How Many Heats In A League Meeting ?

[E I Addio]

You are VERY annoying... You simply choose to ignore the words "at the time"...

When Tiger finished on the rostrum in '75 he was the first Englishman to do since Peter Craven won the title in '62.

Understand the point now..?!

No-one minds debating (that's the point of the BSF after all..) but your attitude in arrogantly dissing those with different views and then deliberately misquoting really is extremely tiresome..

IF you have a point, try arguing it without twisting what others have posted...

 

 

Sorry if you find it annoying if I use English in its every day sense, but if we take your use of the expression "at the time" in the way you now say it was intended then presumably we could also say that when Gary Havelock won the World Title it was unprecedented at the time and when Bomber won the British GP that was also unprecedented at the time. Is that correct ?

If so, then I am sorry if I am being obtuse but I am not sure how discussion of John Louis achievements at the time take the discussion any further forward. If riders achievements are to be judged "at the time" then surely that supports my point the one cannot compare riders of different era's and we just have appreciate great riders for what they are without comparing one generation with another.

Please try to clarify to us thicko's without getting annoyed. It is, after all only a discussion.

[oldace]

Utter garbage. 'Unprecedented at the time' means exactly what I (who wrote it!) meant it to bloody mean!!

 

At the time, for well over a decade, they'd been not a bloody sniff of an English rider finishing on the rostrum. Louis did it and it was unprecedented at that time. That is, for a Speedway 'generation', no-one else had done it...

 

Lads, I've a degree in English and am a writer - don't try and argue semantics with me...

 

Are you being serious? "Unprecedented at the time" If I was referring to Peter Collins being the first Brit to win a world final in Poland I could use that term as the achievement has been equalled since. It is totally wrong in the context you used it. And you say you have a degree in English, were they that easy to get back then that someone with no grasp of written English could get one

[BWitcher]

Utter garbage. 'Unprecedented at the time' means exactly what I (who wrote it!) meant it to bloody mean!!

 

At the time, for well over a decade, they'd been not a bloody sniff of an English rider finishing on the rostrum. Louis did it and it was unprecedented at that time. That is, for a Speedway 'generation', no-one else had done it...

 

Lads, I've a degree in English and am a writer - don't try and argue semantics with me...

 

Parsloes,

 

Unprecedented.. It means it hasn't happened before.

 

Nobody has misread anything. YOU claimed something that wasn't correct, your own error. E I Addio wasn't rude, he simply pointed out that you were wrong. Any civilised adult when they make a mistake would hold their hands up and say, yes you're right, I made an error there, however, this is what I meant.

 

But no, you're still trying to portray that you were correct, even now.

 

It matters not whether you have a degree in English.. just as it mattered not when GRW claimed he had a degree in Advanced Mathematics. You've both been totally wrong on very basic matters and instead of being adult enough to admit it you've chosen to throw your toys out the pram and act the baby.

 

There has been some good debate on this thread, sadly interspersed with childish antics when folk have been shown to be wrong about something.

 

To clarify, definition of 'unprecedented' is.. - 'never before known or experienced; unparalleled.' Now, even throwing in your 'at the time' caveat, are you claiming that in 1975 nobody had ever known or experienced an English rider on the rostrum of the World Championships???

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

Look, I started going to Speedway in 1972. That was already a decade after they'd last been an English rider on the WF rostrum (actually of course Peter Craven stood on the top step of the rostrum that year). They'd been no-one since then even remotely close to achieving that distinction.

 

So when John Louis did, at Wembley in '75, trust me it WAS a very big deal. Looking back, considering Collins and Simmons were 1st. & 2nd. the next year and then Brits (English that is) occupied seven rostrum positions in the following seven finals, it may appear as if it wasn't a big thing, but trust me (or read the news reports at the time...) it WAS!

 

So, within the CONTEXT of that era of English under-achievement (hence us 'adopting' Aussies and Kiwis for the 'Great Britain' team) it WAS a very noteworthy thing when Tiger achieved that third place. This is what I mean by "unprecedented at that time"..

I accept you can take issue with the use of the phrase but its meaning (as I used it) is nonetheless clear; and in any case when first quoted back you decided to ditch the "at the time" part, so you clearly knew you wanted to ignore that caveat..

 

The point was someone (gawd knows who, I can't recall now!!) said Louis underachieved in WFs, my point was that's NOT the case.

 

That alright with all of you in the 'thought police'...?

[oldace]

Look, I started going to Speedway in 1972. That was already a decade after they'd last been an English rider on the WF rostrum (actually of course Peter Craven stood on the top step of the rostrum that year). They'd been no-one since then even remotely close to achieving that distinction.

 

So when John Louis did, at Wembley in '75, trust me it WAS a very big deal. Looking back, considering Collins and Simmons were 1st. & 2nd. the next year and then Brits (English that is) occupied seven rostrum positions in the following seven finals, it may appear as if it wasn't a big thing, but trust me (or read the news reports at the time...) it WAS!

 

So, within the CONTEXT of that era of English under-achievement (hence us 'adopting' Aussies and Kiwis for the 'Great Britain' team) it WAS a very noteworthy thing when Tiger achieved that third place. This is what I mean by "unprecedented at that time"..

I accept you can take issue with the use of the phrase but its meaning (as I used it) is nonetheless clear; and in any case when first quoted back you decided to ditch the "at the time" part, so you clearly knew you wanted to ignore that caveat..

 

The point was someone (gawd knows who, I can't recall now!!) said Louis underachieved in WFs, my point was that's NOT the case.

 

That alright with all of you in the 'thought police'...?

 

Somehow though people seem to think the achievement are being denigrated by the points being made, they are not. I dont know why it is so difficult to understand in all honesty.

 

Under the old 13 heat format it was possible for the two number ones to score 11 and 12 points respectively. That is "fact" rather than opinion surely.

Now with the current format at least 3 points will be dropped between them. That is fact also. Without any other factors that means an average of 11.5 then is the equivalent of 10.8 now. Throw in various other factors and it reduces it more.

 

That is the point being made, not that John Louis was no good, or Chris Morton or any other rider of the era, simply that mathematics dictate they would lose 1.5 to 2 points on there 1970s average if todays formats were applied. Equally your (and mine and everyone else's) perception of how good a rider is (or was) is based purely on the points he scored and the average he attained because of it so we assume Morton was better than Harris (he was in my opinion, miles better ) or Mauger better than Holder etc.

[waiheke1]

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

Very true oldace.

Conversely, you could argue that in a GP riders will often settle for a "safe" 2 points or even one point rather than going all out for a win, if they only need a certain number to make the semis or final (much like in an inter-continental final). In the World Final it was generally "do or die."

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.

The riders you name Sidney I think would have made more world final appearances than they did, though perhaps not as many as you envision. Qualifying would not have been muh easier - finish in the top 8 when for a sizeable chunk of the era MAuger, Olsen, Collins and Michanek would have been shoe-ins for 4 of the spots- would have been very tough, and qualifying from outside the series tricky as well. However, the absence of a requirement to include "token" continentals (though the likes of plech, jancarz etc. would have been well capable of qualifying in their own right) would have freed up some extra places.

However, in terms of placings, I'm not sure they would ahve done better than they did. Crump i think would have had one rostrum finish (75) - assuming that he qualified in 74 which would have been no guarantee-, Autrey would have been a strong rostrum propoect around 77/78, Louis at his peak may have pushed for a rostrum place though i'm not convinced he would have got one, Ashby/Boocock/Wilson i don't believe would have done.

Crump I can imagine you envisioning being in the series throughout the 70s and 80s, but I think he would ahve struggled to get into the gps in the 80s (I'd say only 81and maybe 84 is there a case for him being in the top 10 riders in the world).

I think that what Parsloes says on this particular point is spot on!!

 

do you mean that its easier to qualify from the gps than to be eliminated. Or also that this is a mathematical fact? If the latter, would you care to share the mathematical equation which proves this "fact.?

 

The point was someone (gawd knows who, I can't recall now!!) said Louis underachieved in WFs, my point was that's NOT the case.

 

It was Sidney. Are you one of those b@stards that's always ganging up on him and picking holes in his arguments!?!

 

Equally your (and mine and everyone else's) perception of how good a rider is (or was) is based purely on the points he scored and the average he attained because of it so we assume Morton was better than Harris (he was in my opinion, miles better ) or Mauger better than Holder etc.

Though I agree with the point you and Bewitcher have been making, I'm not sure -this bolded bit is entirely correct.

I would suggest that perception was based 90-95% on results, however 5-10% on other factors (style, manner of winning races e.g.. ability from the back, mitigating factors in results (e.g. collins finishing 2nd in the world final on one leg we might regard as an equal feat to winning it uninjured).

Also, with young riders perception may be based slightly differently for example, a young andy smith didn't score many points initially in the BL, but it was still apparent tht he was quite a talent. I can remember Neil evitts being another who always impressed me in his early performances around hyde rd, even though he didn;'t score many.

 

 

an example to me of how results influence perception is Steve Finch. I always thought he was a cracking rider, whenever I saw him ride for Halifax at eiother Hyde Rd or the Shay he seemed to score well - I reckon over the 83/84 seasons I must have seen him about 8 times, and he must have averaged around 7-8.

However, his average for the Dukes over that peruiod was about 4. SO, I can imagine anyone who saw him race at a smaller track would have seen him as just a mediocre poor reserve. Same rider, different perception due to different results.

[SCB]

The problem is, you lot hunt in packs being supercilious, disparaging and arrogant and in some cases (to sidney mainly) plain rude, so you WANT to mis-read things and pick at the scab of each argument.

 

Frankly, IF you have the worthwhile arguments you claim, you'd just engage in debate like the rest of us - in a normal way, exchanging views and thoughts...

But then I suppose that wouldn't, in truth, be the BSF if that happened...!!

The funny thing is that it's not me, waihekeaces1, OldAce, E I Addio or BWitcher who has used offensive language, called people names and swore.

 

It's not about hunting in a pack, it's about agreeing with each other being on that side of the argument/discussion/debate.

 

I can't speak for the others but I know I enjoy my little spats with sidney (and the others on here), I don't always agree with him, in fact we rarely agree but it's what makes this place more interesting. It would be boring if we all agreed, we'd get no discussion would we? The trick is not to take it personally and not to get personal then this place is great.

[oldace]

Very true oldace.

Conversely, you could argue that in a GP riders will often settle for a "safe" 2 points or even one point rather than going all out for a win, if they only need a certain number to make the semis or final (much like in an inter-continental final). In the World Final it was generally "do or die."

 

The riders you name Sidney I think would have made more world final appearances than they did, though perhaps not as many as you envision. Qualifying would not have been muh easier - finish in the top 8 when for a sizeable chunk of the era MAuger, Olsen, Collins and Michanek would have been shoe-ins for 4 of the spots- would have been very tough, and qualifying from outside the series tricky as well. However, the absence of a requirement to include "token" continentals (though the likes of plech, jancarz etc. would have been well capable of qualifying in their own right) would have freed up some extra places.

However, in terms of placings, I'm not sure they would ahve done better than they did. Crump i think would have had one rostrum finish (75) - assuming that he qualified in 74 which would have been no guarantee-, Autrey would have been a strong rostrum propoect around 77/78, Louis at his peak may have pushed for a rostrum place though i'm not convinced he would have got one, Ashby/Boocock/Wilson i don't believe would have done.

Crump I can imagine you envisioning being in the series throughout the 70s and 80s, but I think he would ahve struggled to get into the gps in the 80s (I'd say only 81and maybe 84 is there a case for him being in the top 10 riders in the world).

 

 

do you mean that its easier to qualify from the gps than to be eliminated. Or also that this is a mathematical fact? If the latter, would you care to share the mathematical equation which proves this "fact.?

 

 

It was Sidney. Are you one of those b@stards that's always ganging up on him and picking holes in his arguments!?!

 

 

Though I agree with the point you and Bewitcher have been making, I'm not sure -this bolded bit is entirely correct.

I would suggest that perception was based 90-95% on results, however 5-10% on other factors (style, manner of winning races e.g.. ability from the back, mitigating factors in results (e.g. collins finishing 2nd in the world final on one leg we might regard as an equal feat to winning it uninjured).

Also, with young riders perception may be based slightly differently for example, a young andy smith didn't score many points initially in the BL, but it was still apparent tht he was quite a talent. I can remember Neil evitts being another who always impressed me in his early performances around hyde rd, even though he didn;'t score many.

 

 

an example to me of how results influence perception is Steve Finch. I always thought he was a cracking rider, whenever I saw him ride for Halifax at eiother Hyde Rd or the Shay he seemed to score well - I reckon over the 83/84 seasons I must have seen him about 8 times, and he must have averaged around 7-8.

However, his average for the Dukes over that peruiod was about 4. SO, I can imagine anyone who saw him race at a smaller track would have seen him as just a mediocre poor reserve. Same rider, different perception due to different results.

 

Yes wouldn't disagee with you on that one.Replace "purely" with "generally"

[g13webb]

 

He actually made the entire community of speedway fans look like mugs, none of us knew the true history of the sport and the reason clubs closed and heat formats were changed.

 

Whilst clubs like Long Eaton, Bradford, Wimbledon, Canterbury, Cradley etc all closed due to houses being built, stadiums being sold etc.. the REAL truth was being concealed.. Until now, GRW has spilled the beans.. there weren't enough riders! Desperately the BSPA tried to take action to save more tracks by increasing the heats to 15 as it became clear there weren't enough quality riders to support a 13 heat format.. but alas it was too late.. and now we're down to just 10 teams....

 

Meanwhile he made us look like mugs with his explanation that Malcolm Simmons was better than Scott Nicholls because he won the World Pairs.. yep, a competition scrapped when Scott Nicholls was 15.. and a World Cup. May as well argue Darren Ferguson was a better footballer than Steven Gerrard because he won a league title one speedway fan argued.. What a mug he was!

 

He also exposed what could potentially have been a race fixing scandal we never knew about.. the year the 15 heat format was brought in, all the top riders averages fell.. but GRW in his all knowing wisdom told us the old 13 heat format was harder.. so how did this happen? Easier format.. all the top guys averages fall... they can only be have been throwing races.. God Bless GRW for bringing this scandal to the attention of the world!

 

Firstly, I would like to apologise, for having the audacity of voicing an opinion that differs to yours. I wasn’t aware that you have this sole given right to Judge, Mimic and chastise other opinions. You also have been given the ability of inventing comments, which others were supposed to have said, purposely for your own gratification. What a unique specimen you are.

Fortunately, I was brought up different to that. I was taught to give everyone respect. To treat everyone the same. Treat them with dignity that you would want to be treated yourself. You obviously have different beliefs then I do. So I will answer your accusations, but after that, I will reframe from any converse with you or Oldace. I come on the forum for enjoyment, for discussions, for information, not to be insulted by couple of nobodies.

Firstly going back to the post No130. In my opinion I thought Simmo was a better rider then Scotty Nicholls, this is no adverse comment on Scotty, I actually rate him. But I thought Simmo was better. Now, if in your warp mind, that is wrong, then tough. Just because your opinion differs it doesn’t make it right or wrong. OK!

Reading your posts you go on and on about averages as if they are the most important thing ever. They are purely a chart, which is manufestered to identify the difference, between riders in a given period of time, (i.e: 1season). But in your world, it is the only identity of class. But like I said, there are other ways to witness the quality of rider. Last year we had MJJ and Magic Janowski, both riding on a 6 point average, and your telling me they’re not world class riders, Dream ON !!

You persistently rubbish the 13-heat format, this format was about for 40 odd years. It was recognised the world over. It worked, and the speedway supporters felt at home with all its rules and regulations. You have this perception, that just because the top riders today (No.1 rider) has to meet his opposite number, probably 3 times, then it is more difficult then what it use to be. But you are missing the point here. Whereas, once all the heat leaders were quality riders and any heats was deemed to be difficult, Now, because the quality has diminished, we have to have nominated heats solely to get the few top riders left, racing each other, more often. So yes, it is because of this the averages of the top rides will drop somewhat. But if it is seen harder for the top riders, by the same standard it is therefore easier for the lower riders to achieve a higher average, as the top riders are busy racing each other. So in your view you must be getting a false impression of the lower riders, thinking they are better then they actually are. Yeah! …. I’ve never said it was easier, I said it was different.

Now we go to Post 172. Here we have a classic, never before have these clubs been mentions, but now you bring them in to the discussion making out things I had said. If you actually believe, that had we used the 15 ht format years these clubs wouldn’t have close, your more dumb then I credited you for. These clubs closed for financial implications, probably they took the easy option, probably they made a quick buck, and probably the supporter didn’t want to go. Whatever the reason it cannot be blamed on the 13 heat format..

The last paragraph sez it all. They say sarcasium is the lowest for of wit. I think that sums you up perfectly. The only scandal on here is the fact you are allow to give the amount abuse you do. Good Bye.........

[oldace]

So yes, it is because of this the averages of the top rides will drop somewhat. But if it is seen harder for the top riders, by the same standard it is therefore easier for the lower riders to achieve a higher average, as the top riders are busy racing each other. So in your view you must be getting a false impression of the lower riders, thinking they are better then they actually are. Yeah! …. I’ve never said it was easier, I said it was different.

 

.....

 

Correct, you are getting it now. In the days of big average heat leaders there were plenty of 2 and 3 point lower riders, much more than now.

 

Like I said it doesn't matter who the riders are the mean average will always tend around 6. For every 10 point man there is a two point man

 

Instead of repeating the same garbage have a read through the thread and see the points being made

Edited March 21, 2013 by Oldace

[waiheke1]

you really havent understood a single one of the points that have been made have you?

 

i agree with you that simmons was better than nicholls though.

 

Edit. this was addressed to grw not yhe oldace post that has popped up while i was typing

 

 

 

Correct, you are getting it now. In the days of big average heat leaders there were plenty of 2 and 3 point lower riders, much more than now.

 

Like I said it doesn't matter who the riders are the mean average will always tend around 6. For every 10 point man there is a two point man

 

Instead of repeating the same garbage have a read through the thread and see the points being made

of course the nominated riders heat reduces the top riders averages without increading the lesser riders averages

Edited March 21, 2013 by waihekeaces1

[oldace]

you really havent understood a single one of the points that have been made have you?

 

i agree with you that simmons was better than nicholls though.

 

Edit. this was addressed to grw not yhe oldace post that has popped up while i was typing

 

 

of course the nominated riders heat reduces the top riders averages without increading the lesser riders averages

 

Indeed so

[BWitcher]

I'm really unsure of what forum you are reading GRW, because it isn't this one.

 

GRW, you are telling us you are brought up to give people respect, yet you, and a couple of others who are preaching this, are the only ones who are throwing their toys out of their pram and getting personal.

 

You seem fixated that people are 'rubbishing' the old 13 heat format. I haven't seen anyone rubbish it, not once. This is a total figment of your imagination. Yet you have this fixed in your head and regardless what anyone says you ramble on and on about this being the case.

 

With regards to your comments about Simmons and Nicholls, I haven't questioned your opinion, just the reasons you used to justify it. There is a major difference there... again, because you are so quick to look to turn a debate into a petty fight you decide you are being told your opinion is wrong again.

 

You also consistently keep trying to fight the obvious.. that being that winning races is the PRIMARY way of judging how good a rider is. You've tried flinging MJJ and Magic into the debate in a futile way to prove your point.. sadly it backfires.. Why do you believe they are World Class riders? Because they've been winning races elsewhere. Very simple.

 

None of your comments regarding the difficulty of the 13 v 15 heat formula have any validity. Its all supposition on your part... and all incorrect. As has been shown, the very year after the change was made, the averages of the top riders all dropped. So your theory of 'the quality' of the riders involved being the reason is flawed.

 

Also flawed is your insistance of 'quality' riders meeting each other all the time in the 13 heat format and how 'all the races were difficult' etc. If this was the case, the top riders of the time would have found it far more difficult, wouldn't have won so many races and wouldn't have racked up such high averages. Again, a flawed theory. The fact is, they rarely got beaten by anyone other than fellow top line riders, so the so called 'quality' you talk about seems to have been lacking.

 

Finally we come to your last paragraph where once again you've made something up in an attempt to disparage me. Where have I said I believe if we had a 15 heat formula clubs wouldn't close??? I haven't.. nobody has. You've made it up once again... All I ever responded to you was YOUR claim.. which as it seems you have forgotten said...

 

We haven't got 140 riders now, that is the reason why we only have 10 teams....Had we had kept that about of riders then we would still be having the 13 heat format.

 

Your claim. Not mine. Utterly ludicrous claim of course, but there you go.

[stratton]

The funny thing is that it's not me, waihekeaces1, OldAce, E I Addio or BWitcher who has used offensive language, called people names and swore.

 

It's not about hunting in a pack, it's about agreeing with each other being on that side of the argument/discussion/debate.

 

I can't speak for the others but I know I enjoy my little spats with sidney (and the others on here), I don't always agree with him, in fact we rarely agree but it's what makes this place more interesting. It would be boring if we all agreed, we'd get no discussion would we? The trick is not to take it personally and not to get personal then this place is great.

Good post and you are totally right it would be boring,i am probably wrong most of the time but it isn't the end of the world is it!The points from others are valid and everyone to there own the debate i enjoy is about certain riders and era,s and i do enjoy reading others opinions believe it or not!

 

Bwitcher a simple question, are Jensen and Janowski world class?the question GR asked they certainly ARE. Both are good anough to be full-time GP riders and there chance will come those two are a example of stats misleading you to a certain extent.

[BWitcher]

Good post and you are totally right it would be boring,i am probably wrong most of the time but it isn't the end of the world is it!The points from others are valid and everyone to there own the debate i enjoy is about certain riders and era,s and i do enjoy reading others opinions believe it or not!

 

Bwitcher a simple question, are Jensen and Janowski world class?the question GR asked they certainly ARE. Both are good anough to be full-time GP riders and there chance will come those two are a example of stats misleading you to a certain extent.

 

I've answered this question to GRW, but I will give you the answer again.

 

First of all it depends upon your definition of World Class. Top 5, top 10, top 20?

 

However, why would you decide that Janowski and Jensen are World Class as you claim them to be.. I would state that its NOT from you watching them in the EL and using your perceptive powers of judgement to say "Wow, they're brilliant"... but rather from the races and meetings that you have seen them WIN. i.e. U-21 titles.. GP's. World Cups etc.

 

Which backs up what I have said all along, riders winning races is the primary consideration when it comes to how good they are.

 

However, your insistence on classing them as World Class riders, doesn't back up your own arguments during this thread.. i.e. how low the quality is in the EL now.

Edited March 21, 2013 by BWitcher

[Vince]

I wonder how many of the posters on this topic (including myself) have ever written something along the lines of "Speedway should be a simple sport, 4 riders, 4 laps" while blaming the powers that be for making it complicated?

 

I think that has happened more than a little here, some people think the sport is as good as it's ever been while some think it was better in the old days. No right or wrong, just an opinion.

 

Obviously those who think the latter are mistaken though

[iris123]

I wonder how many of the posters on this topic (including myself) have ever written something along the lines of "Speedway should be a simple sport, 4 riders, 4 laps" while blaming the powers that be for making it complicated?

 

I think that has happened more than a little here, some people think the sport is as good as it's ever been while some think it was better in the old days. No right or wrong, just an opinion.

 

Obviously those who think the latter are mistaken though

Maybe you mean "the racing is as good as it ever was".That might be hard to disagree with.But to say "the sport is as good as it ever was" is a bit dodgy i would say.If you watched a good heat in a stadium with 5 or 10,000 others it is hard to say it is the same or even in your opinion worse than if you are among 300 or 1,000 people.I can go to an 80cc meeting in Denmark and see a great heat,but as there are only 100 people at most there it doesn't really have the same impact as watching a great heat at a packed Plough lane for the Internationale or an England v USA test match.I can't see how anyone can deny the sport has gone downhill from those days even if the racing has basically remained the same or similar

Edited March 21, 2013 by iris123

[BWitcher]

Maybe you mean "the racing is as good as it ever was".That might be hard to disagree with.But to say "the sport is as good as it ever was" is a bit dodgy i would say.If you watched a good heat in a stadium with 5 or 10,000 others it is hard to say it is the same or even in your opinion worse than if you are among 300 or 1,000 people.I can go to an 80cc meeting in Denmark and see a great heat,but as there are only 100 people at most there it doesn't really have the same impact as watching a great heat at a packed Plough lane for the Internationale or an England v USA test match.I can't see how anyone can deny the sport has gone downhill from those days even if the racing has basically remained the same or similar

 

No arguments on that score whatsoever Iris.

[stratton]

Bewitcher have you a opinion? it dosent matter if you are right or wrong,have you conviction in your own opinion?.Jensen and Magic ive seen live x6 times and with there CV background and history both are certainly good anough at there best.Both mega quick, in the GPS a different test need a good team behind them and it is very difficult ability wise no problem to either. FORGET 6 pt averages in the EL they turn up do there best but other tests are there priority.

[BWitcher]

Bewitcher have you a opinion? it dosent matter if you are right or wrong,have you conviction in your own opinion?.Jensen and Magic ive seen live x6 times and with there CV background and history both are certainly good anough at there best.Both mega quick, in the GPS a different test need a good team behind them and it is very difficult ability wise no problem to either. FORGET 6 pt averages in the EL they turn up do there best but other tests are there priority.

 

Sidney, you're tying yourself in knots and defeating your own arguments.