Tai Woffinden Best Ever!?

[iris123]

The interesting thing going on from a previous topic on Havvy,when someone questioned under a GP system would he have even been in the GPS the year he won his title.I guess we could say with some degree of certainty that Jerzy would be doubtful for 1973.Muller though I think would have been quite a regular in the GPs during the 70s-80s period.Think he could have made it into the 8-10 position often enough and being such a media star would have been given 1 or 2 wild cards as there would probably  have been a German GP

Jerzy on the other hand I think would have only managed a meeting wc at best

Edited October 8, 2018 by iris123

[BWitcher]

4 minutes ago, moxey63 said:

I haven't been shown to be wrong. I have been shown to have a different opinion than yours. That's all. I still have my opinion. In my eyes, I am right. Your eyes, I am wrong. There is no definitive correct answer. 

And yes, 10 years ago we probably still disagreed.

 

No, you have been shown to be wrong.

You still have your opinion, but the reasoning behind that opinion is completely incorrect. An opinion with nothing to back it up is effectively worthless.

There is a definitive correct answer. Riders today operate at a far higher standard than they did in the past. Every single rider past and present will tell you that.

The conjecture is which of the riders of the past would have raised their game to the standards required now and which would have just relied on natural talent and not put the 'extra' in.. the kind of rider you get in all eras, even now.

My opinion is the real top boys of the past would all have done whatever was required, they were leading the way then, they'd lead the way now if in this era. Below that though it's far more open as you had a crop who had the talent but were more interested in partying etc. Be harder to be as successful now with that mindset.

Edited October 8, 2018 by BWitcher

[customhouseregular]

3 minutes ago, Grachan said:

I think you only have to see what he did on Saturday when the real pressure was on to get the answer to  that.

If last Saturday had been a World Final Tai would not have won. Under the old system there were many chances to fail...one bad round and your dream was over for that year. Under the new system Tai had 10 chances to rack up the points so could afford a bad round or two.

I am not knocking Tai...I have the utmost admiration for his skill and dedication. I just feel that if you are one of the chosen 15 each year you have a better chance of becoming World Champion than was the case pre-1995.

Is Tai the best British rider ever?...probably.

[Vince]

The one thing I know for certain is that when I first went to Speedway as a young kid in either 1967 or 68 there was no shortage of people to tell you how much better it was in the old days or how much better the riders and bikes were!

I have no problem with opinions but surely they should be based on some knowledge and when I see modern day riders disparaged as all they have to do is hold the throttle wide open and hang on it does bite. The bikes have changed and so have the tracks but a modern bike drives as hard on a slick track as an old one did in deep dirt. Anybody who thinks decent modern riders don't use fantastic throttle control to go fast doesn't pay enough attention to what is going on.

[moxey63]

13 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

No, you have been shown to be wrong.

You still have your opinion, but the reasoning behind that opinion is completely incorrect. An opinion with nothing to back it up is effectively worthless.

There is a definitive correct answer. Riders today operate at a far higher standard than they did in the past. Every single rider past and present will tell you that.

The conjecture is which of the riders of the past would have raised their game to the standards required now and which would have just relied on natural talent and not put the 'extra' in.. the kind of rider you get in all eras, even now.

 

But you have nothing to back up that standards are higher today, apart from me having to go and ask every rider past and present. I am going on what I see in results and rider careers. You can only compare like with like. When you take away Rickardsson (6 titles), Crump (3), and now Pedersen (3), championships become easier to win. We aren't talking decades ago, just 10 years. When those three riders either retired or began to demise, as Pedersen did, it allowed others in with a chance. Gollob won one, Holder (remember him), and then Hancock got back in there, Woffinden and even Doyle. It has become easier in just 10 years to win the GP. The real stars had left the building. The way it is now, Woffinden could easily do a Scott Nicholls in the British Championship and make Peter Collins' one win (in the World Final and British Final) seem pathetic. And we know it was harder back then, when every rider lived the same sort of lifestyles and were just as professional as each other and there were many more individual meetings to test the fact.

Edited October 8, 2018 by moxey63

[IainB]

4 minutes ago, customhouseregular said:

If last Saturday had been a World Final Tai would not have won. Under the old system there were many chances to fail...one bad round and your dream was over for that year. Under the new system Tai had 10 chances to rack up the points so could afford a bad round or two.

I am not knocking Tai...I have the utmost admiration for his skill and dedication. I just feel that if you are one of the chosen 15 each year you have a better chance of becoming World Champion than was the case pre-1995.

Is Tai the best British rider ever?...probably.

I don't get what you're saying... By that token you're basically saying whoever won the first GP should be world champion!

Who won the first GP?

I get what you're saying about pre 95 though

[Grachan]

2 minutes ago, customhouseregular said:

If last Saturday had been a World Final Tai would not have won. Under the old system there were many chances to fail...one bad round and your dream was over for that year. Under the new system Tai had 10 chances to rack up the points so could afford a bad round or two.

I am not knocking Tai...I have the utmost admiration for his skill and dedication. I just feel that if you are one of the chosen 15 each year you have a better chance of becoming World Champion than was the case pre-1995.

Is Tai the best British rider ever?...probably.

But it wasn't a one-off World Final.

What makes you think that a multi-World Champion would be able to, say, finish in the top 4 of the British Final. Or get through the European final which, if I recall correctly, used to have the top 12 riders qualifying?

You can never know. Maybe, under the GP system, Mauger might not have won 5 titles. Maybe Hans Nielsen would have won more and Erik Gundersen less.

You can only base riders' achievements using the system that they are using.

Both systems are equally valid.

[Grachan]

1 minute ago, iainb said:

I don't get what you're saying... By that token you're basically saying whoever won the first GP should be world champion!

Who won the first GP?

I get what you're saying about pre 95 though

Or is he saying that the first GP in September (when the World Final was staged) should decide World Champion? Tai scored 4 points in that one.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Grachan

[moxey63]

27 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

Once again, when you are shown to be wrong, you introduce something completely irrelevant to the debate.

As for 10 years ago, you were spouting the same nonsense then!

Do you even watch the GP's? I seriously have to question that when you have riders like Zmarzlik racing the way they do now. 

Yes, I do. On the other hand, did you watch speedway in the 60s or 70s to have such a downer on riders from back then, or is your education brought to you via the YouTube speedway archive and the couple of races you've dragged out as comparisons?  

[BWitcher]

5 minutes ago, moxey63 said:

But you have nothing to back up that the standards are higher today, apart from me having to go and ask every rider past and present. I am going on what I see in results and rider careers. You can only compare like with like, who riders were up against and what they did in their careers. When you take away Rickardsson (6 titles), Crump (3), and now Pedersen (3), championships become easier to win. We aren't talking decades ago, just 10. When those three riders either retired or began to demise, it allowed others in with a chance. Gollob won one, Holder, and then Hancock got back in there, Woffinden and even Doyle. It has become easier in just 10 years. The real stars have left the building.

Standards are consistently being raised in every single professional sport. Only a complete fool would argue against that.

Yet again, you try and prove something and get it completely wrong.

Crump and Pedersen, both younger than Hancock were both still riding in 2011 when Hancock was World Champion. Crump was 4th that year.

[BWitcher]

2 minutes ago, moxey63 said:

Yes, I do. On the other hand, did you watch speedway in the 60s or 70s to have such a downer on riders from back then, or is your education brought to you via the YouTube speedway archive and the couple of races you've dragged out as comparisons?  

I don't have a downer on riders of the past, once again you're resorting to making things up to try and rescue yourself when you are wrong.

My favourite rider ever is Sam Ermolenko. To me, in his era the riders were way better. I still think of him being better than Rickardsson

However.. the reality is, the sport has moved on, it's even more professional than it was then, standards are higher. What riders such as Nielsen, Ermolenko etc were doing has been taken to even greater levels now. 

[customhouseregular]

I admit it's all conjecture and comparing eras and systems does not give valid answers. It is only a personal opinion that Tai would have found it harder to win 3 titles pre-1995. It does not mean though he would not have achieved it. Class is class and usually wins through

[iris123]

5 minutes ago, customhouseregular said:

I admit it's all conjecture and comparing eras and systems does not give valid answers. It is only a personal opinion that Tai would have found it harder to win 3 titles pre-1995. It does not mean though he would not have achieved it. Class is class and usually wins through

You could ask if Trick was riding in the 60s/70s would he have won so many titles?If Briggo was riding in the 90s would he?What if Craven was riding today,how many titles would he have won.Generally impossible to answer,apart from if PC was about today he and Tai would clean up in the pairs 

Edited October 8, 2018 by iris123

[BWitcher]

1 minute ago, iris123 said:

You could ask if Trick was riding in the 60s/70s would he have won so many titles?If Briggo was riding in the 90s would he?What if Craven was riding today,how many titles would he have won.Generally impossible to answer

I think the fact people are asking whether certain riders would have won as many titles under the old system shows the old system was flawed.

The World Champion should be the best rider that year... Not the best rider on one particular night. We have that now. We didn't before.

Which was more exciting etc is a different argument.

[moxey63]

9 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

I don't have a downer on riders of the past, once again you're resorting to making things up to try and rescue yourself when you are wrong.

My favourite rider ever is Sam Ermolenko. To me, in his era the riders were way better. I still think of him being better than Rickardsson

However.. the reality is, the sport has moved on, it's even more professional than it was then, standards are higher. What riders such as Nielsen, Ermolenko etc were doing has been taken to even greater levels now. 

I disagree about the sport moving on though. Riders may be more professional, but they're still racing in stadiums befitting 1970s speedway and operated by used car salesmen.

Edited October 8, 2018 by moxey63

[BWitcher]

1 minute ago, moxey63 said:

I disagree about the sport moving on though.

It's not something to disagree on.

You only have to look at Nicki Pedersen.. 3 x World Champion. Still at the highest level at league speedway.. but at the very highest level, it's moved on and he can't consistently keep up.

Edited October 8, 2018 by BWitcher

[iris123]

We have a hell of a lot of riders who have been riding speedway since they were 5,6 or 7 years old.That was pretty well unheard of 30 years ago.Riders started as teenagers generally.10 years of experience must pay dividends.That is without the fitness,diet,psychological aspects of modern sport

[IainB]

27 minutes ago, customhouseregular said:

I admit it's all conjecture and comparing eras and systems does not give valid answers. It is only a personal opinion that Tai would have found it harder to win 3 titles pre-1995. It does not mean though he would not have achieved it. Class is class and usually wins through

I agree that Tai would have found it harder to win pre 95 not because he wouldn't have been good enough though but because it could have all been spoilt by a dodgy referring decision or a mechanic forgetting to turn the fuel on

[customhouseregular]

Yes, Tai is probably the best British rider ever but all riders are products of their time.

Do Tai's 3 modern  day titles make him a better British rider than Craven?, or Hancock's 4 make him better American than Penhall or Rickardsson's 6 make him a better Swede than Fundin?.

Titles are one yardstick but not the only one.

[BWitcher]

13 minutes ago, iainb said:

I agree that Tai would have found it harder to win pre 95 not because he wouldn't have been good enough though but because it could have all been spoilt by a dodgy referring decision or a mechanic forgetting to turn the fuel on

The very top riders would have found it a little harder under the old system.

The very good riders, but not actually the very best, would find it way way harder under the GP system.