Sidney the robin Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, BWitcher said: There you go again with the same nonsense. Averages is just a measuring stick. The more you saw riders win, the better you thought they were.. their average being higher was just a consequence of that. There is no other way of judging the overall ability of a speedway rider. Yes you can throw in skills such as team riding etc to further refine things but in a nutshell winning races is what counts. Are riders like Kenneth Bjerre, Jakob Jamrog and Jack Holder top class riders in your eyes Sidney? I don't listen to what you say pie in the sky notions what so Ivan Mauger averaged 11.74 ( it was lowered later) my opinion was on his stats really.???? Of course not even in his fourties when he averaged 8 plus to 9 points a meeting he was still a good rider averages don't come into it also you comment on riders you did not see live your knowledge is from the 90s onwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: I agree with all your 'indisputable facts' because they are indeed indisputable I would disagree my suggested scenario is essentially impossible I used the term 'world class' as the examples being used were of extremes and this would be the opposite to the 'rookies' In reality those introduced would only had to have been marginally better than Staechman and Parker rather than actual world class for it to prove true and that would not have been 'essentially impossible' 8 team league 56 riders The riders is postions 20 - 35 are likely to be around 6 point average 16 team league with new riders at lower end those same 6 pointers will become 8 pointers (20/35 out of 112) 16 team league with new riders at higher end those same 6 pointers will become 4 pointers (70/85 out of 112) At that time the British League was still the strongest league with most of, if not all the top riders racing here. Feel free to name 70 riders better than Staechman and Parker who could have come into the league and been stronger than them? You can't get a more accurate comparison than 94/95/96 as it's the same pool of riders... The point is, had you watched Staechman and Parker and riders of that ilk in the 'bigger league' format over a ten year period they would be remembered more fondly than such a rider over a ten year period in the smaller format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve roberts Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, BWitcher said: So you're liking things you don't agree with? Rather strange. Simple question, is your judgement of riders effected by how often you seem the win races.. yes or no? Are you being particularly obtuse as regards the 'like' option? I've covered that in detail in all it's permutations and it's very apparent use when some contributors register that option by their sometimes clarification of why they choose to do so or not as the case might be. Hopefully that's the end of that particular line of enquiry. As regards 'judgement of riders' I've covered that in previous posts and my overall assessment of a rider can vary depending on a rider's prowess and overall ability as was the example I gave between John Davis and Gordon Kennett who were both very successful speedsters but whose techniques were different in reaching the same goal. Now can I ask you for a long outstanding answer to a statement that you made 12-18 months regarding that many riders during the seventies achieved team places within only a few weeks sitting on a bike. It was established that those with grasstrack experience were exempt. Examples please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, Sidney the robin said: I don't listen to what you say pie in the sky notions what so Ivan Mauger averaged 11.74 ( it was lowered later) my opinion was on his stats really.???? Of course not even in his fourties when he averaged 8 plus to 9 points a meeting he was still a good rider averages don't come into it also you comment on riders you did not see live your knowledge is from the 90s onwards. Your opinion that Mauger was a great was because he was winning most of his races!!!! The 'average' is simply a by product of that. Feel free to name a rider that you thought was World Class who didn't win many races... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney the robin Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, BWitcher said: Your opinion that Mauger was a great was because he was winning most of his races!!!! The 'average' is simply a by product of that. Feel free to name a rider that you thought was World Class who didn't win many races... My opinion of Mauger did not change from averaging 11.74 to when he was doing home meetings only at Exeter in 1984.The same with Eric Boocock he came back in 1983 was unsuccessful but his reputation stayed in tact a class act over a long period of time think about it.?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, steve roberts said: As regards 'judgement of riders' I've covered that in previous posts and my overall assessment of a rider can vary depending on a rider's prowess and overall ability as was the example I gave between John Davis and Gordon Kennett who were both very successful speedsters but whose techniques were different in reaching the same goal. No, your post only once again backed up what I was saying. All your post did was clarify how you ranked/differentiated two riders with similar achievements. They only came into the conversation because you saw them winning lots of races. The more you see a rider win races, the better you are going to think they are. That's just reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, BWitcher said: At that time the British League was still the strongest league with most of, if not all the top riders racing here. Feel free to name 70 riders better than Staechman and Parker who could have come into the league and been stronger than them? You can't get a more accurate comparison than 94/95/96 as it's the same pool of riders... The point is, had you watched Staechman and Parker and riders of that ilk in the 'bigger league' format over a ten year period they would be remembered more fondly than such a rider over a ten year period in the smaller format. Essentially we are agreeing again Where the rider pool is stable then comparisons are relatively accurate My original point was that the statistics are less reliable when the rider pool and mix changes (ie between eras) which you have showed yourself too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Sidney the robin said: My opinion of Mauger did not change from averaging 11.74 to when he was doing home meetings only at Exeter in 1984.The same with Eric Boocock he came back in 1983 was unsuccessful but his reputation stayed in tact a class act over a long period of time think about it.?? ??? That's because he'd already won six World Championships. So, if Mauger rode his entire career at the level he did in 1984, never won six World titles as a result, never had the 11.74 and other 10 and 11+ point seasons, you claim you would still have ranked him the same? Same question for Boocock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney the robin Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 minute ago, BWitcher said: No, your post only once again backed up what I was saying. All your post did was clarify how you ranked/differentiated two riders with similar achievements. They only came into the conversation because you saw them winning lots of races. The more you see a rider win races, the better you are going to think they are. That's just reality. If you see a rider regularly surely that puts you in a stronger position to comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: Essentially we are agreeing again Where the rider pool is stable then comparisons are relatively accurate My original point was that the statistics are less reliable when the rider pool and mix changes (ie between eras) which you have showed yourself too No I have never done that. I have simply illustrated the differences between a large league and a smaller league. The rider pool is irrelevant, the results will always be the same. My comparison of eras only comes into play when assessing how riders ranked 20-35 are perceived in an era of a 'big league' and an era now of smaller leagues by looking at that group of riders in the strongest leagues of the time. All any of this boils down to is the simple, indisputable (unless you are Sidney) reality that the more you see a rider win, the better you will think they are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve roberts Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, BWitcher said: No, your post only once again backed up what I was saying. All your post did was clarify how you ranked/differentiated two riders with similar achievements. They only came into the conversation because you saw them winning lots of races. The more you see a rider win races, the better you are going to think they are. That's just reality. ...and I see that you've coveniently side-stepped my question to you which is still outstanding. I await with interest. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Sidney the robin said: If you see a rider regularly surely that puts you in a stronger position to comment. When discussing the characteristics of a rider, i.e. ability to gate, make passes etc then yes. The overall success of a rider, it makes no difference at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney the robin Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 minute ago, BWitcher said: ??? That's because he'd already won six World Championships. So, if Mauger rode his entire career at the level he did in 1984, never won six World titles as a result, never had the 11.74 and other 10 and 11+ point seasons, you claim you would still have ranked him the same? Same question for Boocock. No i judged him Ivan more on my memory of watching him ride as a example i was not a fan of Rickardsson.He would not be in my top three riders of all time but he should be judges better than me think so but i judge riders on what my memory tells me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, steve roberts said: ...and I see that you've coveniently side-stepped my question to you which is still outstanding. I await with interest. Answer remains the same, I always forget to dig out the old Backtrack magazines in my fleeting visits to England. We need one of these convos when I'm there to jig my memory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Sidney the robin said: No i judged him Ivan more on my memory of watching him ride as a example i was not a fan of Rickardsson.He would not be in my top three riders of all time but he should be judges better than me think so but i judge riders on what my memory tells me. And what was Ivan doing when you were watching him ride? Winning races by any chance? Again, name me one rider who you judged to be 'world class' who didn't win many races. Must be plenty as winning races had nothing to do with your judgement? Edited February 17, 2019 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve roberts Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, BWitcher said: Answer remains the same, I always forget to dig out the old Backtrack magazines in my fleeting visits to England. We need one of these convos when I'm there to jig my memory! ...I await with interest but don't leave it too long as the years are catching up with me and reading some of these long winded, round the house threads is only adding to the agonising eventuality! Edited February 17, 2019 by steve roberts 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney the robin Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, BWitcher said: When discussing the characteristics of a rider, i.e. ability to gate, make passes etc then yes. The overall success of a rider, it makes no difference at all. So if Steve had the experience of seeing Gordon ride a lot more times than you do you believe he is better aquipped to comment on Kennett than you.??? Edited February 17, 2019 by Sidney the robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney the robin Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, BWitcher said: And what was Ivan doing when you were watching him ride? Winning races by any chance? Again, name me one rider who you judged to be 'world class' who didn't win many races. Must be plenty as winning races had nothing to do with your judgement? Not in 1984 he wasn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, Sidney the robin said: So if Steve had the experience of seeing Gordon ride a lot more times than you do you believe he is better aquipprd to comment than you.??? Utterly irrelevant to the conversation. In answer, in terms of his riding style, how he earned his pts, how exciting you found him as a rider then yes. His overall success? Makes no difference at all if you saw them or not. Results are all documented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sidney the robin said: Not in 1984 he wasn't. In 1984 he was already a six time World Champion who you had spent your life watching win races. Just the same as in 2005 I still thought Sam Ermolenko was the greatest. Just as in 2014 I still thought he was the greatest when watching him race at Monmore.. because of what he had PREVIOUSLY done. Had you watched Mauger ride at the level he did in 84 for the rest of his career you wouldn't be classing him as an all time great.. and had Ermolenko rode at the level he did in 2005 for his entire career I wouldn't be classing him as highly either. Anyway, come on, you keep saying winning races had no impact on your judgement of riders... so name me one.. just one... who you classed as world class who didn't win many races. Edited February 17, 2019 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.