stratton Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 I don't know how you can say that when some riders weren't even allowed to enter the world championship system because of their country of birth!!! Is that also true now? not every underdog gets the chance too compete! as we know it is a bit of a closed shop very hard too gatecrash ask NKI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 Is that also true now? not every underdog gets the chance too compete! as we know it is a bit of a closed shop very hard too gatecrash ask NKI. I don't know if it is.I guess every ferderation has the chance to apply for a qualifying place.But back in the 60s and early 70s how would an American get into the world championships?Didn't Rick Woods go back to the States once he learnt he wouldn't be allowed to qualify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 SURELY we want the World Champion to be the best rider of the year not just a given day. If that were the case - then why not just select the best Rider of the year and give him the Trophy - no need for a Meeting. We could forget the World Final/GP Series then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) If that were the case - then why not just select the best Rider of the year and give him the Trophy - no need for a Meeting. We could forget the World Final/GP Series then. You are making a silly argument now.We had this from someone a few weeks back.Nonsense.We have a set of meetings,because this is a sport that are attended by fans and watched by 1,000s of others on tv and this brings in publicity and sponsors to the sport.What you suggest does none of those things.Crazy........We have been here before.Last winter and you and the others that share your opinion came up with nothing other than what everyone agrees with.The one off world final was more often than not a tense affair.yes.But what we have now is much better than that.You don't agree,but you have no realistic counter-argument.Isn't it time to agree that time has moved on?We might as well bring back scrath races and 4 lap flying starts as speedway was brilliant back in 1928 and that was obviously the reason why Edited December 9, 2012 by iris123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 I don't know if it is.I guess every ferderation has the chance to apply for a qualifying place.But back in the 60s and early 70s how would an American get into the world championships?Didn't Rick Woods go back to the States once he learnt he wouldn't be allowed to qualify? He did and you are right we all know the USA and AUSTRALIAN rounds were brutal and unfair.But then on the other hand Mark Loram won a world title without winning a round so has the GP Series always been fair?In saying that i was a big Loram fan and he won it having knowing what the rules were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 9, 2012 Report Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) You are making a silly argument now.We had this from someone a few weeks back.Nonsense.We have a set of meetings,because this is a sport that are attended by fans and watched by 1,000s of others on tv and this brings in publicity and sponsors to the sport.What you suggest does none of those things.Crazy........We have been here before.Last winter and you and the others that share your opinion came up with nothing other than what everyone agrees with.The one off world final was more often than not a tense affair.yes.But what we have now is much better than that.You don't agree,but you have no realistic counter-argument.Isn't it time to agree that time has moved on?We might as well bring back scrath races and 4 lap flying starts as speedway was brilliant back in 1928 and that was obviously the reason why I was talking 'tongue in cheek' - I would have thought that was obvious. I was just extrapolating Philip Risings comment to it's logical conclusion. Edited December 9, 2012 by The White Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 He did and you are right we all know the USA and AUSTRALIAN rounds were brutal and unfair.But then on the other hand Mark Loram won a world title without winning a round so has the GP Series always been fair?In saying that i was a big Loram fan and he won it having knowing what the rules were. Riders have won world finals with two race wins when a rider with 4 race wins was only third, is that fair. The idea of the GP is exactly the same as a world final, the winner is the one who scores the most points, winning rounds no more comes into it than winning races did in years gone by Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobStefenson Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Fancy Iversen to be right up the standings. His gating will help him on a lot of the GP tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Finally... Yet what you fail to realise is WK... Speedway is in the state that it is because it HASN'T moved on from the 70's. What do you mean ? Of course speedway has moved on. We now have the tactical ride. If that isn't progress I don't know what is. I'm sorry - but I simply cannot agree with that statement. Most Supporters would like to see their own Favourite Rider win the World Final - same in the GPs. If your favourite Rider doesn't win then you don't really worry too much. Mauger himself was the MASTER of conning Riders at the Gate. A lot of Riders were beaten before the Race ever started by Ivan. I site the 1972 Run Off as an example - Ivan Mauger messed around at the Star that much that he TOTALLY out psyched Bernt Persson. When the Tapes eventually went up Persson was left for dead. As far as Sczakiel is concerned - he out thought the Master on that day and won. Had Ivan been a bit more patient and waited before attempting to pass when he did - he could have still won - he didn't and he lost. On the day Jerzy Sczakiel WAS the best Rider in the World. I don't think you have watched the Youtube clip. He did not out-think Mauger. he just rolled forward from 6 feet away and the referee let the tapes go. That doesn't involve thought. it just involves a referee who had already handled the meeting appallingly, letting the tapes go when his fellow countryman approached them. If you go back to all the World Champions from Tommy Price in 1949 to Mauger in 1972 some of them had some luck on World Final Night but it is undeniable that without exception they were consistently among the worlds best. Two weeks after Szczakiel won the World title he rode in the World Cup and was the only rider that failed to score. A year later he again rode in the World Cup and failed to score. He never qualified for another World Final. That does not suggest he was a genuine world class rider, as opposed to someone that got lucky on the night. Egon Mullers win in 1983 was also shrouded in some suspicion. If you are looking to find the rider who is genuinely the best in the world the Grand Prix system is the only way. As Philip Rising says, the WEorld Champion should be the best rider of the year, not the best rider of the night. Edited December 10, 2012 by E I Addio 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 it just involves a referee who had already handled the meeting appallingly, letting the tapes go when his fellow countryman approached them. Georg Transpurger may have been inept. But he was certainly not Polish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I don't think you have watched the Youtube clip. He did not out-think Mauger. he just rolled forward from 6 feet away and the referee let the tapes go. That doesn't involve thought. it just involves a referee who had already handled the meeting appallingly, letting the tapes go when his fellow countryman approached them. If you go back to all the World Champions from Tommy Price in 1949 to Mauger in 1972 some of them had some luck on World Final Night but it is undeniable that without exception they were consistently among the worlds best. Two weeks after Szczakiel won the World title he rode in the World Cup and was the only rider that failed to score. A year later he again rode in the World Cup and failed to score. He never qualified for another World Final. That does not suggest he was a genuine world class rider, as opposed to someone that got lucky on the night. Egon Mullers win in 1983 was also shrouded in some suspicion. If you are looking to find the rider who is genuinely the best in the world the Grand Prix system is the only way. As Philip Rising says, the WEorld Champion should be the best rider of the year, not the best rider of the night. I didn't realise Jerzy Szczakiel was German. The ref of the '73 was Transpurger - also the ref of the '72 final (when Mauger took advantage of a rolling start or two). He was German. Szczakiel was Polish. All the best Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Riders have won world finals with two race wins when a rider with 4 race wins was only third, is that fair. The idea of the GP is exactly the same as a world final, the winner is the one who scores the most points, winning rounds no more comes into it than winning races did in years gone by Do you really think so. I thought you wanted the Winner to be the BEST Rider in the World. You can't be that if you are unable to WIN a Round. :blink: ............................oh!! yes you can. :shock: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Do you really think so. I thought you wanted the Winner to be the BEST Rider in the World. You can't be that if you are unable to WIN a Round. :blink: ............................oh!! yes you can. :shock: So if Mark Loram wasn't the best rider in the 2000 series, then who was? Someone who scored LESS overall points points than Loram?????? Mind you, Lionel Van Praag was 1936 champion, even though Bluey Wilkinson scored a 15-point maximum in the World Final. All the best Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickthemuppet Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Riders have won world finals with two race wins when a rider with 4 race wins was only third, is that fair. The idea of the GP is exactly the same as a world final, the winner is the one who scores the most points, winning rounds no more comes into it than winning races did in years gone by Not true. Freddie Lindgen scored 20 points at the 2008 Gothenberg GP but Rene Holta won it but only scored 14. Even Nikki Pedersen who finished third (15) scored more points than Rene Holta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 What do you mean ? Of course speedway has moved on. We now have the tactical ride. If that isn't progress I don't know what is. True.. although of course, its fairer that the tactical sub rule we used to have. As you probably know I'm referring to the presentation of the sport. Not true. Freddie Lindgen scored 20 points at the 2008 Gothenberg GP but Rene Holta won it but only scored 14. Even Nikki Pedersen who finished third (15) scored more points than Rene Holta. He's referring to the the 'winner' as being the one who scores most points in the series, not an individual GP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 True.. although of course, its fairer that the tactical sub rule we used to have. As you probably know I'm referring to the presentation of the sport. Of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Not true. Freddie Lindgen scored 20 points at the 2008 Gothenberg GP but Rene Holta won it but only scored 14. Even Nikki Pedersen who finished third (15) scored more points than Rene Holta. PRESUME oldace meant that the winner of the World Championship was the rider with the most points at the end of the series... as it should be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 PRESUME oldace meant that the winner of the World Championship was the rider with the most points at the end of the series... as it should be. The beauty of the 'One Off' World Final was that the Winner was the Winner. :approve: With the GP Rules the Winner can be the - - - LOSER. Ah well - that's Speedway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 The beauty of the 'One Off' World Final was that the Winner was the Winner. :approve: With the GP Rules the Winner can be the - - - LOSER. Ah well - that's Speedway. Go on then enlighten me, how is this so. The WINNER of the grand final is the WINNER of the GP, in what way is he the loser. In order to get to the grand final he will have accumulated anything from 9 to 18 points to be added to the 6 for WINNING the GP and these accumulate to give us an overall world champion. That has been my understanding but are you now telling me the WINNER is stripped of his GP win if he has scored less race points than another competitor.. Good job your'e not a boxing fan Ian, that would confuse you, imagine boxer winnning a title fight despite losing 11 rounds just by a KO in the last. Ah well thats boxing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Go on then enlighten me, how is this so. The WINNER of the grand final is the WINNER of the GP, in what way is he the loser. In order to get to the grand final he will have accumulated anything from 9 to 18 points to be added to the 6 for WINNING the GP and these accumulate to give us an overall world champion. That has been my understanding but are you now telling me the WINNER is stripped of his GP win if he has scored less race points than another competitor.. Good job your'e not a boxing fan Ian, that would confuse you, imagine boxer winnning a title fight despite losing 11 rounds just by a KO in the last. Ah well thats boxing I was alluding to the fact that Mark Loram was World Champion without winning a Round. I feel I must state that I am a big Mark Loram Fan - I thought he was GREAT!! In the context of this discussion though, the evidence is incontrovertable. 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.