How Many Heats In A League Meeting ?

[waiheke1]

Yet Morton will be remembered as being a far better rider than Harris I have no doubt, primarily because the format he rode in at the time allowed him to clock up a 9-10pt average consistently.

 

For the record I believe Morton was better than Harris, but not by that bigger margin.

 

not at all BWitcher. Morton was in the top ten of the BL averages every year from 80-86. Harris has never managed close to thsat in Poland/Sweden. Regardless of the actual average, Morton was consistently one of the to riders in the world in club speedway, Harris has never been.

Also, Morton generally rode at three for the Aces, so met the opposing number one twice a meeting under the old format. His average also increased in 1988 (the year the designated heat came in), which makes him very much an anomaly.

We can take that a stage further. Bomber was good enough to beat the worlds best in a single meeting, which Morton never was, so if the 2007 British GP had been an old style World Final (which at Cardiff it might well have been) Bomber would have a World Title to his name.

Of course, had the GP been run under the old one off format, Harris would have been in a run off with Hans Andersen and Nicki P to determine the title, there is no guarantee that he would have won that.

Morton won the inter-continental and BLRC finals, both of which at the time had stronger fields than the world final, so to say Mort was never good enough to beat the worlds best is patently untrue.

Chris Mortons World Final record. 6,8,6,7,8,9,6. Looks very much like a Chris Harris GP scores record to me. Making them very much the same.

of course, its probably fair to say Mort underachieved on the big night, whereas Harris has performed pretty much to expectations. While the World championship is obviously the sport's main event (and I agree, their records here are very comparable) I think you also need to look at other meetings (club, internationals, other individual evernts) to get a total view. And of course, Mort ranks amongst the greatest ever team riders, something which no stat can really reflect.

So, I'd stand by my view that Mort was, by a reasonable though not massive margin, a better rider than Harris. (Relative to standard of world speedway at the time).

Edited March 19, 2013 by waihekeaces1

[E I Addio]

Of course, had the GP been run under the old one off format, Harris would have been in a run off with Hans Andersen and Nicki P to determine the title, there is no guarantee that he would have won that.

Morton won the inter-continental and BLRC finals, both of which at the time had stronger fields than the world final, so to say Mort was never good enough to beat the worlds best is patently untrue.

 

It still all if's and buts. The point being made, building on SCB's very good post about juggling with facts and figures is that cam argue until you are blue in the face but you cannot really compare era's. FWIW, Mort would come very high up on my assessment of riders but I can't put forward a convincing argument to back it up. Its just a personal impression, that's the whole point.

Was Mort better than Michael Lee or Bruce Penhall ? Obviously not. Were Penhall and Lee better than Holder or Gollob? Not many people would say one way or the other. So Morton was around 6-10 places behind the World Champions of his day and Harris was around 6-10 places behind the top riders of his day. That's about as much as we can say without getting involved in impressions and unreliable memory. Let's leave it at that.

[waiheke1]

 

 

It still all if's and buts. The point being made, building on SCB's very good post about juggling with facts and figures is that cam argue until you are blue in the face but you cannot really compare era's. FWIW, Mort would come very high up on my assessment of riders but I can't put forward a convincing argument to back it up. Its just a personal impression, that's the whole point.

Was Mort better than Michael Lee or Bruce Penhall ? Obviously not. Were Penhall and Lee better than Holder or Gollob? Not many people would say one way or the other. So Morton was around 6-10 places behind the World Champions of his day and Harris was around 6-10 places behind the top riders of his day. That's about as much as we can say without getting involved in impressions and unreliable memory. Let's leave it at that.

i disagree. morts record in world finals was comparable to harris. however, his performance in ckub speedway was indisputably better. id argue his performances for england were also better, though that is hard to compare as harris has ridden in an era of a much weaker england team and in regular test matches. so looking at their overall records, i think it is hard to argue for anything other than mort being better than harris (realative to their eras).

mort i think would be in or close to most peoples list of top 10 riders of the 80s. Could you say the same re harris and the 2000s?

[BWitcher]

i disagree. morts record in world finals was comparable to harris. however, his performance in ckub speedway was indisputably better. id argue his performances for england were also better, though that is hard to compare as harris has ridden in an era of a much weaker england team and in regular test matches. so looking at their overall records, i think it is hard to argue for anything other than mort being better than harris (realative to their eras).

mort i think would be in or close to most peoples list of top 10 riders of the 80s. Could you say the same re harris and the 2000s?

 

Ok, so what we've got here, is a comparison between someone who is claimed to be in the top 10 of the 80's.. against someone who perhaps ranks 20-30 in the 2000's..

 

There's some conjecture about it.. I've already stated that I believe Morton was better than Harris, but not by a massive margin. It seems you pretty much agree..

 

So.. where does that take us, a rider in the top 10 of the era where we are being told the standard was far far higher, is a little bit better than rider ranked 20-30 in an era we are told is much weaker..

 

One thing Mort did have in his favor was riding at Hyde Road. It was a track that obviously suited him down to the ground. Of course, he could ride away tracks very well also, but having a home track that you are a master of will always keep your confidence high for away meets. The BLRC that he won, was of course, at his home track.

 

Harris is the kind of rider that would likely have thrived also at a racers track like Hyde Road.

 

Before Sidney or GRW start, this isn't an attack on Morton, he was a damn good rider.

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

Your'e a legend Sidney, did you type all that with a straight face

 

Er, the SGP series is without question easier to stay in than go out of..! A mathematical fact; and backed up, frankly, by how long Chris Harris was allowed (the operative word being 'allowed') to be in it...

Morton's win in the the Inter-Continental Final is at least on a par with Harris' solitary GP win...

[waiheke1]

Ok, so what we've got here, is a comparison between someone who is claimed to be in the top 10 of the 80's.. against someone who perhaps ranks 20-30 in the 2000's..

 

There's some conjecture about it.. I've already stated that I believe Morton was better than Harris, but not by a massive margin. It seems you pretty much agree..

 

So.. where does that take us, a rider in the top 10 of the era where we are being told the standard was far far higher, is a little bit better than rider ranked 20-30 in an era we are told is much weaker..

 

One thing Mort did have in his favor was riding at Hyde Road. It was a track that obviously suited him down to the ground. Of course, he could ride away tracks very well also, but having a home track that you are a master of will always keep your confidence high for away meets. The BLRC that he won, was of course, at his home track.

 

Harris is the kind of rider that would likely have thrived also at a racers track like Hyde Road.

 

Before Sidney or GRW start, this isn't an attack on Morton, he was a damn good rider.

 

Firsty, I personally have never claimed that standard of speedway was higher in the 80s than now , nor would I- i don't think any such claim can be justifiably made.

Hyde Rd I would class as a "fair" track - most good riders rode it well, poor riders would be found out.

Harris I agree would have ridden it well.

 

Er, the SGP series is without question easier to stay in than go out of..! A mathematical fact; and backed up, frankly, by how long Chris Harris was allowed (the operative word being 'allowed') to be in it...

utter bollocks, we have been here before and it is nothing of the sort

 

Morton's win in the the Inter-Continental Final is at least on a par with Harris' solitary GP win...

I agree with this however

[BWitcher]

 

 

Er, the SGP series is without question easier to stay in than go out of..! A mathematical fact; and backed up, frankly, by how long Chris Harris was allowed (the operative word being 'allowed') to be in it...

Morton's win in the the Inter-Continental Final is at least on a par with Harris' solitary GP win...

 

Whilst not doubting the quality of the field in the inter continental final Morton won, it bears no comparison to winning a gp.. One is a qualification meeting, the other is a gp. Was it eleven of the 16 riders that progressed to the world final? I have no doubt most of the field simply had qualification at the forefront of their minds, once that was secured no need to take any extra risks that you may do in a world final or a gp.

 

 

 

 

 

Firsty, I personally have never claimed that standard of speedway was higher in the 80s than now , nor would I- i don't think any such claim can be justifiably made.

 

 

I know you haven't, it was a reference to those that have.

 

 

 

Er, the SGP series is without question easier to stay in than go out of..! A mathematical fact

 

A mathematical fact? So your claim is its easier to finish in the top 8 than outside it? Takes the shine of Chris holders world title last year somewhat if it was so easy.

 

Peter Ljung, what a star he was in the gp. Much harder to finish where he did...

 

 

[waiheke1]

 

Weve been here before with pasloes and his mathematical facts. badically his claim is that as the top eight (or generally ten if you include wildcard spots) of fifteen qualify for the following year, it is easier to stay in than out.

Essentially he confuses statistical probability with difficulty

by his logic it was easier to qualify from the inter continental final than the contunental final or easier to qualify for champions league than to be relegated.

[oldace]

Weve been here before with pasloes and his mathematical facts. badically his claim is that as the top eight (or generally ten if you include wildcard spots) of fifteen qualify for the following year, it is easier to stay in than out.

Essentially he confuses statistical probability with difficulty

by his logic it was easier to qualify from the inter continental final than the contunental final or easier to qualify for champions league than to be relegated.

 

More that he confuses bullsh!t with reasoned debate

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

Whilst not doubting the quality of the field in the inter continental final Morton won, it bears no comparison to winning a gp.. One is a qualification meeting, the other is a gp. Was it eleven of the 16 riders that progressed to the world final? I have no doubt most of the field simply had qualification at the forefront of their minds, once that was secured no need to take any extra risks that you may do in a world final or a gp.

 

A mathematical fact? So your claim is its easier to finish in the top 8 than outside it? Takes the shine of Chris holders world title last year somewhat if it was so easy.

 

In the huge majority of years far more than the top 8 remain in the SGP series - often the top 11 do..

 

And SGPs are ALL more like 'qualifying rounds' than they are WFs.. Riders are building points towards an overall total - there's no 'do or die' aspect to them at all: until there's a close finish in a final GP round like last year that is. Needless to say Harris' GB SGP win did NOT fall into that category!

 

And I'm not saying it's easier to WIN the SGP series; but it most certainly IS a largely closed-shop as facts prove.

[E I Addio]

Whilst not doubting the quality of the field in the inter continental final Morton won, it bears no comparison to winning a gp.. One is a qualification meeting, the other is a gp. Was it eleven of the 16 riders that progressed to the world final? I have no doubt most of the field simply had qualification at the forefront of their minds, once that was secured no need to take any extra risks that you may do in a world final or a gp.

 

 

 

That is a good point and it ties in with an earlier post (which I think also came from Bwitcher) that we tend to remember a riders best performances and forget the less impressive. In the year Mort won the inter-continental final had just about scraped through the British Final in 8th place, then went on to a good win in the inter-continental, but when the real deal came along, the World final, he was back in 9th and behind 7 of the riders he had beaten in the Inter-continental.

 

Again, this is not an attack on Mort but it demonstrates that when the dust settles we remember mainly the high spots and that distorts our perception over the years. In the same way, when Harris becomes a respected retired rider he will be dining out on his GP win rather than the disappointments of later years.

[waiheke1]

Ok, so what we've got here, is a comparison between someone who is claimed to be in the top 10 of the 80's.. against someone who perhaps ranks 20-30 in the 2000's..

 

There's some conjecture about it.. I've already stated that I believe Morton was better than Harris, but not by a massive margin. It seems you pretty much agree..

 

So.. where does that take us, a rider in the top 10 of the era where we are being told the standard was far far higher, is a little bit better than rider ranked 20-30 in an era we are told is much weaker..

 

i think that is about right. Mort as I say I would class as around 10th in a list of best riders of the 80s. Riders I would consider to be somewhere 20-30 would include Les COllins, Doncaster, King, Schwartz, Shirra etc. I'd suggest that Mort would clearly rank higher than those riders, however not by a large margin. Les Collins and Doncaster I would rate as similar to Harris- perhaps slightly better at their peak, but overall behind him as they didn't remain near the top for as long.

 

Whilst not doubting the quality of the field in the inter continental final Morton won, it bears no comparison to winning a gp.. One is a qualification meeting, the other is a gp. Was it eleven of the 16 riders that progressed to the world final? I have no doubt most of the field simply had qualification at the forefront of their minds, once that was secured no need to take any extra risks that you may do in a world final or a gp.

 

True to some extent. However, look at the list of riders who have won the inter-contiental final or the BLRC in that era, they are all class acts. In fact the weakest rider to win either was arguably Les Collins, who managed to win both! The BLRC and i/c finals were (IMHO) the second and thrid biggest individual meetings in the world in that era, compared to a GP which is one of 12 equally significant meetings. Personally, I woud rate a BLRC triumph slightly ahead of a GP win, a GP win slightly ahead of an i/c title (though I could see arguments for reatrranging those in any order).

I also think winning a GP round can in no way be compared to an old World Final - the pressure is not comparable, though the flip side is that the field is stronger (no weak continentals) and riders have something to race for right to the end of the meeting.

 

Anyway - I think we are in agreement anyway that Mort was better than Harris (relative to the era of course), I'm not quite sure how we even got here from discussing pros and cons of heat formats.

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

 

However, look at the list of riders who have won the inter-contiental final or the BLRC in that era, they are all class acts. In fact the weakest rider to win either was arguably Les Collins, who managed to win both! The BLRC and i/c finals were (IMHO) the second and thrid biggest individual meetings in the world in that era, compared to a GP which is one of 12 equally significant meetings. Personally, I woud rate a BLRC triumph slightly ahead of a GP win, a GP win slightly ahead of an i/c title (though I could see arguments for reatrranging those in any order).

I also think winning a GP round can in no way be compared to an old World Final - the pressure is not comparable, though the flip side is that the field is stronger (no weak continentals) and riders have something to race for right to the end of the meeting.

 

 

Absolutely spot on.

[oldace]

 

i think that is about right. Mort as I say I would class as around 10th in a list of best riders of the 80s. Riders I would consider to be somewhere 20-30 would include Les COllins, Doncaster, King, Schwartz, Shirra etc. I'd suggest that Mort would clearly rank higher than those riders, however not by a large margin. Les Collins and Doncaster I would rate as similar to Harris- perhaps slightly better at their peak, but overall behind him as they didn't remain near the top for as long.

 

 

True to some extent. However, look at the list of riders who have won the inter-contiental final or the BLRC in that era, they are all class acts. In fact the weakest rider to win either was arguably Les Collins, who managed to win both! The BLRC and i/c finals were (IMHO) the second and thrid biggest individual meetings in the world in that era, compared to a GP which is one of 12 equally significant meetings. Personally, I woud rate a BLRC triumph slightly ahead of a GP win, a GP win slightly ahead of an i/c title (though I could see arguments for reatrranging those in any order).

I also think winning a GP round can in no way be compared to an old World Final - the pressure is not comparable, though the flip side is that the field is stronger (no weak continentals) and riders have something to race for right to the end of the meeting.

 

Anyway - I think we are in agreement anyway that Mort was better than Harris (relative to the era of course), I'm not quite sure how we even got here from discussing pros and cons of heat formats.

 

The difference with a GP round though is that no matter how your first/second/third/fourth rides have gone a rider will still be busting a gut in his fifth because of the nature of the competition. In other words a rider is racing three opponents in every race of every round.

 

In meetings like the BLRC (or world finals for that matter) once the chance to win had gone a rider would be less motivated to race hard meaning the front runners had potentially easier opposition included in their later heats

[Long Eye]

But how would Jack Parker compare and what has he got to do with how many heats there are?

[BWitcher]

But how would Jack Parker compare and what has he got to do with how many heats there are?

 

Well according to GRW, if there were more riders of Jack Parkers standard around we'd still have a 13 heat format!

 

And if there were only more riders, we'd have more than 10 teams

 

So it all links in...

[stratton]

Someone who highlighted that in Morton,s intercontinental final win he only scraped through the British final.That said it all really the meeting then and now is just like chalk and cheese.The likes of Collins,Jessup,Lee, as (ex) all at one time or another got eliminated at that stage so it shows the level was high.Some riders then would of loved the GP series as they would of always been in it none of the hardship of qualifying everyear. Riders for (ex) like Crump,Autrey,Louis,Ashby,Wilson,E.Boocock for all there ability when looking back had average world final records.

[BWitcher]

Someone who highlighted that in Morton,s intercontinental final win he only scraped through the British final.That said it all really the meeting then and now is just like chalk and cheese.The likes of Collins,Jessup,Lee, as (ex) all at one time or another got eliminated at that stage so it shows the level was high.Some riders then would of loved the GP series as they would of always been in it none of the hardship of qualifying everyear. Riders for (ex) like Crump,Autrey,Louis,Ashby,Wilson,E.Boocock for all there ability when looking back had average world final records.

 

Many of them had average world final records because they weren't as good as you make them out to be.

 

They appeared to be so good because they spent most of their careers beating up on lesser riders in the easier league format of the time, but when it came to the crunch, they weren't as good as the true top level riders of the time. i.e.. Olsens, Maugers, Fundins, Michaneks, Penhalls etc.

 

The same applies to every era of the sport. There's always a group of perhaps 4-5 riders above the rest. Another group sitting just below them.. Then a big bunch of riders who on their day can beat the top guys, but don't do it consistently. However, spread that bunch out in a big league, they'll win most of their races and appear to be almost as good as the 'true' top guys.. Condense them into a smaller league, the gap will appear to be bigger.

 

You only have to look at the Polish/Swedish leagues to see that in operation.

Edited March 20, 2013 by BWitcher

[stratton]

Your theory has substance but the worrying thing is that you are so sure no compromise it's your way or no way.You have some valid points figure,s wise you can only compare era,s by opinions! which is great not FACT as you suggested.My only points were that the standard of the EL is not as strong as yesteryear and even you got around to agreeing what GRW had said in the first place.Out of those riders i named in a GP format Autrey and Crump certainly would of rode in more than 5 finals between them are they less deserving than Lindgren(ect)? My main point is i am not saying i am right,i probably am not but something i have tried to tell my kids is to have there own views and never try to brainwash others to agreeing to there views.

[oldace]

Your theory has substance but the worrying thing is that you are so sure no compromise it's your way or no way.You have some valid points figure,s wise you can only compare era,s by opinions! which is great not FACT as you suggested.My only points were that the standard of the EL is not as strong as yesteryear and even you got around to agreeing what GRW had said in the first place.Out of those riders i named in a GP format Autrey and Crump certainly would of rode in more than 5 finals between them are they less deserving than Lindgren(ect)? My main point is i am not saying i am right,i probably am not but something i have tried to tell my kids is to have there own views and never try to brainwash others to agreeing to there views.

 

Thats all well and good mate but on this one your view is that 2 + 2 = 5. Bwitcher is simply pointing out that it is 4, its not his opinion, he isn't trying to brainwash anyone, he is merely stating a fact. As for him having got round to agreeing with GRW, he has maintained all through this thread, and others, that the Elite League isn't as strong nowadays, its just that GRW was out of his depth in the debate and went on the schoolkid approach of trying to turn things around