Should Tai Woffinden Ride For Team Gb ?

[steve roberts]

The appearance of the World Champion used to be a big attraction in the days when the champion was rarely beaten. Examples of riders with league averages of around 11.00, or more, in the pre-Grand Prix era included Ove Fundin, Barry Briggs, Ivan Mauger, Ole Olsen, Anders Michanek, Peter Collins, Michael Lee, Bruce Penhall, Erik Gundersen and Hans Nielsen. These champions averaged around 3 wins and a second place for every meeting where they took 4 rides - on some occasions these riders achieved 11.5+ averages, showing how hard they were to beat. When Tai last rode for Wolverhampton in 2014, in 25 official matches he averaged 7.73, that is more or less equivalent to finishing second on average for every ride he took. It could be argued that standards are different now to the days when the other riders mentioned were competing, but I think they are lower overall now (and I accept that the race formula is also different), so if it came to a question of whether the current World Champion would put numbers on the gate I would say possibly a few, but certainly not the hundreds extra who would have turned up to see the near-unbeatables in their day.

Good observation. Of course you'll get those who point at differing heat formula/fixed gate etc as regards why riders no longer achieve averages of 10 and 11 plus but there's no getting away from the fact that riders in the past had a certain magic about them and drew crowds. I used to get excited by the prospect of watching a Mauger or a Olsen or a Briggs, Michanek etc riding at my home track...perhaps only once or twice a season. I don't recall Ivan Mauger getting beaten around Cowley, but I may be wrong, during my time.

[BWitcher]

That's a very good and very interesting point raised regarding Woffinden's average at Wolverhampton in comparison to past world champions, such as Hans Nielsen.

 

Coincidently, since I returned to the sport, I've noticed that the heat leaders aren't as dominant as they once were. In heat one during the Glasgow versus Edinburgh fixture, Nike Lunna, Tigers' number two, was leading Masters for three laps until Etheridge caused a stoppage. Lawson was nowhere in sight and I specifically remember watching a Sky meeting last summer, Peterborough versus Glasgow, and Nick Morris, Tigers' number one at the time, came dead last in the first heat.

 

That's simply because, despite what the 'good old days crowd' keep trying to tell us, the overall quality of rider is much higher now, with much smaller gaps between the teams from top to bottom.

 

The 'good old days crowd' will tell us about the unbeatable heat leaders teams used to have with their 10-11pt averages in one post... then in the next tell us how great the second strings and reserves were and how often they beat the heat leaders...

 

As I've mentioned on another thread, there is an argument for returning to a format where the top riders meet less often than they do now, this would give them higher averages and create a perception of them being stronger. Even include bonus pts in their averages again. It's all psychological, they are the same riders but if they have a 10pt average rather than an 8, it makes them appear all that much more enticing to go and watch and be excited about them visiting.. and of course them getting beat.

[Grachan]

That's simply because, despite what the 'good old days crowd' keep trying to tell us, the overall quality of rider is much higher now, with much smaller gaps between the teams from top to bottom.

 

The 'good old days crowd' will tell us about the unbeatable heat leaders teams used to have with their 10-11pt averages in one post... then in the next tell us how great the second strings and reserves were and how often they beat the heat leaders...

 

As I've mentioned on another thread, there is an argument for returning to a format where the top riders meet less often than they do now, this would give them higher averages and create a perception of them being stronger. Even include bonus pts in their averages again. It's all psychological, they are the same riders but if they have a 10pt average rather than an 8, it makes them appear all that much more enticing to go and watch and be excited about them visiting.. and of course them getting beat.

I agree.

 

The old race format created heroes and the crowd want heroes.

 

I'd even suggest taking the nominated riders race out of the averages. Give us back out 10 point number ones.

[waiheke1]

Not to mention that you can see the stars racing a few times a week online or on TV. Not like the old days when you may have seen the star opposing number one only once per season.

[LunnasPerm]

The "good old days" crowd sound accurate in relation to the 10/11 point averaged riders, but not the second strings. Certainly not from my memory.

 

I remember Mick Powell beating Billy Hamill and Greg Hancock at Shawfield in either '94 or '95, I'm thinking the latter, and you would have thought James Corden had just beaten Usain Bolt in the 60M, such was the shock reaction. The stadium erupted.

 

So, I have to disagree on that point.

[sparkafag]

The "good old days" crowd sound accurate in relation to the 10/11 point averaged riders, but not the second strings. Certainly not from my memory.

 

I remember Mick Powell beating Billy Hamill and Greg Hancock at Shawfield in either '94 or '95, I'm thinking the latter, and you would have thought James Corden had just beaten Usain Bolt in the 60M, such was the shock reaction. The stadium erupted.

 

So, I have to disagree on that point.

 

In one league (or BSPA Cup) Powell beating Hamill and Hancock would be like Tomas Jorgensen of Berwick beating Holder and Andersen if Poole visited Berwick, if that happened the crowd would react massively, that isn't something that has ever changed.

Edited May 2, 2016 by sparkafag

[LunnasPerm]

 

In one league Powell beating Hamill and Hancock would be like Tomas Jorgensen of Berwick beating Holder and Andersen if Poole visited Berwick, if that happened the crowd would react massively, that isn't something that has ever changed.

 

And with that, you have not only misunderstood my point, but actually supplied it with a basis for support. Thank you.

[BWitcher]

The "good old days" crowd sound accurate in relation to the 10/11 point averaged riders, but not the second strings. Certainly not from my memory.

 

I remember Mick Powell beating Billy Hamill and Greg Hancock at Shawfield in either '94 or '95, I'm thinking the latter, and you would have thought James Corden had just beaten Usain Bolt in the 60M, such was the shock reaction. The stadium erupted.

 

So, I have to disagree on that point.

 

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing on, that's precisely what I'm saying.

 

Of course we had riders with 10-11 pt riders in the past, there were a few reasons for that..

 

1: Size of league, the more times, the more higher averaging riders there are.

 

2: Depth of quality... the less quality of the second strings and reserves, the higher averaging heat leaders there are.

 

3: Race format.. the less often the top riders meet, the higher averages they will have.

 

4: Bonus pts.. they used to be included, they aren't now.

 

The season you were referring too would likely have been 1995 when the two leagues merged.

 

You are spot on, back in those days, when a lower rider beat one of the 'big names' with the 10pt+ averages, it was fantastic.

 

And with that, you have not only misunderstood my point, but actually supplied it with a basis for support. Thank you.

 

Which is what you did with my post

 

I was merely trying to explain how they contradict themselves as we all know there were many riders with high averages... and by having those high averages it meant they weren't getting beat very often by second strings and reserves.. despite what some try to claim.

[steve roberts]

I think that it is worth noting that not all 'Star' riders rode at number one during the days of the 13 heat formula. Erik Gundersen often rode at number three so was programmed to meet the opposite number one on at least two occasions. There were others and Peter Collins instantly comes to mind. Ivan Mauger often rode at number four away from home and occasionally at number two at home!

[sparkafag]

 

And with that, you have not only misunderstood my point, but actually supplied it with a basis for support. Thank you.

 

You’re right you will need to explain it to me, because it reads like it was a shock that a lower league rider beat two top level heat leaders in a race 20 years ago, well it would still be a shock now, so can you expand on your point?

[BWitcher]

I think that it is worth noting that not all 'Star' riders rode at number one during the days of the 13 heat formula. Erik Gundersen often rode at number three so was programmed to meet the opposite number one on at least two occasions. There were others and Peter Collins instantly comes to mind. Ivan Mauger often rode at number four away from home and occasionally at number two at home!

 

That only goes to strengthen the case that the overall quality of the league was not that high and that the second strings and reserves beat the top guys even less.

[LunnasPerm]

 

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing on, that's precisely what I'm saying.

 

Of course we had riders with 10-11 pt riders in the past, there were a few reasons for that..

 

1: Size of league, the more times, the more higher averaging riders there are.

 

2: Depth of quality... the less quality of the second strings and reserves, the higher averaging heat leaders there are.

 

3: Race format.. the less often the top riders meet, the higher averages they will have.

 

4: Bonus pts.. they used to be included, they aren't now.

 

The season you were referring too would likely have been 1995 when the two leagues merged.

 

You are spot on, back in those days, when a lower rider beat one of the 'big names' with the 10pt+ averages, it was fantastic.

 

Which is what you did with my post

 

I was merely trying to explain how they contradict themselves as we all know there were many riders with high averages... and by having those high averages it meant they weren't getting beat very often by second strings and reserves.. despite what some try to claim.

 

Another misunderstanding. Who said I was disagreeing with you? Not me. You did.

 

I was referring to what you said was the views of the "gold old days" crowd; great heat leaders, great second strings and great reserves. I was merely stating that, as I said earlier in the topic, I recall the great heat leaders, but not the great second strings and reserves.

 

You've got the wrong end of the stick, I'm afraid.

[BWitcher]

 

You’re right you will need to explain it to me, because it reads like it was a shock that a lower league rider beat two top level heat leaders in a race 20 years ago, well it would still be a shock now, so can you expand on your point?

 

Not as much of a shock at all as we are far more used to seeing the top riders being beaten now.

 

When riders were running 10.5-11pt averages it was rare to see them beat, even rarer by a second string or reserve.

 

Jorgensen beating Holder and Andersen at Berwick now, although exciting, wouldn't be anywhere near as shocking/exciting as Powell beating Hamill/Hancock back in their pomp of 1995.

[LunnasPerm]

 

You’re right you will need to explain it to me, because it reads like it was a shock that a lower league rider beat two top level heat leaders in a race 20 years ago, well it would still be a shock now, so can you expand on your point?

 

BWitcher referred to the "good old days" crowd claiming that heat leaders, second strings and reserves were better back in the day. I said that I could remember the heat leaders being stronger, but not the rest. I used the Powell versus Hamill and Hancock example because it was uncommon, going against the "good old days" crowd's suggestion that second strings were great and perhaps did this on a regular basis.

 

It was a shock then and it would be a shock now, that's what I said and you reiterated it. I think you actually tried to correct me, but it's back-fired, I'm afraid.

[BWitcher]

 

Another misunderstanding. Who said I was disagreeing with you? Not me. You did.

 

I was referring to what you said was the views of the "gold old days" crowd; great heat leaders, great second strings and great reserves. I was merely stating that, as I said earlier in the topic, I recall the great heat leaders, but not the great second strings and reserves.

 

You've got the wrong end of the stick, I'm afraid.

 

Understood, I see where you are coming from, we're on the same page.

[steve roberts]

 

Another misunderstanding. Who said I was disagreeing with you? Not me. You did.

 

I was referring to what you said was the views of the "gold old days" crowd; great heat leaders, great second strings and great reserves. I was merely stating that, as I said earlier in the topic, I recall the great heat leaders, but not the great second strings and reserves.

 

You've got the wrong end of the stick, I'm afraid.

I remember the first time I saw Belle Vue visit Cowley they had Eric Broadbelt at reserve...and he was regularly beating heat leaders. That 'Aces' side of 1972 was exceptional and had strength throughout. Of course in later years (rider control was never really satisfactory) there were varying ceilings placed on team make-ups to try and equalise teams.

[sparkafag]

 

BWitcher referred to the "good old days" crowd claiming that heat leaders, second strings and reserves were better back in the day. I said that I could remember the heat leaders being stronger, but not the rest. I used the Powell versus Hamill and Hancock example because it was uncommon, going against the "good old days" crowd's suggestion that second strings were great and perhaps did this on a regular basis.

 

It was a shock then and it would be a shock now, that's what I said and you reiterated it. I think you actually tried to correct me, but it's back-fired, I'm afraid.

 

 

Meh, as an example I don’t think it proves much at all in all honesty it is a freak result, would need a larger show of results to justify the point either way.

[LunnasPerm]

 

 

Meh, as an example I don’t think it proves much at all in all honesty it is a freak result, would need a larger show of results to justify the point either way.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

I made a point, you tried to disagree with me, but didn't understand my point, so ended up agreeing with and now it's "meh"?

 

You continute to agree with me through this comment, you absolute nutter: "I don’t think it proves much at all in all honesty it is a freak result". You're right, it's a freak result, as is the point I made!

Edited May 2, 2016 by LunnasPerm

[sparkafag]

 

What on earth are you talking about?

 

I made a point, you tried to disagree with me, but didn't understand mine, so ended up agreeing with and now it's "meh"?

 

You continute to agree with me through this comment, you absolute nutter: "I don’t think it proves much at all in all honesty it is a freak result".

 

 

Yeah “meh”

 

I don’t agree with your point or the self-imposed view of my opinion you fanny/nutter/tosser etc and so on (since insults seemingly add to a point) it is a one off race that could happen years ago and could still happen now, it isn’t enough to massively differentiate strength of heat leaders, reserves and second strings etc, it doesn't prove a point or disprove another it is just a race that can happen.

Edited May 2, 2016 by sparkafag

[LunnasPerm]

 

 

Yeah “meh”

 

I don’t agree with your point or the self-imposed view of my opinion you fanny/nutter/tosser etc and so on (since insults seemingly add to a point) it is a one off race that could happen years ago and could still happen now, it isn’t enough to massively differentiate strength of heat leaders, reserves and second strings etc, it doesn't prove a point or disprove another it is just a race that can happen.

 

:lol:

 

Once again, you are agreeing with my point.

 

I think that's plenty of internet for you today, sparkafag. Top right, log-off, do it.