World Final Draws

[TonyMac]

 

1988 ICF at Vetlanda. Nielsen out to finish second in three-man run-off for second place (i.e. finish third in the meeting). Shut off coming off the final bend; the following Gundersen also shut off. Gundersen crossed the line first, but ref gave the win to Nielsen.

 

The last time the draw was made before the final was 1990.

 

I believe it changed with the introduction of the World Semi-Finals in 1991. At that point, the draw was only made after the semis, not before them.

 

All the best

Rob

 

Yeah, razor-sharp those bods at the FIM. It only took them years to cotton on to the shenanigans.

 

I guess so, although he might have been philosophical that the 'plan' hadn't worked in '88 as in '87, and that No 9 wasn't a terrible draw in any case.

 

1987 ICF: Nielsen allows Jimmy Nilsen through in their final race, finishes 3rd rather than 2nd in the meeting, and gets two inside gates against Gundersen over the two-day world final; the second in Heat 23 is particularly pivotal.

 

All the best

Rob

 

Rob, I sense a Backtrack piece here....

What must also be taken into account here is ego.

 

How much easier would it have been for Ivan to miss the gate and trail in third at White City anyway? No-one would have questioned it.

 

Instead, he chose to show Thomsen and Jessup, and the watching world, that he had the beating of them before feigning machine failure.

 

Psychological warfare? A plan to gain a more advantageous draw in the final? Or showing off and plain ego?

 

Same could be said from watching the clip from the '88 ICF at Vetlanda. Nielsen clearly didn't NEED to roar off into the lead in the way he did. If finishing second was his plan, would it not have been better to miss the gate and try and pass the rider (placed 2nd) in front of him?

 

But then again, did Hans lack the confidence in himself to pass Erik or Per in that situation, to secure second spot?

 

Or, as Ivan did at White City, was he simply demonstrating his perceived superiority to Erik and Per, by showing them that he COULD win the race as he pleased, before pulling that stunt on the last turn?

 

But neither of these attempted manipulations are comparable to what Hancock did in Melbourne, Bruce Penhall did at White City in '82, Screeny did for Loramski in 2000 and countless others have done in past GPs and, before, under the previous traditional World Championship format.

 

In those incidents, they were doing 'favours' for other riders - not seeking to gain themselves an advantage later down the line.

[lucifer sam]

 

But neither of these attempted manipulations are comparable to what Hancock did in Melbourne, Bruce Penhall did at White City in '82, Screeny did for Loramski in 2000 and countless others have done in past GPs and, before, under the previous traditional World Championship format.

 

In those incidents, they were doing 'favours' for other riders - not seeking to gain themselves an advantage later down the line.

 

Yes, there's two very clear variations there.

 

As for Mauger and Nielsen, IMO clearly ego was involved. As has been pointed out in Ivan's case, was No 15 really better than No 13? I think it's more part of a mind game.

 

'Favours' for other riders is a different kettle of fish. At least Penhall in 1982 and Screeny in 2000 were honest about it - nothing hidden away. Same as in Heat 20 of the 1982 ICF - where Ole clearly instructs Erik (with a hand signal) to slow down on the final bends so that Bo Petersen can pass them both and get into the run-off for 11th place (which he lost):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq_y9WIY4P0

 

Again, nothing hidden away.

 

I think that's where Greg fell down last weekend - he tried to hide it. All that subsequent nonsense claiming he had a problem with the clutch. It also causes fresh doubt as to what happened in 1996. Were Gary Havelock's allegations at the time correct? Did Greg deliberately fall in Sweden to gain Billy Hamill a re-run and therefore interfere with the result of the '96 World Championship?

 

All the best

Rob

Edited October 29, 2016 by lucifer sam

[Grand Central]

I feel there are other significant variations as well.

Their whole outlook was different.

 

I don't think Mauger and Nielsen spent one moment of their careers trying to be everyone best friend.

Neither ever saw behaving like a pratish teenager to curry favour with the 'kool kids' as being desirable.

And that 'Monstrous Joe' chap would not have been given house-room within their pit crew.

 

How times have changed.

 

.

 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Grand Central

[TonyMac]

I think that's where Greg fell down last weekend - he tried to hide it. All that subsequent nonsense claiming he had a problem with the clutch. It also causes fresh doubt as to what happened in 1996. Were Gary Havelock's allegations at the time correct? Did Greg deliberately fall in Sweden to gain Billy Hamill a re-run and therefore interfere with the result of the '96 World Championship?

 

1996 is way too recent for me, you'd have to explain...!

[lucifer sam]

 

1996 is way too recent for me, you'd have to explain...!

 

Billy Hamill and Greg Hancock were sponsored by Exide, and rode under the Team Exide Banner.

 

Hans Nielsen built up a big lead in the Grand Prix, but had a bad round in the fourth round in Sweden, and there was a big chance for Hamill to make up some points. At that time, points for the final were 25-20-18-16, so there was a big swing between winning a GP or finishing third or fourth. Hamill was only third in the final at Linkoping (behind Henka Gustafsson and Tomasz Gollob), but then fourth-placed Hancock came down. Hancock didn't get up and the race had to be stopped.

 

Hamill won the re-run, thus gaining seven extra GP points. Henka Gustafsson was denied the only Grand Prix round win of his career, while Hamill finished just two points clear of Nielsen at the end of the year.

 

Gary Havelock alleged on the Sky Sports television coverage that Hancock had acted deliberately to gain his Team Exide team-mate a re-run.

 

In the fifth and sixth rounds:

* Round 5: Hamill passed Hancock for third place towards the end of the final at London (Hackney), after Hancock went wide.

* Round 6: Hamill and non-Team-Exide member Sam Ermolenko allowed Mark Loram to finish in front of them in Heat 20 at Vojens, so that Nielsen did not reach the A Final. Ermolenko - the early race-leader - made the admission in his autobiography, where he explained it was revenge for the Danes throwing a race in the World Pairs Semi-Final (1991) to eliminate the USA from the final. Ermolenko also said that he regretted it, since he didn't realise that the extra points scored by Loram would relegate him to 9th in the standings (with top 8 qualifying automatically) and would lead to his elimination from the 1997 series, after he failed to secure his place via the GP Challenge. Sam never got back into the series.

 

While Nielsen should have never lost such a big lead (he'd still been the most consistent rider in the world until 1995, and '96 was when that crown started to slip, as ultimately it was the stinker in Sweden that cost Hans), there were those who felt he had lost to a team rather than an individual. Gary Havelock, in particular, wasn't backward in coming forward with his comments over the Team Exide collaboration.

 

All the best

Rob

 

PS I admit to being a huge Nielsen fan, but I've tried to tell the above as objectively as possible.

 

EDITED: Double-checked: it was 1991 where the Danes allegedly threw their final race in the semi-final to eliminate the USA from the World Pairs Final.

Edited October 30, 2016 by lucifer sam

[Terry]

 

1996 is way too recent for me, you'd have to explain...!

 

Henka Gustafsson was leading the 'A' final in Sweden, followed by Gollob, Hamill and Hancock when Greg slid off.

He stayed down and Billy won the re-run.

 

The Yanks did Nielsen up like a kipper in the last round in Vojens. The way they manipulated the results to keep Nielsen in the 'B' final really had to be admired!

 

Edit. lucifer sam beat me to it with a more thorough explanation of events!

Edited October 30, 2016 by Terry

[Grand Central]

Errmolenko's behaviour on the first lap in Vojens 1996 was just as blatant as what we saw in Melbourne 20 years later.

 

I can't remember if he claimed his 'clutch' was a problem on the 'straightaway'.

But at least he recieved his just desserts.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Grand Central

[steve roberts]

 

Henka Gustafsson was leading the 'A' final in Sweden, followed by Gollob, Hamill and Hancock when Greg slid off.

He stayed down and Billy won the re-run.

 

The Yanks did Nielsen up like a kipper in the last round in Vojens. The way they manipulated the results to keep Nielsen in the 'B' final really had to be admired!

 

Edit. lucifer sam beat me to it with a more thorough explanation of events!S

 

 

At the risk of upsetting people I was never particularly impressed with Billy Hamill. There were far better riders who never managed to win the World Championship over the years in my opinion. He only won that year because of mitigating circumstances as explained previously.

[waiheke1]

Had a bit of spare time after some recent minor surgery so just watched the 96 series. Every bit as blatant as described by Rob above, though the commentator (tony millard) made no mention of it, instead enthusing over Lorams pass of Ermolenko.

Without a doubt Sam should have been excluded.

Recall him letting Hancock past in an early 90s overseas final to ensure greg qualified for the next round.

As a side note, not sure you will ever see a better race than the 96 gp challenge run off,where Crump ended going first to last, and Smith ultimately beat Sam at the end of a fantastic battle for the final reserve spot.

At the risk of upsetting people I was never particularly impressed with Billy Hamill. There were far better riders who never managed to win the World Championship over the years in my opinion. He only won that year because of mitigating circumstances as explained previously.

In fairness to Hamil I'd rate him at least the equal of other one time world champs like Havelock, Loram and Holder (the latter obviously world chsmpionship in similarly controversial circunstances) and ahead of the likes of muller and sckaziel.

But I can see arguments for the likes of knudsen being regarded as equally good riders, even if for various reasons they did not become world champ.

[steve roberts]

Had a bit of spare time after some recent minor surgery so just watched the 96 series. Every bit as blatant as described by Rob above, though the commentator (tony millard) made no mention of it, instead enthusing over Lorams pass of Ermolenko.

Without a doubt Sam should have been excluded.

Recall him letting Hancock past in an early 90s overseas final to ensure greg qualified for the next round.

As a side note, not sure you will ever see a better race than the 96 gp challenge run off,where Crump ended going first to last, and Smith ultimately beat Sam at the end of a fantastic battle for the final reserve spot.

In fairness to Hamill I'd rate him at least the equal of other one time world champs like Havelock, Loram and Holder (the latter obviously world chsmpionship in similarly controversial circunstances) and ahead of the likes of muller and sckaziel.

But I can see arguments for the likes of knudsen being regarded as equally good riders, even if for various reasons they did not become world champ.

I would add Tommy Jansson, Malcolm Simmons, John Louis, Dave Jessup, Phil Crump, Billy Sanders, Dennis Sigalos (off the top of my head) as worthy (and in the case of Jansson potential) champions ahead of Hamill in my opinion...although it's difficult comparing the different race formulae/disciplines between a One-Off World Final and Grand Prix Series. I acknowledge that Sam Ermolenko was a worthy champ but not in the year that he was successful. He was very fortunate in that the referee dismissed the fact that he was not under power during one race and should have therefore been excluded.

Edited November 15, 2016 by steve roberts

[Sidney the robin]

I would add Tommy Jansson, Malcolm Simmons, John Louis, Dave Jessup, Phil Crump, Billy Sanders, Dennis Sigalos (off the top of my head) as worthy (and in the case of Jansson potential) champions ahead of Hamill in my opinion although it's difficult comparing the different race formulae between a One-Off World Final and Grand Prix. I acknowledge that Sam Ermolenko was a worthy champ but not in the year that he was successful. He was very fortunate in that the referee dismissed the fact that he was not under power during one race and should have therefore been excluded.

Agree with all of that list would add Leigh Adams to it to he was capable of winning a one off final .Jansson well i believe he was a certain champion in the making had everything so pleased i had the pleasure of seeing him ride i see him ride 8 times.

[steve roberts]

Agree with all of that list would add Leigh Adams to it to he was capable of winning a one off final .Jansson well i believe he was a certain champion in the making had everything so pleased i had the pleasure of seeing him ride i see him ride 8 times.

Forgot Leigh Adams...and I'm sure that there are others if I really put my mind to it. I never rated Hamill but that's just a personal view based on years watching the aforementioned riders over a number of years and witnessing their triumphs on both the domestic and world stage.

Edited November 15, 2016 by steve roberts

[Sidney the robin]

Forgot Leigh Adams...and I'm sure that there are others if I really put my mind to it. I never rated Hamill but that's just a personal view based on years watching the aforementioned riders over a number of years and witnessing their triumphs on both the domestic and world stage.

I was the same out of all the Americans Hamill was never a favourite of mine but i admired what he achieved.The era from 82/88 was robbed in my view with Penhall,Lee,Sigalos,Sanders,Carter all going for whatever reason could it have been differerent? would Hans/Erik still won seven titles between them who knows!!!

[waiheke1]

Disagree with most of those being as good as Hamill tbh. Jessup could easily gave finished top 2 in a gp series, but Simmons, Louis, crimp, sanders I just can't see it. Sigalos and Jansson had the potential certainly, though neither got close in their prematurely ended careers.

End of the day almost every season the world champ needed a lucky break of some kind, and that was arguably the difference between some one time champs like Hamill and those who missed out, like knudsen, Carter, jessup etc.

Ultimately I'd rank Hamill somewhere between 20 and 30 on a list of best post war riders, not sure I would include any non world champs in that top 30.

I was the same out of all the Americans Hamill was never a favourite of mine but i admired what he achieved.The era from 82/88 was robbed in my view with Penhall,Lee,Sigalos,Sanders,Carter all going for whatever reason could it have been differerent? would Hans/Erik still won seven titles between them who knows!!!

Think the answer to that is no sid, hard to believe penhall or a focused lee wouldn't have won more titles. That's before you get to what if Carter was there at odsal, what if sigalos/knudsen had not been hit by injuries, what if the Morans had loved the good life a little less.

Watching the early gp series also reminded me how good nielsen was, he really would have cleaned up if the GPs had been in place a decade or so earlier.

[Sidney the robin]

Personally up until 1996 Hans obviously Ricko,Jonsson,Moran,Jan O were the riders i really rated all down to personal preference i suppose.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Sidney the robin

[steve roberts]

Disagree with most of those being as good as Hamill tbh. Jessup could easily gave finished top 2 in a gp series, but Simmons, Louis, crimp, sanders I just can't see it. Sigalos and Jansson had the potential certainly, though neither got close in their prematurely ended careers.

End of the day almost every season the world champ needed a lucky break of some kind, and that was arguably the difference between some one time champs like Hamill and those who missed out, like knudsen, Carter, jessup etc.

Ultimately I'd rank Hamill somewhere between 20 and 30 on a list of best post war riders, not sure I would include any non world champs in that top 30.

Think the answer to that is no sid, hard to believe penhall or a focused lee wouldn't have won more titles. That's before you get to what if Carter was there at odsal, what if sigalos/knudsen had not been hit by injuries, what if the Morans had loved the good life a little less.

Watching the early gp series also reminded me how good nielsen was, he really would have cleaned up if the GPs had been in place a decade or so earlier.

Malcolm Simmons was the rider on form in 1976 and could have pulled off a GP win no problems. It's always going to be arguable because there are so many factors to consider...good discussion however!

 

I forgot about Carter and I would throw Shawn Moran into the equation also.

 

Agree with your assessment of Nielsen. If the GPs had been introduced a decade earlier he would have been invincible. Clearly the rider of the eighties.

Edited November 15, 2016 by steve roberts

[waiheke1]

Collins and Mauger would surely gave been one-two in a gp series in 76, though Simmons could have made the podium for sure.

Carter and s Moran were for me the vest riders of the 80s not to win a world title.

And Morans definitely my favourite American riders of all time.

Personally up until 1996 Hans obviously Ricko,Jonsson,Moran,Jan O were the riders i really rated all down to personal preference i suppose.

All quality riders sid.

But how unlucky was knudsen with injury. Initially in the 80s when he lost much of 83/84 with injury, the 86 final decision v nielsen. And then to have more injuries and come back, be superb in both 95 and 96 GPs but miss half of both series due to injury...

Ricko and nielsen clearly the two best riders of the 90s imo, simply class.

[Sidney the robin]

Collins and Mauger would surely gave been one-two in a gp series in 76, though Simmons could have made the podium for sure.

Carter and s Moran were for me the vest riders of the 80s not to win a world title.

And Morans definitely my favourite American riders of all time.

All quality riders sid.

But how unlucky was knudsen with injury. Initially in the 80s when he lost much of 83/84 with injury, the 86 final decision v nielsen. And then to have more injuries and come back, be superb in both 95 and 96 GPs but miss half of both series due to injury...

Ricko and nielsen clearly the two best riders of the 90s imo, simply class.

Knudsen was a class act and he was one of a few who beat Carter at the Shay on merit Crump also had a decent record against Carter.Knudsen was damn unlucky in 86 but saying that Hans deserved his bit of good fortune.Jonsson i see alot of during the 80s and after Jansson/Sjosten is my favourite ever Swede his style for me nearly as classy as Tommy J Per would of won more titles no doubt about that.

[norbold]

 

Ultimately I'd rank Hamill somewhere between 20 and 30 on a list of best post war riders, not sure I would include any non world champs in that top 30.

 

Vic Duggan? Jack Parker?

[steve roberts]

Vic Duggan? Jack Parker?

Never saw them ride...although I recall Jack being introduced to the crowd at 'The Golden Greats Meeting' at Coventry in 1988...and he had the crowd spell bound. Personally I've only included riders that I saw during my period of attending speedway.