for 1949 and 1950 for a start.Also Michanek in 1973. Discussed at length in http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=50265 Incidentally 1983 (Muller's year) was one of the one's we found most problematical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) My knowledge of the World Championships only goes back to the early 1970s but there were certainly Australasian based qualifiers in those days. It is true that for a long period during the 50s and 60s there weren't American qualifiers but affer Autrey's pioneering trip here the USA were then included int he system and held qualifiers. I think tbh it's time you ANSWERED some of our questions rather than keep asking ones of us, but now the latest have been answered maybe you will.. I see you've ignored my point that it's far more relevant to debate the CURRENT system than hark on about the past! Still this IS in the 'Years Gone By' section!! I have answered all of sidneys point one by one in the other thread.We are in the years gone by section as you point out.And Australasian qualifiers started mid 70s.So for all those years up to the mid 70s you then agree it wasn't a in your words "proper" world championship.What about pre war Parsloes?What do you think of the case in 1936 for instance when the man who got a 15 point maximun at Wembley only managed to finish with a bronze medal?I guess we must write off the pre war world championships because of the strange case of points other than those scored on the night also counted?Rather like a GP system wouldn't you say? As i have already pointed out,i am not the one posting all this stuff to make a point + i wasn't the one bringing in "current" riders like Michael Lee + Jack Young into a discussion about GPs Edited January 13, 2012 by iris123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I only ever talk about the old system,because it is brought into the discussion by a number of forumites who try to belittle the GPs.I am not the one who keeps mentioning Michael Lee or even for godsake Jack Young!!!!!You will notice i think if you pay attention here Parsloes that i am not the one who started a thread listing all these riders from days of oldwhen knights were bold But now we are here just answer the questions put to you.....Parsloes:Do you agree that because riders like Ivan Mauger,Langfield,Airey couldn't enter the qualifiers when not riding in Britain that the old system was not a(your words) "proper world championship".Or put it another way.....would you say that as they knew the consquences,that by not riding in Britain they had made the choice not to ride in the world championships?Riders from America not being allowed to ride in the world championships meant it couldn't in your opinion be worthy of the title world championship? Sidney please tell me which years and who was not a worthy world champion if you think your listed riders would have won another 20 world titles between them?I'll let you off a little bit as i guess you might have worked out by doing the maths that it is impossible for them to have hit that number......but make it 15 titles and years please? Iris i think i will try to be clear ,i have never said the OLD SYSTEM never had flaws in it it did but was fair for EVERYONE.Also i have never been against the SERIES ever all i want is fresh TALENT to be given a go no more than that.Ok 20 titles is tongue in cheek my point is if 5 examples MAUGER, FUNDIN,BRIGGS,COLLINS,OLSEN who rode a combined 98 years WON 19 TITLES ONLY.If say now say take 4 years off of each riders career paying there dues serving there apprenteiship .That meant no qualifying 11rounds of gp racing each year that would of been 78 chances do you believe at this format they would of WON only 19 titles.? All those 5 were consistent and LORAM showed you can win a series without winning a ROUND.The biggest point for me is those riders never had the LUXURY of being in the event without QUALIFYING. Iris i think i will try to be clear ,i have never said the OLD SYSTEM never had flaws in it it did but was fair for EVERYONE.Also i have never been against the SERIES ever all i want is fresh TALENT to be given a go no more than that.Ok 20 titles is tongue in cheek my point is if 5 examples MAUGER, FUNDIN,BRIGGS,COLLINS,OLSEN who rode a combined 98 years WON 19 TITLES ONLY.If say now say take 4 years off of each riders career paying there dues serving there apprenteiship .That meant no qualifying 11rounds of gp racing each year that would of been 78 chances do you believe at this format they would of WON only 19 titles.? All those 5 were consistent and LORAM showed you can win a series without winning a ROUND.The biggest point for me is those riders never had the LUXURY of being in the event without QUALIFYING. Can we agree to disagree on this topic? Sorry Deano you have a point thats my lot on the subject,will be supporting Crumpy for this brilliant G.P.SERIES. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I have answered all of sidneys point one by one in the other thread.We are in the years gone by section as you point out.And Australasian qualifiers started mid 70s.So for all those years up to the mid 70s you then agree it wasn't a in your words "proper" world championship.What about pre war Parsloes?What do you think of the case in 1936 for instance when the man who got a 15 point maximun at Wembley only managed to finish with a bronze medal?I guess we must write off the pre war world championships because of the strange case of points other than those scored on the night also counted?Rather like a GP system wouldn't you say? As i have already pointed out,i am not the one posting all this stuff to make a point + i wasn't the one bringing in "current" riders like Michael Lee + Jack Young into a discussion about GPs I agree we need to shelve this arhgument - because you have with this posting completely confirmed that you have NO defence of the current SGP system and have NO interest in listening to positive criticisms of the way in which so many riders are allowed techically automatically to remain in it year on year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwi Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I agree we need to shelve this arhgument - because you have with this posting completely confirmed that you have NO defence of the current SGP system and have NO interest in listening to positive criticisms of the way in which so many riders are allowed techically automatically to remain in it year on year. Iris answer to your arguement is was the previous system any better. Only if you have your Little Britain hat on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Iris answer to your arguement is was the previous system any better. Only if you have your Little Britain hat on. Aaaggghhh!! The question ISN'T was the old now defunct system any better, it's is the CURRENT system as fair or as good as it could be!!!! As people refuse to answer the criticisms made of the current system one has to assume that no, it's NOT a fair and properly constitued world championship!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I agree we need to shelve this arhgument - because you have with this posting completely confirmed that you have NO defence of the current SGP system and have NO interest in listening to positive criticisms of the way in which so many riders are allowed techically automatically to remain in it year on year. In other words, you're losing the argument to Iris, so you'd like to stop All the best Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 In other words, you're losing the argument to Iris, so you'd like to stop All the best Rob No - there is no argument possible when people simply refuse to respond to any points made... Iris normally contributes really good postings to this Forum but his contributions to this thread have been utterly pants!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIE-JA Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Aaaggghhh!! The question ISN'T was the old now defunct system any better, it's is the CURRENT system as fair or as good as it could be!!!! As people refuse to answer the criticisms made of the current system one has to assume that no, it's NOT a fair and properly constitued world championship!! As I HAVE said in previous posts, the system is not perfect-no system will be, but it is a proper World Championship. Maybe you should read posts instead of just wittering on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I agree we need to shelve this arhgument - because you have with this posting completely confirmed that you have NO defence of the current SGP system and have NO interest in listening to positive criticisms of the way in which so many riders are allowed techically automatically to remain in it year on year. I and others have absolutely defended the GP system.The best rider in the world wins every year unless injury plays a part.And you can't stop that in any system can you?I want a system where the best rider becomes speedway world champion.This one fits the bill.I repeat for the umpteenth time as have others that neither this nor any other system is completely perfect.You have in your own words already condemed the previous system from the 30s through to the 90s.I can't really see what your beef is and why you keep going on and on.I point out yet again that i didn't start this nor any other thread in defence of any system.But i have the right to point out facts,even if you don't like them and even if they make your words about a "proper" world championship look rather silly I doubt there has ever been a single year when the championship was open to all riders.At the moment there is an Australian championship going on whith a number of riders i have hardly heard of.All are in what is in effect a qualifier for the GPs.But i think what you really are talking about when you say everyone is any British rider right down to the NL.Because i doubt you have the knowledge to know if all continental European riders had the chance to qualify every year.In the 30s did all riders have the chance?Did East German riders always get the chance?And i have already made you look rather silly in stating that Australasian riders based at home didn't get the chance and neither did American nor South American riders.I guess the same would go for African based riders too.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Iris answer to your arguement is was the previous system any better. Only if you have your Little Britain hat on. In little Britain the previous system was better, more exciting , g.p.s (sometimes yawn yawn boring )and FAIRER FOR ALL not just a chosen few, In other words, you're losing the argument to Iris, so you'd like to stop All the best Rob He hasnt lost anything Rob does it matter who wins or loses, there are no losers its just a opinion .Has there been overwhelming proof that the series is better and FAIRER TO EVERYONE .NO is the answer. I and others have absolutely defended the GP system.The best rider in the world wins every year unless injury plays a part.And you can't stop that in any system can you?I want a system where the best rider becomes speedway world champion.This one fits the bill.I repeat for the umpteenth time as have others that neither this nor any other system is completely perfect.You have in your own words already condemed the previous system from the 30s through to the 90s.I can't really see what your beef is and why you keep going on and on.I point out yet again that i didn't start this nor any other thread in defence of any system.But i have the right to point out facts,even if you don't like them and even if they make your words about a "proper" world championship look rather silly I doubt there has ever been a single year when the championship was open to all riders.At the moment there is an Australian championship going on whith a number of riders i have hardly heard of.All are in what is in effect a qualifier for the GPs.But i think what you really are talking about when you say everyone is any British rider right down to the NL.Because i doubt you have the knowledge to know if all continental European riders had the chance to qualify every year.In the 30s did all riders have the chance?Did East German riders always get the chance?And i have already made you look rather silly in stating that Australasian riders based at home didn't get the chance and neither did American nor South American riders.I guess the same would go for African based riders too.... A simple question IRIS would those 5 riders i named have WON MORE TITLES in this format a honest answer YES OR NO? By the way (as much as i like Mark) Loram and Nicky Pedersen were not the best riders in the world in my opinion when they won it.Shows the format today has flaws dont win a round but still win the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 In little Britain the previous system was better, more exciting , g.p.s (sometimes yawn yawn boring )and FAIRER FOR ALL not just a chosen few, He hasnt lost anything Rob does it matter who wins or loses, there are no losers its just a opinion .Has there been overwhelming proof that the series is better and FAIRER TO EVERYONE .NO is the answer. Sidney can we not put a stop at least to this idea that there was ever a system that was fair to all.How many times does it need to be posted that in previous years you had to ride in Britain and of course had to agree to the Promoters wage terms to be allowed into the World Championship.The fact that Briggo was threatened that if he didn't sign the deal on offer he wouldn't be allowed to defend his title shows clearly the system wasn't fair at all.I give you yet again a chance to tell me which years it was open to everyone and fair.Hope this time it wasn't a tongue in cheek comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) He hasnt lost anything Rob does it matter who wins or loses, there are no losers its just a opinion .Has there been overwhelming proof that the series is better and FAIRER TO EVERYONE .NO is the answer. Surely each system has its good and bad points. Yes, I miss the old World Final for its sheer drama, but it isnt coming back any time soon. The current system means we get Cardiff once a year rather than every six or seven years. Cardiff is no great shakes in terms of racing, but in terms of the ocassion, it's the highlight of the British season. Under a Grand Prix, the best rider is probably more likely to end the year as World Champion, but it's still not guaranteed. And the one-off World Finals always produced a worthy winner, even if it wasn't necessarily the best rider that year (but rather the best rider that day). And as Iris has pointed, it certainly was NOT the case that EVERY rider had the chance to become World Champion under the old system. So its swings and roundabouts - both system have their merits, However, they do seem to be some who take the opportunity to belittle the GP series at every single opportunity and it gets a little boring. All the best Rob Edited January 13, 2012 by lucifer sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Okay so which World championship system do we prefer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Okay so which World championship system do we prefer? Stop it All the best Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Surely each system has its good and bad points. Yes, I miss the old World Final for its sheer drama, but it isnt coming back any time soon. The current system means we get Cardiff once a year rather than every six or seven years. Cardiff is no great shakes in terms of racing, but in terms of the ocassion, it's the highlight of the British season. Under a Grand Prix, the best rider is probably more likely to end the year as World Champion, but it's still not guaranteed. And the one-off World Finals always produced a worthy winner, even if it wasn't necessarily the best rider that year (but rather the best rider that day). And as Iris has pointed, it certainly was NOT the case that EVERY rider had the chance to become World Champion under the old system. So its swings and roundabouts - both system have their merits, However, they do seem to be some who take the opportunity to belittle the GP series at every single opportunity and it gets a little boring. All the best Rob Yes some good points there has been riders who have missed out in the w.c through politics Autrey Woods and others (ect).All i want is more new talent to come into the series quicker thats all.My take is when the top boys Mauger Briggo Olsen reached the veteran stages there were loads of young quality riders to step in and fill the void.Now it isnt the case outside of Ward i dont see anyone yet coming through to that level.That is because alot of them are not getting pushed quick anough to test themselves and aquire the exsperience to reach the top. Okay so which World championship system do we prefer? It Isnt going to happen now Deano but if it was 1995/6 now i would like both systems in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Yes some good points there has been riders who have missed out in the w.c through politics Autrey Woods and others (ect).All i want is more new talent to come into the series quicker thats all.My take is when the top boys Mauger Briggo Olsen reached the veteran stages there were loads of young quality riders to step in and fill the void.Now it isnt the case outside of Ward i dont see anyone yet coming through to that level.That is because alot of them are not getting pushed quick anough to test themselves and aquire the exsperience to reach the top. It Isnt going to happen now Deano but if it was 1995/6 now i would like both systems in place. But there has been a continual line of youngsters that have come in and generally stayed in.Or if not at least been given a chance....Jonsson,Hampel,Lindgren,Bjerre,Sajfutdinov,Holder.Others that couldn' stay the pace like Chrzanowski,Kasprzak,Woffinden,Laguta.I think talent is never constant anyway,in that there was never a period when a potential world champion per year was produced.Some periods might have been better than others,but i don't think we are in such a bad state at the moment.And potential GP stars of the future are on their way in Ward,Janowski and hopefully one or two of the Danish kids.And oops,but i forgot Lindbäck as well.......in one of those groupings Edited January 13, 2012 by iris123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 I have answered all of sidneys point one by one in the other thread.We are in the years gone by section as you point out.And Australasian qualifiers started mid 70s.So for all those years up to the mid 70s you then agree it wasn't a in your words "proper" world championship.What about pre war Parsloes?What do you think of the case in 1936 for instance when the man who got a 15 point maximun at Wembley only managed to finish with a bronze medal?I guess we must write off the pre war world championships because of the strange case of points other than those scored on the night also counted?Rather like a GP system wouldn't you say? As i have already pointed out,i am not the one posting all this stuff to make a point + i wasn't the one bringing in "current" riders like Michael Lee + Jack Young into a discussion about GPs I brought Jack Young in to the discussion. Why? Because it is relevent. He would not have had a prayer of getting in to the GP Series these days. To answer the question on FAIRNESS - obviously the 'Old' System was much fairer because as has been said so many times on here, EVERYONE could Qualify. Until I read this Thread I had not realised that so many places were 'GIFTED' to Riders. I suspect why this is so is because ISI/BSG are determined to have all the Top Riders in the GPs. It would obviously be detrimental to their Product if they did not FIX it so that ALL the 'BIG' names were there. There is no room for the minnows. Places in the GPs should NOT be GIVEN on a Commercial basis if that is the case. THAT is why, in my opinion, the SGP is a discredited World Championship. 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.