Does This Show You Maybe It Is Easier For The Elite To Win World Titles Now?

[iris123]

Er, no I certainly have not... your rather curious interpretation of things is NOT "my own words".

 

And please explain in what possible way is the Australian championship "in effect a qualifier for the GPs"..?

 

You seem to have suffered a sense transplant!!!

Well it was you that said if everyone doesn't get a chance to qualify;so i assumed once it was pointed out this wasn't the case in previous years surely you would admit the old system also had many faults and couldn't be called a proper world championship in your opinion also.But i know you wiggle and squirm out of things you say,like a wiggly squirmy thing,so am not surprised you try to ignore your own rules for what a proper world championship entails

 

As has been pointed out by me and at least one other the Australian championships are used as a qualifier for the riders that the MA choose to go through to the GP qualifiers.Is that too hard for you to understand that it is a step on the road to qualifying for the GPs.......i.e a GP qualifier in effect.The fact that GB do not have meetings which include NL novices and such like is the choice of the BSPA and doesn't in any way bring the quality of the GPs down a level.

 

sidney gets a lot of stick but this is a massively valid point. Would be nice to see it addressed instead of spurious points about African riders in the '70s missing out!!

 

 

 

Already been answered Parsloes or are you reading the Braile version of the forum?Surely it can't be spurious that riders were not included into the qualifiers?After all it was you making all the fuss about the fact that riders weren't allowed to qualify.But when pointed out how many riders in the past were not allowed,you ignore this fact.But to no surprise to me.

[stratton]

Richard Hall might win a one off style world Championship if he got the chance. But we'll never know. At the end of the day there can only be one World Champion per season. How many World Champions has there been and how many thousands of speedway riders have there been over the years? Very slim odds of winning it.

A joke post did people think MOORE LEE and COLLINS were good anough? at 17 or maybe be out of there debth? get the chance then you know either way.Your posts are great mostly enjoy reading em not one of your best.

[HenryW]

The ones you named have had there CHANCE NEW BLOOD needed If pedersen dosent get in the top 8 why should he be there is he going to stay in till he is 45 ?that cant be right.When are you going to know if JANOWSKI is good anough if he dosent get a chance does he wait till he is 30? God i hope you dont run the series TOP 8 certainly i love CRUMPY if he dosent get in top 8 he should have to qualify brutal but right.

I thought I had already explained why Nicki should still be there at the moment, but maybe I wasn't clear.

 

Nicki proves week in, week out in the toughest two leagues in the World that he is a genuine top level rider.

He finished 7th in the Polish League averages with two non-GP riders above him (Sullivan and Protasiewicz. PePe opted not to compete in the series in 2012. I am unsure if Ryan was offered a place or not.)

I don't have a link to the final Swedish League averages, but by August he was 5th in the averages with the only non-GP rider above him being Grigorij Laguta, who doesn't want to race in the SGP series next year.

Comparatively, Janowski was 11th in Poland and 36th in Sweden.

 

Maciej has his chance to go through the qualifying rounds to reach the GP series just now while he is struggling to match Nicki's performances week in, week out (he was eliminated at the semi final stage in 2011). IF he was to fail in those efforts again in 2012 but found himself outperforming Nicki in the league competitions, then I would expect him to be considered ahead of Nicki.

[lucifer sam]

I would like to see a slightly different qualitying system to the GP series with more different riders each year (personally I think only the top 6 should automatically qualify for the following year). BUT I can't think of one single year from 1995 to 2011 where there has been a rider outside of the series who could have won a 6 to 11 round series that year. White Knight, could you enlighten me to the year and the rider where this has happened?

 

On the other hand, it happened a lot under the old one-off World Final. Quite often one of the top stars was missing by the time we reached the World Final - mainly through either injury or bad luck. Examples over just a short period of time (1976-1984):

* Ole Olsen and Anders Michanek (1976)

* Peter Collins (1978)

* Ivan Mauger (the reigning World Champion) and Ole Olsen (1980)

* Erik Gundersen, Michael Lee and Bobby Schwartz (maximums in BOTH the WTC and World Pairs) (1982)

* Tommy Kundsen (1983)

* Michael Lee (suspended) and Dennis Sigalos (1984)

 

All these riders might have won in those years have they reached the final.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the old World Final, it was so very dramatic. But far more many top riders did not contest the World Final compared to the GP series which DOES feature the cream competing against each other with almost no exceptions.

 

All the best

Rob

[oldace]

I would like to see a slightly different qualitying system to the GP series with more different riders each year (personally I think only the top 6 should automatically qualify for the following year). BUT I can't think of one single year from 1995 to 2011 where there has been a rider outside of the series who could have won a 6 to 11 round series that year. White Knight, could you enlighten me to the year and the rider where this has happened?

 

On the other hand, it happened a lot under the old one-off World Final. Quite often one of the top stars was missing by the time we reached the World Final - mainly through either injury or bad luck. Examples over just a short period of time (1976-1984):

* Ole Olsen and Anders Michanek (1976)

* Peter Collins (1978)

* Ivan Mauger (the reigning World Champion) and Ole Olsen (1980)

* Erik Gundersen, Michael Lee and Bobby Schwartz (maximums in BOTH the WTC and World Pairs) (1982)

* Tommy Kundsen (1983)

* Michael Lee (suspended) and Dennis Sigalos (1984)

 

All these riders might have won in those years have they reached the final.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the old World Final, it was so very dramatic. But far more many top riders did not contest the World Final compared to the GP series which DOES feature the cream competing against each other with almost no exceptions.

 

All the best

Rob

 

Slot PC in there in 1981 as well, and that was just because the BSPA decided they wouldn't let him enter the qualifiing rounds even though he was top British League performer the previous year. Oh yes, open to all the old system wasn't it

[The White Knight]

I would like to see a slightly different qualitying system to the GP series with more different riders each year (personally I think only the top 6 should automatically qualify for the following year). BUT I can't think of one single year from 1995 to 2011 where there has been a rider outside of the series who could have won a 6 to 11 round series that year. White Knight, could you enlighten me to the year and the rider where this has happened?

 

On the other hand, it happened a lot under the old one-off World Final. Quite often one of the top stars was missing by the time we reached the World Final - mainly through either injury or bad luck. Examples over just a short period of time (1976-1984):

* Ole Olsen and Anders Michanek (1976)

* Peter Collins (1978)

* Ivan Mauger (the reigning World Champion) and Ole Olsen (1980)

* Erik Gundersen, Michael Lee and Bobby Schwartz (maximums in BOTH the WTC and World Pairs) (1982)

* Tommy Kundsen (1983)

* Michael Lee (suspended) and Dennis Sigalos (1984)

 

All these riders might have won in those years have they reached the final.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the old World Final, it was so very dramatic. But far more many top riders did not contest the World Final compared to the GP series which DOES feature the cream competing against each other with almost no exceptions.

 

All the best

Rob

 

I will be honest Rob - off hand - I can't answer your question. THAT though is NOT the point.

 

The point is, who is to say , had there been Qualifying Meetings for EVERY Rider, someone COULD have come through and surprised everyone. I am not saying that it WOULD happen - but - only that it COULD. Remember Mark Loram won a World Championship without winning a GP. All my surprise entrant would need to be is the most consistant performer. Remember 'Wild Cards' HAVE won GPs. Who's to say that if Dugard had been in the Series the year that he WON a GP that he would not have been good enough to maintain enough consistancy to finish at the top of the pile? I casn't answer that - and - neither can you.

 

Had there been PROPER Qualifying Rounds for ALL Riders - WHO KNOWS what could have happened over the GP years? Perhaps the results would have been the same and we would have had the same World Champions - but then again - PERHAPS NOT!!!

[stratton]

I thought I had already explained why Nicki should still be there at the moment, but maybe I wasn't clear.

 

Nicki proves week in, week out in the toughest two leagues in the World that he is a genuine top level rider.

He finished 7th in the Polish League averages with two non-GP riders above him (Sullivan and Protasiewicz. PePe opted not to compete in the series in 2012. I am unsure if Ryan was offered a place or not.)

I don't have a link to the final Swedish League averages, but by August he was 5th in the averages with the only non-GP rider above him being Grigorij Laguta, who doesn't want to race in the SGP series next year.

Comparatively, Janowski was 11th in Poland and 36th in Sweden.

 

Maciej has his chance to go through the qualifying rounds to reach the GP series just now while he is struggling to match Nicki's performances week in, week out (he was eliminated at the semi final stage in 2011). IF he was to fail in those efforts again in 2012 but found himself outperforming Nicki in the league competitions, then I would expect him to be considered ahead of Nicki.

Tells me nothing on what you have already told me, i would imagine as long as Nicki rides he will be a threat and do well .A terrific rider done brilliantly but every year he gets a chance over a JANOWSKI and SUNDSTRUM to me that stunts there progress.When Olsen reached Norden 83 he reached that final on merit because he was a great rider.Is different now young riders need a PUSH and a CHANCE if Nicki finishes outside the top 8 will he always get a entry.? if so that stunts a newcomer a chance.

[stratton]

I would like to see a slightly different qualitying system to the GP series with more different riders each year (personally I think only the top 6 should automatically qualify for the following year). BUT I can't think of one single year from 1995 to 2011 where there has been a rider outside of the series who could have won a 6 to 11 round series that year. White Knight, could you enlighten me to the year and the rider where this has happened?

 

On the other hand, it happened a lot under the old one-off World Final. Quite often one of the top stars was missing by the time we reached the World Final - mainly through either injury or bad luck. Examples over just a short period of time (1976-1984):

* Ole Olsen and Anders Michanek (1976)

* Peter Collins (1978)

* Ivan Mauger (the reigning World Champion) and Ole Olsen (1980)

* Erik Gundersen, Michael Lee and Bobby Schwartz (maximums in BOTH the WTC and World Pairs) (1982)

* Tommy Kundsen (1983)

* Michael Lee (suspended) and Dennis Sigalos (1984)

 

All these riders might have won in those years have they reached the final.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the old World Final, it was so very dramatic. But far more many top riders did not contest the World Final compared to the GP series which DOES feature the cream competing against each other with almost no exceptions.

 

All the best

Rob

Really good post i am really surprised Rob you said only 6 qualify which i think is positive and you are right.Again you said no one outside rnd 6-11 who could of won it is true.But i think that shows you the strength in depth the quality is not there unlike YESTERYEAR.I think what you said riders who did not qualify one off finals and it was a shock but that to me gave someone else a chance to progress.Unlike now [ ex] are you going to keep PEDERSEN a 3 time champion a place every year on what he,s done in the past.The difference is years ago you had a chance from the start NOW it is not in your control you hope you get a chance by then your PEAK might be gone.MY point getting a chance when you are fearless ambitious and chomping at the bit to prove yourself .

[chunky]

That maybe the ideal but it has never been the case. Seeding for commercial reasons is less rife now than it was in the seventies.

In 1970 the pole were seeded int 6 places in the final

In 1973 They had 5 seeds

In 1976 they had 4

In 1979 they dad 3

 

I have no problem with the host nation being allocated at least one place in each GP, and I had no problem with them receiving allocations in the old days. The same as the host nation receiving automatic entry into the World Cup finals. What I had an issue with as far as the World Finals was that the number of allocations changed constantly. Six places was too many; one or two would be too few. However, the fact is that the riders were not generally "seeded" into the World Final according to "commercial value". It was left to each nation to decide their qualfiers, and both the British and Swedish qualfiers came from "open" qualifying rounds. Only the Poles decided on simple selection.

 

1956 Craven seeded, Briggs in 58, Moore in 1960. Pete Collins was seeded straight to the inter continental final in 1977. The list goes on. The Brits had 4 guaranteed places in 1978, an injustice because we had probably 8 riders worthy of a place but the nature of qualyfiing that year meant it was impossible for more than 4 to make it.

 

There is - and always has been - a case for including defending champions. That is still different from hand-picking a number of individuals based on the aforementioned "commercial value".

 

 

 

That was simply a commercial excercise, most of the Poles were of a standard no wher near good enough to merit seeding. It was recognised that a World Final without Craven, Briggo or Moore as defending champions was less of a commercial puller, hence they were given places.

 

Like I said on another thread, Peter Collins top of the averages in 1980 yet not allowed to enter in 1981 because he only wanted to race on the continent. There are hundreds of examples of the unfairness of the old system, it was riddled with faults and while what we have now may not be perfect it is a sight fairer to all than the old way was

 

I do not disagree, but the same applies to most sports. I do not agree with the modern concept of, "I'm not good enough to qualify via my own nation, so I'll take out a foreign licence and get in like that!"

 

Steve

[Grachan]

 

There is - and always has been - a case for including defending champions. That is still different from hand-picking a number of individuals based on the aforementioned "commercial value".

 

 

 

That was simply a commercial excercise, most of the Poles were of a standard no wher near good enough to merit seeding. It was recognised that a World Final without Craven, Briggo or Moore as defending champions was less of a commercial puller, hence they were given places.

 

 

 

I do not disagree, but the same applies to most sports. I do not agree with the modern concept of, "I'm not good enough to qualify via my own nation, so I'll take out a foreign licence and get in like that!"

 

Steve

 

I seem to remember Gordon Kennett coming pretty close to changing nationality to Danish to give himself a better chance of qualifying. It's not such a new concept.

[chunky]

I seem to remember Gordon Kennett coming pretty close to changing nationality to Danish to give himself a better chance of qualifying. It's not such a new concept.

 

But he didn't.though... Thing is, actually "changing nationality" is a different matter. If an individual emigrates or perhaps chooses nationality according to parentage etc (Ronnie Moore, Mitch Shirra, Tadeusz Teodorowicz etc), it shouldn't be a problem. Even from my understanding of the Rune Holta situation, I don't have a problem. I myself emigrated 19 years ago. Although still a British citizen, I represent the United States in international competition. However, I live here, I own property here, and I pay taxes here; that is sufficient. I also had to wait for a period of time to become eligible.

 

I do not agree that a simple change of licence should be enough, and certainly not for immediate consideration (Marvyn Cox, Andy Smith etc).

 

Steve

[waiheke1]

Sidney Firstly- don’t think the list you have painstakingly put together actually shows anything about how easy/hard it is to win GP vs old WC. I don’t think the GP is any easier, nor harder, to win than the old WC – both are great acheievements. What one could argue though is that if you are one of the top2 riders in the world, it is easier to win the GP series. If you are any other rider, it was easier to win in the old one off, where one good night could do it.

 

 

Thanks SCB, The points really were to IRIS more than anyone 1./ We know the old system was cruel at times but the riders knew the rules before hand so it was EXCEPTED. 2./ It was a hell of a achievement to actually reach a final . 3./RIDERS were all on the same level playing field whether you were Barry Briggs or Clive Hitch you could all chase your dream, 4./Nothing was given to you not seeded through ,every year because of your past achievements you had to earn the right to QUALIFY. 2 massive examples of how now is EASIER and UNFAIR. Take Ivan Mauger a legend he rode 24 YEARS yet he only reached 14 FINALS.If he was riding now he would of BEEN put through at least 20 TIMES whats that a extra 6 chances at a title? Peter Collins again rode 15 YEARS only reached 8 finals todays format maybe another 4 goes at the title for PC.Nearly all those riders on that list would of had another 3 goes at the title each.Knockout in the old format was also not unfair most rounds 7 or 8 points were anough to get you through so no excuses.Surely people should see by getting put through is alot easier than ACTUALLY qualifying. Also add the AMOUNT of chances Gollob Crump Hancock Hampel Jonsson have had by not having to Qualify that tells you something.

 

1. And surely they know the rules now before hand too?11 of the slots are clearcut, and the other 4 there’s generally no surprise in how they are awarded 2. Agreed. I also think its an achievement to make the final 15 now - certainly more so than qualifying via the continental final route under the old system. 3. Really??? You don't think those going through the continental final route had it easier than those going via the inter-continental final. What about Larry Ross - 1985, Nz champ with a 15 point maximum, didn't get a slot in the next round? 4. Simply not true about the seeding. And of the years Mauger didn't reach the final, in how many of those would he have been a genuine shot at winning. Only 1980? And a chance under the one-off system maybe, no way under a GP system. Any others? PC – 78, any other years?. But don't forget, if PC had reached the final in 78 and won, he'd have been taking a title off Olsen. 7/8 points enough points in most rounds to go through? Name a year in which that was enough in the American final, Nz final, Australian final? And tbh, I reckon scoring 7 points in the inter-continental final was a much tougher ask than scoring 13 to qualify from the GP challenge now.

Also, please tell me the years in which Gollob, Crump, Hancock and Hampel were given permanent wildcards i.e. did not have to qualify for that GP series?

 

 

These are good points sidney - trouble is the apologists for the SGP system will use them (eg the bit about Peter Collins) as a way of turning things on their head (as is their wont) in making out the old system was "unfair".

It wasn't unfair - it was what's known as competitive sport - something which takes no prisoners.

The current system may to them seem fairer to a small elite (actually it is...) but to the detriment of those 'outside' trying to get in; and THAT'S what's wrong and what runs so contrary to the normal tenets of sporting competition...

Is it really that much easier to finish in the top 8 than to qualify in the top3 of the best of the rest. I don’t believe it is (Lindback is a good example). And the “elite” which people keep harping on about it – its not as though this is some aristocracy where they are getting their “elite status” based on bloodlines (apart from Harris obviously) – they are the “elite” because they are better than the “outsiders.”

 

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.

Sorry Deano you have a point thats my lot on the subject,will be supporting Crumpy for this brilliant G.P.SERIES.

 

But fresh talent does have the chance!!! They can qualify via the qualifiers (most aren’t god enough), or via the permanent wildcard.

Pedersen/Gollob/Crump/Hancock/\Rickardson 14GP titles from 80 seasons – roughly one every 6 . Your list of riders is closer to one in 5 – which if you took your logic would indicate that its harder now. However, as I said above, I don’t think you can use these figures like that. One key factor is that there is significant overlap in these careers – so Mauger winning was preventing Olsen and Collins winning for example. Of course, between them the riders you list would have won more World titles under a GP system – but I don’t see how that’s a bad thing, if it means the true greats would have been even more successful?

 

 

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!!

But no-one is claiming the current system is perfect. You are the one saying that as it’s not perfect its not a “proper” world Championship. Others are pointing out that the old WC also had flaws (arguably more), and that you are therefore being hypocritical.

But please tell me even one criticism of the GP system which has not been answered and I’m sure you will get an answer to it. Every criticism you have raised on this thread has been answered on others, but you seem to ignore all the counter-arguments you have been presented with.

 

My thought are that while the current system isn’t perfect, it works well in ensuring close to the strongest possible field (plus a Brit).Personally, I’d reduce the permanent wildcards to two slots (to cover in order of priority injuries to top riders , entry for hot talents, ensuring each of the 5 major speedway nations (Poland, Sweden, Denmark, England Aussie) have at least one representative)., reduce the “qualifying slots” for riders from outside the series to two places, then have a GP challenge for places 9-14 from the GP, 3-10 from the “qualifiers” plus the top 2 from the under 21 champs.

How would you structure it Parsloes?

 

You dont know do you until you have been given a chance.People improve at different knots,i found riders over the years improved by getting chances.Lee, Collins ,came in and got on the pace quickly winning world class events.Like i said i only see 4 riders good anough at the moment to win it Jonsson has the ability but maybe he has missed his chance.Is only 4 good anough because not alot of new blood is getting fed into the system quickly anough out of the 4 three are VETERANS.?

Valid points to some extent. Les Collins is an example of a rider who had one blindingly good year (well, great performances in the IC and World final anyway), but would have likely not been in the GP that year. Januz Kolodiecz (spelling) is a recent example of someone who had a great 2010 season, but then a shocking 2011 when he was in the series.

Counter-argument though is that there are far more examples of riders who missed out on World Final because of injury, one bad meeting etc. To add to Rob’s list, you’d have Carter in both 84/85 due to injury, Morton (85) and Wigg (86) missed out at British final stages in the year’s in which they were in the best form of their career. Every year there were riders who were unquestionably in the top 10 in the world missing from the final – that’s simply not the case now.

 

What I do believe true is that the gap between riders in the GP and those outside may be increasing because of their exposure to racing the best in the world every fortnight. Also, the absence of test matches which used to be a feature of the 70s/80s reduces the top level meetings ridden by those outside the GPs. And also, GP riders may be able to attract the sponsorship which allows them to have the best possible machinery. Not sure how to solve this, I think it is a relatively common problem in the “professional age” of sports that the gap between the top competitors and the rest is growing larger

 

Only 4 riders good enough to win? I disagree – I think you have Crump, Hancock, Gollob, Emil, Hampel, Holder, Jonsson and Pedersen who could all win it. 8 riders, most year’s in the WC you’d have struggled to pick that many candidates. Also, you’d expect the list to be shorter anyway under the GP system, as you include only riders good enough to sustain excellence over a whole season, not just one meeting. For example in most years in the 60s, had GPs been in effect, you could have said Fundin/Briggs and been right, in the 70s Mauger/ Olsen/Collins and been right in the mid-late 80s Gundersen/Nielsen and been right.

Pretty much any of next year’s field are capable of winning a GP, and hence potentially an old style world final.

Also: How many people last year picked Hancock to win it – to borrow a line from one of Nz’s best musos, “not many, if any.”

 

 

 

The Olympics is a massive commercial enterprise (check out the price of tickets for the 100 metres final!) but you know what, Usain Bolt isn't seeded into the Final and if he was to cock up as he did in the World Championships he'd be out... It's what called SPORT. If we want a 'circus' then fair enough... I prefer it to be a competitive sport.

The Olympic final isn’t really a valid comparison, as that is knock out style event,

The SGP is a league system. So a comparison is Man Utd being part of next year’s premiership because they finished in the top17 this year, or qualifying for the champions league next year. A circus???

I’ve used the analogy before, but the old WC was like the FA cup. Everyone had a chance, but one bit of bad luck and your hopes were gone for the season. The GP is like the premiership, every point counts. The FA cup may have more drama, and the winner is always deserving, but the truly prized title is the Premiership because if you win that you have truly been the best team that season.

 

Really good post i am really surprised Rob you said only 6 qualify which i think is positive and you are right.Again you said no one outside rnd 6-11 who could of won it is true.But i think that shows you the strength in depth the quality is not there unlike YESTERYEAR.I think what you said riders who did not qualify one off finals and it was a shock but that to me gave someone else a chance to progress.Unlike now [ ex] are you going to keep PEDERSEN a 3 time champion a place every year on what he,s done in the past.The difference is years ago you had a chance from the start NOW it is not in your control you hope you get a chance by then your PEAK might be gone.MY point getting a chance when you are fearless ambitious and chomping at the bit to prove yourself .

It is in your control, there is just a one year delay from qualifying to be in the “finals.” I don’t think young talent is disadvantages, in fact genuine young talent is likely to benefit from the permanent wildcard system. Riders likely to be disadvantaged are more likely to be the “journeyman” rider, who is unlikely to get a wildcard, but has one hot season in a year they are not in the GP. BUT… I haven’t seen any strong examples of riders who would probably have won had they been in the series (a couple of outsiders have been suggested – , which isn’t bad for a 17 year period).

Anyway, to go back to your original question, and to borrow a line someone else used on another thread: Old WC –hard to win. GP series- hard to win.

[oldace]

 

 

Had there been PROPER Qualifying Rounds for ALL Riders - WHO KNOWS what could have happened over the GP years? Perhaps the results would have been the same and we would have had the same World Champions - but then again - PERHAPS NOT!!!

 

You are getting yourself all mixed up. The GP system has proper quaifiing rounds for all riders, always has. The old World Final in all the years it existed never once had an open to all qualifing process.

 

It has been pointed out that riders were denied entry just because they didnt race in the League in this country, thats just one example, there are many more.

 

The old system was good, I enjoyed many World Finals, but as regards finding a proper World Champion, no I am afraid not.

 

Olsen and Michanek were among the best in the World in 76 but PC didn't have to beat the cause they were not there.

 

PC himself was one of the best in 78 but Olsen didn't need to worry as he wasn't there.

 

As good as Penhall was in 1981 why didn't he have to beat Collins at Wembley in your open to all World Final.

 

None of the above is to say any of those champions were not worthy, they all were but had a proper World Championship existed back then maybe the years they won would have been different

[stratton]

Sidney Firstly- don’t think the list you have painstakingly put together actually shows anything about how easy/hard it is to win GP vs old WC. I don’t think the GP is any easier, nor harder, to win than the old WC – both are great acheievements. What one could argue though is that if you are one of the top2 riders in the world, it is easier to win the GP series. If you are any other rider, it was easier to win in the old one off, where one good night could do it.

 

 

 

 

1. And surely they know the rules now before hand too?11 of the slots are clearcut, and the other 4 there’s generally no surprise in how they are awarded 2. Agreed. I also think its an achievement to make the final 15 now - certainly more so than qualifying via the continental final route under the old system. 3. Really??? You don't think those going through the continental final route had it easier than those going via the inter-continental final. What about Larry Ross - 1985, Nz champ with a 15 point maximum, didn't get a slot in the next round? 4. Simply not true about the seeding. And of the years Mauger didn't reach the final, in how many of those would he have been a genuine shot at winning. Only 1980? And a chance under the one-off system maybe, no way under a GP system. Any others? PC – 78, any other years?. But don't forget, if PC had reached the final in 78 and won, he'd have been taking a title off Olsen. 7/8 points enough points in most rounds to go through? Name a year in which that was enough in the American final, Nz final, Australian final? And tbh, I reckon scoring 7 points in the inter-continental final was a much tougher ask than scoring 13 to qualify from the GP challenge now.

Also, please tell me the years in which Gollob, Crump, Hancock and Hampel were given permanent wildcards i.e. did not have to qualify for that GP series?

 

 

 

Is it really that much easier to finish in the top 8 than to qualify in the top3 of the best of the rest. I don’t believe it is (Lindback is a good example). And the “elite” which people keep harping on about it – its not as though this is some aristocracy where they are getting their “elite status” based on bloodlines (apart from Harris obviously) – they are the “elite” because they are better than the “outsiders.”

 

 

 

But fresh talent does have the chance!!! They can qualify via the qualifiers (most aren’t god enough), or via the permanent wildcard.

Pedersen/Gollob/Crump/Hancock/\Rickardson 14GP titles from 80 seasons – roughly one every 6 . Your list of riders is closer to one in 5 – which if you took your logic would indicate that its harder now. However, as I said above, I don’t think you can use these figures like that. One key factor is that there is significant overlap in these careers – so Mauger winning was preventing Olsen and Collins winning for example. Of course, between them the riders you list would have won more World titles under a GP system – but I don’t see how that’s a bad thing, if it means the true greats would have been even more successful?

 

 

 

But no-one is claiming the current system is perfect. You are the one saying that as it’s not perfect its not a “proper” world Championship. Others are pointing out that the old WC also had flaws (arguably more), and that you are therefore being hypocritical.

But please tell me even one criticism of the GP system which has not been answered and I’m sure you will get an answer to it. Every criticism you have raised on this thread has been answered on others, but you seem to ignore all the counter-arguments you have been presented with.

 

My thought are that while the current system isn’t perfect, it works well in ensuring close to the strongest possible field (plus a Brit).Personally, I’d reduce the permanent wildcards to two slots (to cover in order of priority injuries to top riders , entry for hot talents, ensuring each of the 5 major speedway nations (Poland, Sweden, Denmark, England Aussie) have at least one representative)., reduce the “qualifying slots” for riders from outside the series to two places, then have a GP challenge for places 9-14 from the GP, 3-10 from the “qualifiers” plus the top 2 from the under 21 champs.

How would you structure it Parsloes?

 

 

Valid points to some extent. Les Collins is an example of a rider who had one blindingly good year (well, great performances in the IC and World final anyway), but would have likely not been in the GP that year. Januz Kolodiecz (spelling) is a recent example of someone who had a great 2010 season, but then a shocking 2011 when he was in the series.

Counter-argument though is that there are far more examples of riders who missed out on World Final because of injury, one bad meeting etc. To add to Rob’s list, you’d have Carter in both 84/85 due to injury, Morton (85) and Wigg (86) missed out at British final stages in the year’s in which they were in the best form of their career. Every year there were riders who were unquestionably in the top 10 in the world missing from the final – that’s simply not the case now.

 

What I do believe true is that the gap between riders in the GP and those outside may be increasing because of their exposure to racing the best in the world every fortnight. Also, the absence of test matches which used to be a feature of the 70s/80s reduces the top level meetings ridden by those outside the GPs. And also, GP riders may be able to attract the sponsorship which allows them to have the best possible machinery. Not sure how to solve this, I think it is a relatively common problem in the “professional age” of sports that the gap between the top competitors and the rest is growing larger

 

Only 4 riders good enough to win? I disagree – I think you have Crump, Hancock, Gollob, Emil, Hampel, Holder, Jonsson and Pedersen who could all win it. 8 riders, most year’s in the WC you’d have struggled to pick that many candidates. Also, you’d expect the list to be shorter anyway under the GP system, as you include only riders good enough to sustain excellence over a whole season, not just one meeting. For example in most years in the 60s, had GPs been in effect, you could have said Fundin/Briggs and been right, in the 70s Mauger/ Olsen/Collins and been right in the mid-late 80s Gundersen/Nielsen and been right.

Pretty much any of next year’s field are capable of winning a GP, and hence potentially an old style world final.

Also: How many people last year picked Hancock to win it – to borrow a line from one of Nz’s best musos, “not many, if any.”

 

 

 

The Olympic final isn’t really a valid comparison, as that is knock out style event,

The SGP is a league system. So a comparison is Man Utd being part of next year’s premiership because they finished in the top17 this year, or qualifying for the champions league next year. A circus???

I’ve used the analogy before, but the old WC was like the FA cup. Everyone had a chance, but one bit of bad luck and your hopes were gone for the season. The GP is like the premiership, every point counts. The FA cup may have more drama, and the winner is always deserving, but the truly prized title is the Premiership because if you win that you have truly been the best team that season.

 

 

It is in your control, there is just a one year delay from qualifying to be in the “finals.” I don’t think young talent is disadvantages, in fact genuine young talent is likely to benefit from the permanent wildcard system. Riders likely to be disadvantaged are more likely to be the “journeyman” rider, who is unlikely to get a wildcard, but has one hot season in a year they are not in the GP. BUT… I haven’t seen any strong examples of riders who would probably have won had they been in the series (a couple of outsiders have been suggested – , which isn’t bad for a 17 year period).

Anyway, to go back to your original question, and to borrow a line someone else used on another thread: Old WC –hard to win. GP series- hard to win.

Some good points and nearly all are right but Fair well a different matter in my opinion.Snooker which i have harped on about is the model Speedway should copy.Outside the top 8 QUALIFY for the right that then that would make up for some of the series shortcomings.Mauger Fundin Briggs Three of my examples of how it is easier to win now than then. ..If say they had 55 chances between them at this format DO YOU BELIEVE they would of only won 15 titles between them?Why they would win more is they would know every october they had the safety valve of qualifying for the next year.Basically 3 or 4 months of preparing for a 11 round haul much more easier than actually quaifying .

[oldace]

So consistently being in the top eight of the best 16 riders in the world is easier than consistently being in the top

8 - 11 of a field ranging from p1ss poor to reasonable to make a world final. Strange logic you use

Edited January 16, 2012 by oldace

[oldace]

Some good points and nearly all are right but Fair well a different matter in my opinion.Snooker which i have harped on about is the model Speedway should copy.Outside the top 8 QUALIFY for the right that then that would make up for some of the series shortcomings.Mauger Fundin Briggs Three of my examples of how it is easier to win now than then. ..If say they had 55 chances between them at this format DO YOU BELIEVE they would of only won 15 titles between them?Why they would win more is they would know every october they had the safety valve of qualifying for the next year.Basically 3 or 4 months of preparing for a 11 round haul much more easier than actually quaifying .

 

So those three won 15 between 1956 and 1979 (24 years)

 

The other winners in those intervening years were Moore in 59 Craven in 62 Knutson in 65

Olsen in 71/75 and 78 Szackiel in 73 Michanek 74 and PC in 1976.

 

Now which of those were the unworthy ones who would have made way for these extra wins your big three would have got.

 

Actually I think Ivan would have won less under a GP system, he certainly wouldnt have won his last two in 77 or 79. Maybe 73 but Michanek was flying that year.

 

Collins could easily have taken three in a row 76 to 78 but equally Olsen was most deserving winner at Wembley in 1978.

 

Had a proper world championship existed then then its a fair bet the riders who won them would have got probably roughly the same amount of titles, maybe in different years, except Ivan who would probably have ended up with 5 at best and Szackiel who would not have got any

Edited January 16, 2012 by oldace

[The White Knight]

So those three won 15 between 1956 and 1979 (24 years)

 

The other winners in those intervening years were Moore in 59 Craven in 62 Knutson in 65

Olsen in 71/75 and 78 Szackiel in 73 Michanek 74 and PC in 1976.

 

Now which of those were the unworthy ones who would have made way for these extra wins your big three would have got.

 

Actually I think Ivan would have won less under a GP system, he certainly wouldnt have won his last two in 77 or 79. Maybe 73 but Michanek was flying that year.

 

Collins could easily have taken three in a row 76 to 78 but equally Olsen was most deserving winner at Wembley in 1978.

 

Had a proper world championship existed then then its a fair bet the riders who won them would have got probably roughly the same amount of titles, maybe in different years, except Ivan who would probably have ended up with 5 at best and Szackiel who would not have got any

 

.............................and that would have been very sad. Everybody likes the underdog to win once in a while. It adds to the spice of the Competition. Hence my previous Post on this Thread.

Edited January 16, 2012 by The White Knight

[oldace]

.............................and that would have been very sad. Everybody likes the underdog to win once in a while. It adds to the spice of the Competition. Hence my previous Post on this Thread.

 

I think people like to see the best rider be crowned World Champion, not some guy who just got lucky on the night, and incidentally in your ideal world of qualification for all Szackiel wouldn't have evne been there being one of the nearly 20 Poles seeded to the 4 finals they hosted in the 70s.

 

As much as the old system was badly flawed a deserving rider did win most years, the exceptions being 1973 and 1983

[stratton]

So those three won 15 between 1956 and 1979 (24 years)

 

The other winners in those intervening years were Moore in 59 Craven in 62 Knutson in 65

Olsen in 71/75 and 78 Szackiel in 73 Michanek 74 and PC in 1976.

 

Now which of those were the unworthy ones who would have made way for these extra wins your big three would have got.

 

Actually I think Ivan would have won less under a GP system, he certainly wouldnt have won his last two in 77 or 79. Maybe 73 but Michanek was flying that year.

 

Collins could easily have taken three in a row 76 to 78 but equally Olsen was most deserving winner at Wembley in 1978.

 

Had a proper world championship existed then then its a fair bet the riders who won them would have got probably roughly the same amount of titles, maybe in different years, except Ivan who would probably have ended up with 5 at best and Szackiel who would not have got any

I just think OLDACE it is like chalk and cheese the one offs and the gps as they are now.As you said they won there titles within a 23 year span i think riding as it is now those three would of won more titles exspecially Mauger.I believe the gps would of been right up his alley and his professional outlook would of served him even better now.A great rider and for me very consistent.

[waiheke1]

.Mauger Fundin Briggs Three of my examples of how it is easier to win now than then. ..If say they had 55 chances between them at this format DO YOU BELIEVE they would of only won 15 titles between them?Why they would win more is they would know every october they had the safety valve of qualifying for the next year.Basically 3 or 4 months of preparing for a 11 round haul much more easier than actually quaifying .

 

 

Sydney – I addressed this point above.

They would almost certainly have won more titles, but not because they didn’t have to go through the qualifying rounds. They would have won more because the GP system rewards riders able to maintain excellence over a whole season, not just one meeting. So Sckaziel wouildn’t have won in 73, Michanek, great rider that he was, would not have won in 74, and those titles would have likely gone to Mauger.

But I don’t believe this proves it was harder per se to win then – harder if you were the consistently the best in the world (so more titles under a GP system for Mauger/Fundin/Nielsen), but easier if you were “one of the rest” (and we’re talking the likes of all time great riders such as Craven, Michanek, Briggs, Gundersen as well as the obvious candidates Sckaziel, Muller etc.)

Anyway, I’ve just bumped a post in which this topics was debated in some detail – discussion on the selections made may want to be continued there! Consensus seems to be that Fundin would have won 7 or 8 titles, Briggs 2 or 3, and Mauger 7. So say 18 titles vs the 15 they actually won. An improvement certainly , but nowhere near the 20 you were claiming somewhere earlier (tongue I cheek I know).