Who is number six?

[norbold]

Over the years we have had a number of threads discussing the "Greatest Ever". Looking back over these, it seems to be that, if we take riders within living memory that many have actually seen or have heard about first hand from those that have seen them, the top five are fairly well agreed as (in roughly chronological order) Ove Fundin, Barry Briggs, Ivan Mauger, Hans Nielsen and Tony Rickardsson.

Two questions.

1. Would anyone disagree with those five?

2. Who is number six?

[PotteringAround]

4 minutes ago, norbold said:

 

2. Who is number six?

Patrick McGoohan wasn't it?

[steve roberts]

1 hour ago, norbold said:

Over the years we have had a number of threads discussing the "Greatest Ever". Looking back over these, it seems to be that, if we take riders within living memory that many have actually seen or have heard about first hand from those that have seen them, the top five are fairly well agreed as (in roughly chronological order) Ove Fundin, Barry Briggs, Ivan Mauger, Hans Nielsen and Tony Rickardsson.

Two questions.

1. Would anyone disagree with those five?

2. Who is number six?

I may well go with Ronnie Moore? The fact that he took a long gap away from the sport and came back almost as good as ever must give him some clout?

I guess that Olsen, Gundersen, Young, Craven may well figure in some people's minds?

Edited November 27, 2021 by steve roberts

[customhouseregular]

Happy with the 5 Norbold. As for number 6, difficult really. Craven tragically died, Penhall prematurely retired, Knutsson didn’t achieve as much as his talent deserved. On balance though I would say Olsen.

[Grachan]

The general rule of thumb to becoming an all-time great is probably 4 world titles.

With that in mind, Hancock has to be considered, although the gap between his first and second titles does make it possible that he won 3 of them in a weaker period.

 

[chunky]

I would tend to go for Olsen; possibly Gundersen...

[customhouseregular]

1 hour ago, Grachan said:

The general rule of thumb to becoming an all-time great is probably 4 world titles.

With that in mind, Hancock has to be considered, although the gap between his first and second titles does make it possible that he won 3 of them in a weaker period.

 

There are not many with 4 or more WC titles, which narrows the field somewhat. If we open up the criteria to multiple titles, it gives us more scope.

[chunky]

5 minutes ago, customhouseregular said:

There are not many with 4 or more WC titles, which narrows the field somewhat. If we open up the criteria to multiple titles, it gives us more scope.

When you are looking for the absolute best, why would we need more scope? As Grachan says, it is a rule of thumb rather than something set in stone. However, most people would agree that a four-time Champ is better than a two-time champ.

[customhouseregular]

7 minutes ago, chunky said:

When you are looking for the absolute best, why would we need more scope? As Grachan says, it is a rule of thumb rather than something set in stone. However, most people would agree that a four-time Champ is better than a two-time champ.

Agree in principle though Hancock had a 20+years WC career, while Craven’s career was tragically cut short. So... can we really say with certainty Hancock was a greater rider than Craven?. Penhall retired far too early so can we categorically say Hancock was a greater rider than Penhall?.

[chunky]

6 minutes ago, customhouseregular said:

Agree in principle though Hancock had a 20+years WC career, while Craven’s career was tragically cut short. So... can we really say with certainty Hancock was a greater rider than Craven?. Penhall retired far too early so can we categorically say Hancock was a greater rider than Penhall?.

There will always be question marks...

I just have a problem with people who refuse to accept how good someone was BECAUSE they retired early...

[norbold]

5 hours ago, customhouseregular said:

Agree in principle though Hancock had a 20+years WC career, while Craven’s career was tragically cut short. So... can we really say with certainty Hancock was a greater rider than Craven?. 

I think it should also be borne in mind that Craven was around at the same time as Fundin and Briggs - and Ronnie Moore come to that, but still managed to win the World Title twice. Hancock, on the other hand, didn't seem to fare so well when up against Rickardsson, Crump and Pedersen, who dominated the early 2000s. I would venture to say that all three of them were better than Hancock.

[chunky]

1 hour ago, norbold said:

I think it should also be borne in mind that Craven was around at the same time as Fundin and Briggs - and Ronnie Moore come to that, but still managed to win the World Title twice. Hancock, on the other hand, didn't seem to fare so well when up against Rickardsson, Crump and Pedersen, who dominated the early 2000s. I would venture to say that all three of them were better than Hancock.

Have to agree with you. I'm pleased you mentioned Crump, as he certainly warrants consideration...

Edited November 27, 2021 by chunky

[HenryW]

21 minutes ago, chunky said:

Have to agree with you. I'm pleased you mentioned Crump, as he certainly warrants consideration...

As does Nicki, despite how badly he seems to be regarded by many on here.

[False dawn]

In a sport where team events are seen as the primary "form of the sport", it always amuses me when we talk about the greatest that we focus only on individual achievement; numbers of world championships and so on. I would go further. Many of the names mentioned here were involved with successfully teams. However, I would ask the question, "were they great team players?". Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed watching some great riders achieve outstanding individual success. But as I look back over the decades, my fondest memories are of those riders that have lead my team to success. I've watched those that score a 15 point maximum and ask what more they could have done when the team are defeated. That didn't thrill me much.

And so, in that context I would nominate Ole Olsen, not as number 6, but as number 1. 

[norbold]

1 hour ago, False dawn said:

In a sport where team events are seen as the primary "form of the sport", it always amuses me when we talk about the greatest that we focus only on individual achievement; numbers of world championships and so on. I would go further. Many of the names mentioned here were involved with successfully teams. However, I would ask the question, "were they great team players?". Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed watching some great riders achieve outstanding individual success. But as I look back over the decades, my fondest memories are of those riders that have lead my team to success. I've watched those that score a 15 point maximum and ask what more they could have done when the team are defeated. That didn't thrill me much.

And so, in that context I would nominate Ole Olsen, not as number 6, but as number 1. 

A very valid point of course, Fd. Personally, if I were to go by your criterion, I think I would have to nominate Ronnie Moore or Ken McKinlay as no. 1. 

[customhouseregular]

7 minutes ago, norbold said:

A very valid point of course, Fd. Personally, if I were to go by your criterion, I think I would have to nominate Ronnie Moore or Ken McKinlay as no. 1. 

As a Hammers supporter I have to agree with Ken McKinlay being the ultimate team rider. His partnership with Simmons produced many valuable 5-1’s for the team.

[norbold]

1 hour ago, customhouseregular said:

As a Hammers supporter I have to agree with Ken McKinlay being the ultimate team rider. His partnership with Simmons produced many valuable 5-1’s for the team.

And with Stan Stevens.

[E I Addio]

1 hour ago, customhouseregular said:

As a Hammers supporter I have to agree with Ken McKinlay being the ultimate team rider. His partnership with Simmons produced many valuable 5-1’s for the team.

I agree, but what is more I would say he was the ultimate tactician, with an amazing ability to out think an opponent.  My outstanding memories of him, on the rare occasions the missed the gate , was that he would sit just outside  someone’s tail until the last two bends then as the opponent drifted wide to cover his run in, Hurri- Ken would suddenly switch lines and come through on the inside. I thought he was brilliant, but I was young and impressionable and didn’t see much of the other top stars on a regular basis. From What little I’ve seen of Ronnie Moore, and considering he was past his best by the time I saw him I think would  have to have him in my top five or six. 

Its also been mentioned that the so called top 5 had to contend with each other but while we are speculating I think If Tony Rickardson had never been born we would be talking of Jason Crump in the top five. He really was ,to my mind , one of the true greats, more so than Greg Hancock.

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by E I Addio

[iris123]

Another thing i thought was interesting, and probably nothing more than that, and it is highlighted by watching Crump was.......those who could maintain their form and win two titles on the trot

Jack Young

Briggo

Fundin

Mauger the only rider to win 3 on the trot

Penhall

Gundersen

Nielsen

Rickardsson twice !!

Pedersen

and now Zmarzlik

and obviously i would put some extra significance on those who maintained that form in GP years

Edited November 28, 2021 by iris123

[chunky]

54 minutes ago, E I Addio said:

If Tony Rickardson had never been born we would be talking of Jason Crump in the top five. He really was ,to my mind , one of the true greats, more so than Greg Hancock.

I agree 100%. When you look at his remarkable consistency, he deserves to be included far more than riders like Hancock and Pedersen.