Sidney the robin Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, BWitcher said: 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. This is the worst post that you have ever posted are you seriously telling me you can be accurate on a assessment of a rider when you have never seen him ride a astonishing claim. 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 1 minute ago, BWitcher said: 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. Do i judge Mauger on his stats and six titles no I don't, do i rate Rickardsson on his six titles again no as i said he was not a rider i took to yet his record suggests otherwise. 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: This is the worst post that you have ever posted are you seriously telling me you can be accurate on a assessment of rider when you have never seen him ride a astonishing claim. You do realise speedway results are recorded don't you? You do understand if a rider wins 95% of his races it means he is better than someone who in the same season or set of seasons won 70% of his races? You do understand if a rider won the World Title six times and another in the same era was a 3pt reserve it means the first rider is better? You don't have to have seen any of them ride to know that. Speedway isn't like sports such as football. It is a measurable sport where the ability of riders in certain eras can easily be mapped. How they went about achieving those results is a different argument. 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: Do i judge Mauger on his stats and six titles no I don't, do i rate Rickardsson on his six titles again no as i said he was not a rider i took to yet his record suggests otherwise. So, if Mauger had never won six World titles, never achieved 10-11 pt averages year after year, but just rode at the level he did in 84 for his entire career, you would still class him as the greatest ever rider? You provide some great comedy Sidney 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: You do realise speedway results are recorded don't you? You do understand if a rider wins 95% of his races it means he is better than someone who in the same season or set of seasons won 70% of his races? You do understand if a rider won the World Title six times and another in the same era was a 3pt reserve it means the first rider is better? You don't have to have seen any of them ride to know that. Speedway isn't like sports such as football. It is a measurable sport where the ability of riders in certain eras can easily be mapped. How they went about achieving those results is a different argument. Leigh Adams/Dennis Sigalos/ Graham Warren as examples were all great riders all good anough to be a World Champion there records do not show that though does it? Yes or No.? 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: So, if Mauger had never won six World titles, never achieved 10-11 pt averages year after year, but just rode at the level he did in 84 for his entire career, you would still class him as the greatest ever rider? You provide some great comedy Sidney My opinion and i am entitled to it and you mock me and tease me but you have a WEAKNESS it is your way or no way my opinion of Rickardsson shows you that i don't go by stats. 1 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 and i am entitled to it and you mock me and tease me but you have a WEAKNESS it is your way or no way my opinion of Rickardsson shows you that i don't go by stats. It's not your opinion at all. It's just you being stubborn. Your claim is if a rider averaged 8.08 over an entire career, never won any World Titles, or indeed reached a World Final, you'd class them as the greatest of all time... You've not given your opinion of Rickardsson, you've just said he isn't in your 'top 3' of all time. I've said he isn't in my top three either so you're hardly saying something groundbreaking. If you can come up with a rider who was never World Champion, never achieved an average over 8.08 in the league in his entire career that you think is better than Rickardsson I might start to believe you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, BWitcher said: 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. Im surprised you cant see this BWitcher To say the rider pool is irrelevant is just not the case - it is at least as important as the number of teams In many ways to deny this is the same trap Sidney falls into - it confuses practicalities with pure statistics You ask me to name 70 riders better than Staechman and Parker. That is a practical issue. There may or may not have been 70 better (infact quite probably not I agree) Statistically though IF there were 70 better then they wouldve become the 4 point riders in that bigger league rather than the 8 point riders they did because those introduced were at the lower end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: Im surprised you cant see this BWitcher To say the rider pool is irrelevant is just not the case - it is at least as important as the number of teams In many ways to deny this is the same trap Sidney falls into - it confuses practicalities with pure statistics You ask me to name 70 riders better than Staechman and Parker. That is a practical issue. There may or may not have been 70 better (infact quite probably not I agree) Statistically though IF there were 70 better then they wouldve become the 4 point riders in that bigger league rather than the 8 point riders they did because those introduced were at the lower end I understand exactly what you are saying, but you are a: having to make something up that couldn't have happened and b: distorting the parameters. The names are irrelevant in reality, they were just given as examples to try and make it simple for Sidney. The way to look at it is simply the averages of the position. The averages of the 2nd and 3rd heat leaders across the league would shoot up in a 16 team format compared to an 8 team format. I agree, actual individuals, in extreme circumstances that you describe could be different. Anyway, all of this is simply getting away from the sheer nonsense claim that Sidney's judgement of riders is not effected by how many races he sees them win. Surely you can see the lunacy in that statement! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 19 minutes ago, BWitcher said: I understand exactly what you are saying, but you are a: having to make something up that couldn't have happened and b: distorting the parameters. The names are irrelevant in reality, they were just given as examples to try and make it simple for Sidney. The way to look at it is simply the averages of the position. The averages of the 2nd and 3rd heat leaders across the league would shoot up in a 16 team format compared to an 8 team format. I agree, actual individuals, in extreme circumstances that you describe could be different. Anyway, all of this is simply getting away from the sheer nonsense claim that Sidney's judgement of riders is not effected by how many races he sees them win. Surely you can see the lunacy in that statement! Indeed it is a distortion - although no more than Steves 18 race formula No1 only beats No1 scenario that I originally repiled to I wasnt really linking it so much to Sidneys view aside from the difficulty in comparing eras which I agree he can tie himself in knots with! The issue is often that the reasons given are pretty random and dont always make sense Id liken that with another analogy (which is a bit bonkers but bear with me!) The discussion is the weather One poster saying global warming means there are less days of rain Another says that cant be true as they have seen the stats that the average person uses their umbrella more often Averages must mean something right What is actually happening is that with more days of sun people are using their umbrellas as parasols (doubling up ) So yes it may be true that umbrellas are being used more but it isnt because it is raining more. The original poster points out the use is actually for the opposite reason but the responder just keeps saying umbrellas are used more Where Sidney goes wrong is he persists in using those inaccurate examples to try and prove his point rather than listen to the reasonings as to why he is misguided 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunky Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 54 minutes ago, Sidney the robin said: This is the worst post that you have ever posted are you seriously telling me you can be accurate on a assessment of a rider when you have never seen him ride a astonishing claim. And this is quite possibly the worst post you have ever posted... To say that you cannot assess the ability of a rider when you have never seen him ride is absolutely ridiculous. I would have seen him more, definitely, but I can recall seeing Fundin TWICE; once in the 1969 World Final, and the other, the following year in the WTC final. Can I make an accurate assessment of Fundin based on those two meetings? Hell no. Can I make an accurate assessment of Fundin based on results, records, and reports from the previous 15 or so years? Hell yes! To claim anything else is totally laughable. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadster Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 I've just taken a look at 'Seery's statistics' in the Speedway Star from May 1969. He regularly produced a table of riders with over a 9 point average. There were 22 riders in that table. I think we can discount one of them as he'd only ridden three times but the rest had managed double figures in meetings, or close to. After 11 meetings Ivan Mauger had yet to drop a point. 19 teams in the league and lots of riders scoring heavily. If I recall correctly, last season in the Premier League, two riders averaged over 9 in the Star's end of season averages. Of course, it's not just a smaller league but other factors; fixed gate positions, race formulas meaning heat leaders meet each other more frequently and more professionalism. Riders routinely turn up with two or three bikes, so you don't have people withdrawing after a ride because their engine had blown up and, with a much smaller league, they're much more familiar with away tracks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byker Biker Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 Fantastic thread Rob Godfrey must be pizzing himself! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch958 Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 29 minutes ago, Chadster said: I've just taken a look at 'Seery's statistics' in the Speedway Star from May 1969. He regularly produced a table of riders with over a 9 point average. There were 22 riders in that table. I think we can discount one of them as he'd only ridden three times but the rest had managed double figures in meetings, or close to. After 11 meetings Ivan Mauger had yet to drop a point. 19 teams in the league and lots of riders scoring heavily. If I recall correctly, last season in the Premier League, two riders averaged over 9 in the Star's end of season averages. Of course, it's not just a smaller league but other factors; fixed gate positions, race formulas meaning heat leaders meet each other more frequently and more professionalism. Riders routinely turn up with two or three bikes, so you don't have people withdrawing after a ride because their engine had blown up and, with a much smaller league, they're much more familiar with away tracks. they also care less because they're contracted to one other team in the uk and 2 or 3 in europe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish McRaker Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 3 hours ago, BWitcher said: You don't need statistical permutation. The reality is extremely simple. The more you see a rider win races, the better you will think they are. Only Sidney and Steve Roberts seem incapable of grasping that fact. I challenge them to name me a brilliant rider who never won a race. True, the less knowledgeable and experienced the spectator the more impression will be made on him by the normally lesser rider who pulls off a win in a crucial heat, against the grain. Of course the more seasoned spectator will be much less prone to such rashness, being more highly aware of the wider picture. The manner of winning also has an effect, due to the chemicals which will flow from the spectator's brain into his bloodstream as a result. The senses and human biology have a greater role than mere data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunky Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 30 minutes ago, Hamish McRaker said: True, the less knowledgeable and experienced the spectator the more impression will be made on him by the normally lesser rider who pulls off a win in a crucial heat, against the grain. Of course the more seasoned spectator will be much less prone to such rashness, being more highly aware of the wider picture. The manner of winning also has an effect, due to the chemicals which will flow from the spectator's brain into his bloodstream as a result. The senses and human biology have a greater role than mere data. There really are so many factors that people don't take into account, and much of it is personal perspective. The same as when we look back and remember just how good the racing was back in the day, but when we look at videos now, we see that it really wasn't any different to what we see now. As far as the statistics, I do love them. The one thing I will say is that numbers don't lie, but they don't always tell the true story BEHIND the numbers... Steve 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 1 hour ago, chunky said: As far as the statistics, I do love them. The one thing I will say is that numbers don't lie, but they don't always tell the true story BEHIND the numbers... Steve Great point Steve and one thats important too Look at the numbers and there is no doubt for example Jarek Hampel is a better rider than an Alan Mogridge or a Ben Howe But if I had a time machine to go back and re watch old Witches meetings but could only choose a limited number I know which Id prioritise..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunky Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: Great point Steve and one thats important too Look at the numbers and there is no doubt for example Jarek Hampel is a better rider than an Alan Mogridge or a Ben Howe But if I had a time machine to go back and re watch old Witches meetings but could only choose a limited number I know which Id prioritise..... The problem is that so many people just see things in black and white, whereas in most situations, there are grey areas that apply to many facets of that situation. One of the biggest issues I have with modern sport (and trust me, American sports are the worst) is that they try to explain and justify EVERYTHING (including probability) by using figures and stats. Look at darts. Percentage shots (having two beds to aim at instead of just one) are inflexible. Points-per-dart averages are also, with the ONLY factor involved being what you throw yourself, but speedway CMA's are affected by many outside factors, such as opponents, gate positions, mechanical issues etc. Having said that, trying to explain to an idiot how you can win at darts despite having a lower average, isn't easy... In speedway, a similar situation used to occur in World Championships. A rider could win every race in every world championship round, yet drop one point in the final, and he ended up second. Another rider could scrape through each time, have a good night at the final, and he was World Champ! That is why I find the SGP's much fairer... This leads me to ask one question that I have been thinking about during this discussion (and I would love to see everybody's answers and reasoning)... Which was a greater achievement; Hans Nielsen winning the 1986 World Championship, or his incredible 1986 BL record away from home? Steve Edited February 17, 2019 by chunky 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 18, 2019 Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 His away record was more difficult for sure.. but being World Champion is the Holy Grail. I know which one he'd lose if he had too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunky Posted February 18, 2019 Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 27 minutes ago, BWitcher said: His away record was more difficult for sure.. but being World Champion is the Holy Grail. I know which one he'd lose if he had too! I'm sure you know my thoughts on this, and WHY I asked the question... Steve 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.