Kenny Carter Dvd.

[stratton]

If West Ham beat Chelsea and Arsenal over the Christmas period I shall be in permanent Panto mode.

 

Was it not 3 Long Tack and 6 Speedway?.

Totally right Custom sorry, three only getting old quickly i think he won four New Zealand longtrack titles? Just shows you Briggo was decent at longtrack but never really won top honours at this sprere dunno why.

No, 95 and 96 is the most comparable example.

 

What season did those you list all race against each other?

95/96 please forget stats be real that period was a pretty aveage period,saying that in a arguement/discussion you are the best you are right on the stats take though Witcher i can't dispute that.! Edited December 21, 2014 by sidney

[customhouseregular]

Totally right Custom sorry, three only getting old quickly i think he won four New Zealand longtrack titles? Just show you Briggo was decent at longtrack but never really won top honours at this sprere dunno why.

I take it you are a Swindon supporter. Some great riders in the 60's there my friend.

[stratton]

I take it you are a Swindon supporter. Some great riders in the 60's there my friend.

love em i love the track at blunsdon when it is prepared a special track for me.Sir Briggo,Ashby,Crump, the great Leigh i have been lucky in my lifetime to see them i have done my research did Craven beat Fundin more times? what do you think custom a random guess.? Edited December 21, 2014 by sidney

[BWitcher]

95/96 please forget stats

You keep saying forget stats... stats are a record of a riders performance. So, effectively you are saying please forget how many races a rider wins.

 

Are you telling me that you judged the ability of riders on something other then the amount of races they won?? Seriously?

[stratton]

You keep saying forget stats... stats are a record of a riders performance. So, effectively you are saying please forget how many races a rider wins.

 

Are you telling me that you judged the ability of riders on something other then the amount of races they won?? Seriously?

ability nothing else.

[BWitcher]

ability nothing else.

 

Name me a top class rider who didn't win many races.

[stratton]

Your stats are impressive ,BUT you are totally wrong, have a look at the decades? then get back to me!

Edited December 21, 2014 by sidney

[BWitcher]

What decades?

 

Decades are irrelevant.

 

I've asked you, name a top rider who doesn't or didn't win many races as you are saying you don't judge riders on their race stats. So come on.. its simple, name me one.

[waiheke1]

Personally, I take an unfashionable view. I don't believe that Carter was anywhere near as good as Gundersen and Nielsen. You need a cool head to be World Champion and that part of Carter was lacking.

 

Awaits flak.

 

i don't think it's an unfashionable view at all, albeit a position that's easy to take with the benefit of hindsight. Nielsen and Gundersen would both be regarded amongst the top dozen riders of all time, Carter top 50 maybe.

However, in 81 and 82 Carter (similar age to the two Danes) was clearly someway ahead of them. In 83 Carter had a poor season, and was arguably overtaken by them. In 84 his season was a write off, 85 he would have been a hot favourite for the world title but for injury. So in the seasons they raced at the top level (80-85) they were very close, and at the point of Carter's death note that Hans hadn't won world individual title either (neither had he won a BLRC at that stage).

As for a cool head- Nicki Pedersen has three world titles! Apart from 82, I don't recall Carter being involved in too much controversy in major events - he was knocked off by Penhall in 81 overseas final, and fenced Sigalos in the 82 BLRC (IIRMC). Hans however lost three world titles in run offs, crashed in 85 then dropped crictical points in the re-run, got away with knocking Knudsen off in 86, got cost the title by being excluded for knocking Ermolenko off in the 93 world final, seem to recall a controversial clash with Sigalos in the 83 inter-continental final.

Fact is, you needed a bit of luck on world final nights - and KC never got it.

I can't agree that Nielsen and Gundersen were over-rated or that we think they were better than they were. I'm also sure Carter had it in him to win the title, though sadly events prevented us from ever knowing. None the less, I thought he was great.

Sid's point is that the era Hans/Eric dominated was unique in that in a very short space of time the sport lost prematurely 5 of arguably the top 8 world championship contenders (Penhall, Sigalos, Carter, Lee and Sanders). HAd those others been around, it's highly likely that the Danes would have won lsess world titles - if they had ended with one or two a piece say we'd regard them perhaps to the likes of Michanek or Knuttsson (i.e. very good world champs) rather than in the very top ties. Similarly the Danes (best alltime pairing they might be) would have been unlikely to have won the Pairs 6 years straight if competing against Penhall/Sigalos or Lee/Carter. The WTC similarly, amazing as the Gundersen/Nielsen/Pedersen/Knudsen team was - would it have dominated the same against say Penhall/Sigalos/Ermolenko/Moran or Lee/Carter/Morton/Wigg?

Conversely, at the other end maybe they both would have won more if Erik hadn't got injured?

I went to that meeting. British Semi at Odsal. It was easily the worst I had ever seen Kenny Carter ride. A few days later, the reason became quite apparent.

 

I also tend to think that his time for winning the World Title had probably just passed. But I still think he would have been a huge contender in 85. In many ways it was a final that was there for the taking. On the day, both Gundersen and Nielsen had bad rides, Ermolenko was very inexperienced and even Kai Niemi went pretty close. Kenny was still very much a top line rider. Had he reached the final, no-one would have had more time to practice around Odsal than he. He might even had done a Muller and made them 'all look stooooopid'

 

For me, he was genuinely unlucky. Some say he was reckless. I thought he was hard and fast, but never reckless. Both times he broke his leg could be put down to bad luck. In 84 he was hit by a trailing rider and in 85 he came off due to atrocious track conditions. Sadly for him, both crashes resulted in bad injuries. He may have won the title in those years, he may not. But no-one can deny he would have been a serious contender.

 

agree with all of this. I too was there at the Odsal semi. worth noting though that having been on just two points at the interval, he still managed to qualify by winning his last two rides and then a three man run off to secure his place.

Not FACT though is it ? forget figures numbers go by your eye and memory.Forget averages figures,gates,stats,are you telling me Nielsen/Gundersen would not do well now ? you tell me.Also Mauger averaged 11.74 but i still did not think he was better than Briggs overall in his career, forget averages, stats.At this moment in time i would say there are 16 plus top class riders in the 60s,70s,80s there was at least 30 plus who could hold there own.

 

ok Sid, as you know I've devised a ranking system to assess riders within their own era.

In 2013 my 30th best rider in the world was Buczowski and in 2014 Freddie Lindgren

by comparision, In 1983 it was a very much passed his best Mauger and in 84 Finn Thomsen. To take a couple of other years, in 82 it was Mitch Shirra, 86 Peter Carr, 89 Paul Thorp.

Can you really say that the 30th best rider in the world in the 80s was definitely stronger than their equivalent in the 2010s?

I think it's fair to say when you look back things can look stronger than they were, as with riders who were emerging youngsters at the time you are now aware of what they went on to achieve, or riders who were passed their peak you can forget quite where they were in their career in a given season.

[stratton]

My take is overall say in the 70s,there were more top class riders than there are now.As Witcher points out maybe the also rans are on the level but the top boys for me there was more strength in depth.Each team had a decent no 1,heat 1 were generally special ones and most teams had a decent 1/5 ( ie) ex ) belle Vue )Mauger,Sjosten,Collins, Wilkinson, cradley) Penhall,Gundersen,Grahame,Collins,.There were weak teams of course but even some of those were decent at home often with a home advantage.Maybe i am looking through my rosé tinted glasses,but i don't need stats,formats,Averages to tell me week on week i see a stronger product than it is now.My opinion only,no more than that my memory tells me it was a stronger time then the old BL was the envy of the world how thing's have changed.

[waiheke1]

The bl was indisputably stronger than the current el, i think we all agree on that sid. However, that doesnt mean that the sport in genersl was stronger.

[customhouseregular]

love em i love the track at blunsdon when it is prepared a special track for me.Sir Briggo,Ashby,Crump, the great Leigh i have been lucky in my lifetime to see them i have done my research did Craven beat Fundin more times? what do you think custom a random guess.?

This is a guess as I have not looked up any records but I would say Craven. Had he not met such a tragic early end I feel he would have been a multiple world champion al la Fundin.

[E I Addio]

Are you serious utter tosh! he would have a field day whatever track gate whatever stats you throw at us.Have a rethink going back years up until Gundersen (ect) the league was harder most teams had a good five and four at home and riders like PC at three and a decent no 1.Honestly Addio you are quite clued on on most subjects but i recon you are a bit off the mark in this instance,Alot of teams years ago had a decent home advantage/ most travelled badly, at home they were a force.Dress it up as much as you like the EL is an average product living off the scraps pretty average Gundersen/Nielsen both with there gating prowess whatever gate would be licking there lips nowadays in Britain.Also your point about the best and also rans is confusing what is a also ran in your view? a junior?

Sid, let me give you a quote from Ivan Mauger. He said several times that if there was no BarryBriggs there would be no Ivan Maugef. What he meant was that great riders learn from those that had gone before. Ivan said he spent years working out how to beat Briggo because he thought Briggs was the best there was and if he could work out how to beat him he would be best. Eventually Ivan did beat Barry (albeit when Briggo was slightly past his best) but no sooner did Ivan get his triple crown than along came Olsen, mimicked Mauger and moved on a stage. Olsens expertise went on to the other Danes, and so it went on.

 

What I am saying is that good as Gundersen and Neilson were modern riders have learnt from them and upped it a stage. The Greg Hancock today is not the Hancock of 20 years ago. The bikes behave much differently today and Hacock is one that has moved with the times.

 

When I talk about the also rans I was thinking of last season when Richard Lawson went to Poole and beat Darcy Ward twice. That doesn't make Darcy less of a rider it's just that in the moden sport even second strings like Rich Lawson have a great deal of knowledge and professionalism that years ago would have only been in the hands of people like Mauger and a few others but over the years there has been a trickle down effect.

 

I am not knocking past riders . Briggo is IMO opinion the most exciting rider I ever saw, and Inonly saw him towards the end of his career so goodness knows what he was like at his peak, but it's a different game now and. I do think the likes of Gundersen and Neilson would probably have to work harder for their points.

[stratton]

The bl was indisputably stronger than the current el, i think we all agree on that sid. However, that doesnt mean that the sport in genersl was stronger.

Good point some great riders around today who are worth 20 pound a week to watch.I miss the real interesting league meeting's the local derbies v Reading,Bristol,Oxford,Newport, and my trips to the capital Hackney was a big favourite.It really set your weekend up going there on a Friday and Wimbledon what a buzz that place had. I am glad i have watched speedway since the late 60s wouldn't change a thing there always is hope that the sport can push on again a tough ask though in the times we live in.

Sid, let me give you a quote from Ivan Mauger. He said several times that if there was no BarryBriggs there would be no Ivan Maugef. What he meant was that great riders learn from those that had gone before. Ivan said he spent years working out how to beat Briggo because he thought Briggs was the best there was and if he could work out how to beat him he would be best. Eventually Ivan did beat Barry (albeit when Briggo was slightly past his best) but no sooner did Ivan get his triple crown than along came Olsen, mimicked Mauger and moved on a stage. Olsens expertise went on to the other Danes, and so it went on.

What I am saying is that good as Gundersen and Neilson were modern riders have learnt from them and upped it a stage. The Greg Hancock today is not the Hancock of 20 years ago. The bikes behave much differently today and Hacock is one that has moved with the times.

When I talk about the also rans I was thinking of last season when Richard Lawson went to Poole and beat Darcy Ward twice. That doesn't make Darcy less of a rider it's just that in the moden sport even second strings like Rich Lawson have a great deal of knowledge and professionalism that years ago would have only been in the hands of people like Mauger and a few others but over the years there has been a trickle down effect.

I am not knocking past riders . Briggo is IMO opinion the most exciting rider I ever saw, and Inonly saw him towards the end of his career so goodness knows what he was like at his peak, but it's a different game now and. I do think the likes of Gundersen and Neilson would probably have to work harder for their points.

A great post most i agree with,but i do think years ago second string's did beat the top boys and more regularly in my view.My favourite rider Malc Holloway a prime example a second string 6.88 his best BL. Average ever he beat all the top riders at least once in his career.At times he was an inigma once he scored 0 at Bradford i think then a day or so later he got a paid max 13/2 beating Carter three times.I do feel certain riders then did have there every dog has there day Graham Plant another example a terrific rider on his day could beat anyone. Yes your point about Lawson is a valid one,also did Auty once beat Holder at Poole? Edited December 22, 2014 by sidney

[BWitcher]

My take is overall say in the 70s,there were more top class riders than there are now.As Witcher points out maybe the also rans are on the level but the top boys for me there was more strength in depth.Each team had a decent no 1,heat 1 were generally special ones and most teams had a decent 1/5 ( ie) ex ) belle Vue )Mauger,Sjosten,Collins, Wilkinson, cradley) Penhall,Gundersen,Grahame,Collins,.There were weak teams of course but even some of those were decent at home often with a home advantage.Maybe i am looking through my rosé tinted glasses,but i don't need stats,formats,Averages to tell me week on week i see a stronger product than it is now.My opinion only,no more than that my memory tells me it was a stronger time then the old BL was the envy of the world how thing's have changed.

 

You still haven't answered the question Sidney.

 

You don't need stats and race wins etc you've told me, so once again name me ONE world class rider who didn't win the majority of his races.

 

Come on, it must be easy for you.

A great post most i agree with,but i do think years ago second string's did beat the top boys and more regularly in my view.My favourite rider Malc Holloway a prime example a second string 6.88 his best BL. Average ever he beat all the top riders at least once in his career.At times he was an inigma once he scored 0 at Bradford i think then a day or so later he got a paid max 13/2 beating Carter three times.I do feel certain riders then did have there every dog has there day Graham Plant another example a terrific rider on his day could beat anyone. Yes your point about Lawson is a valid one,also did Auty once beat Holder at Poole?

 

Sidney, you really should stop talking as you are digging a bigger hole for yourself with every post.

 

Once again what you are claiming is quite simply mathematically impossible. You can't have the top riders being way above, but at the same time losing to the 2nd strings more.

 

Malcolm Holloway is like a Nicolai Klindt. He has beaten all the worlds best riders on a regular basis, not just once in a career. He too can score 0 in a meeting and look atrocious.

 

It's interesting you say to 'forget' stats.. but it's becoming more and more clear you're judging these riders based on them. All the averages you quote include bonus pts, which makes a BIG difference to many riders averages, especially 2nd and 3rd heat leaders and 2nd strings. It can turn a 6pt rider into a 7.5-8pt rider in some cases giving a totally different perception.

[stratton]

You still haven't answered the question Sidney.

 

You don't need stats and race wins etc you've told me, so once again name me ONE world class rider who didn't win the majority of his races.

 

Come on, it must be easy for you.

 

Sidney, you really should stop talking as you are digging a bigger hole for yourself with every post.

 

Once again what you are claiming is quite simply mathematically impossible. You can't have the top riders being way above, but at the same time losing to the 2nd strings more.

 

Malcolm Holloway is like a Nicolai Klindt. He has beaten all the worlds best riders on a regular basis, not just once in a career. He too can score 0 in a meeting and look atrocious.

 

It's interesting you say to 'forget' stats.. but it's becoming more and more clear you're judging these riders based on them. All the averages you quote include bonus pts, which makes a BIG difference to many riders averages, especially 2nd and 3rd heat leaders and 2nd strings. It can turn a 6pt rider into a 7.5-8pt rider in some cases giving a totally different perception.

I am not digging a hole,no disrespect to you you did not see alot of these riders you are guessing is this right?you started watching in probably the most poorest version of the BL even then it was not the BL a very average version indeed in a deep transition.Your points are valid ,but please don't quote FACT again total dross you give your point of view i will give mine.As in most discussions you have to be the winner fair play but please don't quote fact again give your opinion i will give mine none of us have to be the WINNER Witcher remember that.

You still haven't answered the question Sidney.

 

You don't need stats and race wins etc you've told me, so once again name me ONE world class rider who didn't win the majority of his races.

 

Come on, it must be easy for you.

 

Sidney, you really should stop talking as you are digging a bigger hole for yourself with every post.

 

Once again what you are claiming is quite simply mathematically impossible. You can't have the top riders being way above, but at the same time losing to the 2nd strings more.

 

Malcolm Holloway is like a Nicolai Klindt. He has beaten all the worlds best riders on a regular basis, not just once in a career. He too can score 0 in a meeting and look atrocious.

 

It's interesting you say to 'forget' stats.. but it's becoming more and more clear you're judging these riders based on them. All the averages you quote include bonus pts, which makes a BIG difference to many riders averages, especially 2nd and 3rd heat leaders and 2nd strings. It can turn a 6pt rider into a 7.5-8pt rider in some cases giving a totally different perception.

A simple answer even for you no SPIN Witcher was the 70s a stronger era than now? Not that you were around then a YES OR a NO? whatever your answer i will respect it. Edited December 22, 2014 by sidney

[waiheke1]

Sid - in the past, did the top riders lose more often or less often to second strings than they do today?

Because on one hand you are saying the top riders then were better than top riders today, but on the other you are saying they were beaten by second strings more often?

[stratton]

Sid - in the past, did the top riders lose more often or less often to second strings than they do today?

Because on one hand you are saying the top riders then were better than top riders today, but on the other you are saying they were beaten by second strings more often?

What do you think ? also you have to remember the league was bigger then more variation in tracks different challenges alot more than now a visit to Exeter on a Monday then Coventry on a Wednesday a totally different challenge.

[waiheke1]

Id imagine todays second strings are more competitive. Ther are all professionals, and as such have comparatively better equipment than their latter day equivalents. Secondly, the move to designated gates mean the top riders can't dominate the favoured gates as in the past.

[BWitcher]

What do you think ? also you have to remember the league was bigger then more variation in tracks different challenges alot more than now a visit to Exeter on a Monday then Coventry on a Wednesday a totally different challenge.

 

The bigger the league, the easier it is and the more 'top riders' there appear to be.

 

It's very simple. 8 teams, you have 8 no 1's. 8 no 2's etc. 20 teams, you have 20 no 1's 20 no 2's. And so on. REGARDLESS of the strength of the leagues.

 

The British League in the 70's had more of the worlds top riders in it.. however, its still arguable whether the teams were that much stronger than even current EL teams (although the fast track has blurred that somewhat)... due to their being less teams in the EL now.

 

The British League in the 70's is nowhere near as strong as the top leagues in Sweden and Poland are now.. but again, that's primarily due to the number of teams.

 

The overall standard of riders is around the same. Waihekeaces has already demonstrated this, or do you believe Sidney that Peter Carr, Paul Thorp etc were better than Freddie Lindgren?