waiheke1

Actually that was the overseas final. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RlFmm7zTA9Q The 82 inter-continental final saw Olsen and Gundersen allowing Petersen to finish ahead of them to earn him a run-off for the last spot. Off the top of my head, I also recall Ermolenko allowing Hanock to pass him in an Overseas final in the early 90s (though he was far less open than Penhall about it). Parsloes what you actually said was: Though to be fair, you did retract afterwards. But, as Iris states, no-one is saying that the old system was endemically corrupt, or the current system 100% pure. For my part, I raised this subject only because the current GP was accused of lacking credibility - whereas, IMHO, it has more credibility than the old system.

Happy to acknowledge that – and hopefully you’re also willing to acknowledge that many believe ts a change for the better, Credibility problem – or visibility problem? Personally, I would have thought that the old WC, where you had riders throwing races to allow compatriots to qualify, to get a more favourable draw in the next round, or because they were being paid a bung to so do so, not to mention World Finals missing the sports’ biggest names, would cause more of a credibility issue . But, if you think certain people being selected to take part (common practice in many other sports), causes more of an issue, you are entitled to that opinion. I think there is one strong argument in favour of the old WC. And that is that the one-off final had a certain atmosphere, magic, whatever you want to call it, that the current GO does not have. I can understand that, and that’s a valid enough reason (even if finals were often tarnished by missing leading riders, porrly prepared tracks etc.) to be in favour of a return. However, I’ve yet to see any other persuasive arguments for it. Typically the arguments presented are: 1. It’s easier to stay in than to qualify. Except its not, is it. Do you think any of the three who came in through the qualifiers this season were capable of finishing in the top 8 of the GP? Really? 2. There are riders selected to take part. I agree, maybe there are two many spots. However, this has proved a more effective method of getting the best riders into the field than qualifying. Look at the record each year of the “permanent wildcards” vs the “qualifiers” and consistently the “wildcards” (with the possible exception of the “token Brits/s) have performed better. And lets face it, the awarding of one spot to the best British rider (determined on subjective, but nonetheless probably correct criteria) is hardly worse than the handing of 5 spots to continental finalists in the old system (Question: If Henry Kroezewas not Dutch, would he have ever qualified for a World Final? 3. The riders aren’t paid enough. True, I think we all agree with that. BUT, if you think riders were better paid in the old system, you are sorely mistaken. And its hardly just a Speedway issue that riders earn better money playing for their clubs than they do in the sport’s showcase event (think Football, cricket, rugby etc.) Its also not the fault of the GP that the Polish league has brought in their resttiction. If the BL back in the 70s/80s had brought in a “one World can be Finalist per team rule” you can be sure that any rider other than those with stong final prospects would have chosen their club contract. 4. Riders qualify the prior year. (I guess we’ll ignore the fact that the Australian Final used to be held in the yearof the World Final that qualification was for). I can see that this could be viewed as an issue to some extent. However, there have been only a couple of instances where riders who may have come close to the title have not been participating in that year’s GP event. Compare that to the old WC where at least every second year you’d be missing one of the leading candidates due to injury, one bad meeting etc. There are also plenty of examples from other sport where qualification occurs the prior year- footballs Premiership, Champions League, world Cup etc spring to mind – note Parsloes that the latter are both Knock out competitions. 5. GP is to blame for the demise of British speedway. I think the lack of foresight of the BSPA when times were good (and land was cheap) is the number one cause. Secondly, the fall of the iron curtain, which saw Poland establish a league which could afford to pay the world’s best riders more than the British clubs can, is the other key reason for the decline. There are many arguments in favour of the GP, but I think the three strongest are: 1. The best rider in the World wins the GP that year. I can’t think of any exceptions to this. 2. The riders competing in the GP are generally representative of the top 15 in the world (I’d say normally at least 12/15). This compared to the old WC where would suggest you’d only ever get say 8/16 of the World’s best in the final (I will give you 1981 as a possible exception to this rule). 3. Speedway has 12 World Final meetings televised each season – giving far more visibility to the Speedway and general viewing public. Personally, I think points 1 and 2 cannot be rationally argued against, and I think these two capture the essence of what a World Championship should achieve.

actually, its more like the top 17 in the premiership competing in the premiership the following season... imagine that, how ridiculous would that be

As opposed to the "good old days" when prize money was great. In 1980, I guess the last year of England's "golden era", the England team got 90 quid a piece as prize money! Dave Jessup would have been England's top earning rider over the World Team Cup, including points/start money he would have earned a total of around 200 quid for three meetings. Kenny Carter who was non riding reseve in the semi got paid nowt. I ndo agree though about reducing the teams to 4 riders, and using the format used in the late 1980s. Otherwsise, I think the current format works well, though I'd get rid of the bl**dy Joker. If you need something like that, you could make heat 20 (top socres race) worth double points? I disagree - although Poland/Australia would be favourites, on a good day all of Sweden/Denmark/England/Russia and USA (Hancock doing a version of 1983 Sanders) could all at least compete for a podium spot. Would be great see a return of the pairs (in addition to, not replacing the SWC). Hold it in one venue, semis Friday and Saturday (or even a day meeting and a night meeting on the same Saturday)and the final on Sunday.

I agree with Bavarian 100% - I think the current scoring system is spot on. Best rider on the night will get the most points, best rider in the final gets the title of champion for that round - best of both worlds IMHO. Irs123 - agree with you to some extent, but how often does a riders race number detemine qualification for the semis - once a season (this is a genuine question)? Simple way around that is to introduce addtional "tie break" measures - such as fastest winning time, head to head record against other semi final qualifiers etc.

I think Nielsen is one of the five riders who have an argument for being considered the greatest of all time – the others being Mauger, Briggs, Fundin and Rickardson. Nielsen wasn’t as naturally gifted as say Penhall, just as Mauger wasn’t as say Collins, but when you look achievements…there’s no question he is up there with the very,very best. I think if GPs had been in place in Nielsen’s era he would be regarded as THE greatest, however as it was I think he missed out on too many titles due to one bad ride (or lost run-offs) to be regarded as number one. However, I’d rank him above Olsen, who I’d put in the next category of riders – along with the likes of Gundersen, Penhall, PC x2, Ronnie Moore, Jason Crump - riders who are all time greats, but wouldn’t be, IMHO, considered as candidates for the all time number 1 spot. Somewhat strangely, I think Nielsen would have won MORE world titles than he did if Gundersen had not been injured – he seemed to lose some edge after that, whereas his performance in the 89 World Final was absolutely immense. I would disagree with Rob that Nielsen had overcome the edge Gundersen had over him – I think head to head in the finals 86-89 Gundersen had a 4-2 advantage- but despite that there is no question that Nielsen was best in the world in that period. Sidney – I think possibly the reason you don’t rank Nielsen as highly as Penhall/Lee was they peaked earlier in their careers– so when Penhall/Lee were at their peak (or even Carter/Sigalos) Nielsen was not. However none of those riders achieved the sustained excellence that Nielsen did, and which I believe is the true measure of an alltime great. There was a debate in the backtrack forum about best foreign rider of the 80s and I chose Penhall – however, I’ve changed my mind on that, and given Nielsen’s additional achievements in the 90s, I think he’s unquestionably the greatest of that era. Back on the topic of great rivalries – there was evidently a great deal of bitterness between the Collins brothers (some at least) and Kenny Carter. In his auto-biography, Alan Carter recalls being at a speedway meeting a few years after Kenny’s demise and making a comment along the lines of “Our Kenny sure could blow them away on the racetrack”, to which Neil Collins replied “Yeah, and then he blew himself away!” Ouch!

Yeah, knudsen was very good - strong parallels betweenhis and carter's careers. both had their best world final placing on debut in 81, both desperately unlucky with injuries, and both denied world titles by controversial -though prob correct- refereeing decisions after clawing with the eventual champion. both very good but I'd rate carter above knudsen

Eriksen was hard, borderline dirty, pretty sure it was him who put carter in hospital in the lead up to the 82 world final. On neilsen gundersen. I recall after the neilsen knudsen incident in the 86 final gundrsen coming out with a comment along the lines of "if Hans is going to race like that he should go into stock cars!" needless to say, Hans wasnot impressed!

yep, just over 10 minutes time in fact. $NZ50, bargain!

OK, obviously there are a lot of people on the forum very anti GP and in favour of bringing back the old fashioned one off World Championship system. Now realistically, that isn’t going to happen, and there’s not enough room in the calendar to fit in both, or the GP riders would never turn out for British clubs. However, the idea of having both GP and a Individual Championship is definitely appealing, and I think you could make it work. I’d have it short and sweet, three qualifying “meetings mirroring the old style qualifiers, so you’d have an Overseas final (England/US/Aussie/NZ), Nordic Final (Swedes/Danes/Finns/Norway) and a Continental final (Poland/Czech/Russia/rest of Europe). Top5 from each to the World Final, with the remaining slot going to the National Champion of the nation hosting the final. Final to be rotated on a 5 yearly cycle between UK, Poland, Demark, Sweden and another European country (which could vary each “cycle”.) GP riders for that year would be “seeded” to the relevant qualifying meeting, with the rest of the places awarded based on each countries national championships. So, for example the Overseas final 2012 would include Crump, Holder, Ward,Harris and Hancock plus say top 4 from 2012 Brit final, 4 Australians, 2 Americans and one Kiwi. Nordic final would include Pedersen x2, Bjerre, Lindback, Lindgren and Jonsson, plus another 3 Danes, 3 Swedes, 2 Norwegians and one Finn. Continental final would have Gollob, PP, Emil and Hampel, plus say 4 Poles, 2 Russians, 2 Czechs and one each from 4 other European nations (say Germany, Italy, Hungary, Croatia etc). (Note: For above examples have used the 15 “qualified” for the 2012 GP). Hold the final a couple of weeks after the completion of the GP, and try to find some way of offering a significant financial prize for the winner. Hopefully this would satisfy the “old school” as well as fans of the current GP system. In terms of qualifying, if deemed better, you could reduce by 1 the qualifying spots from each meeting, and instead seed to the final the reigning World Champ, the GP champ for that year and the under 21 GP champ for that year (if the GP champs had already qualified, those spots could go instead to the best performed rider not having qualified). What do people think. Could it work, and would this satisfy those in favour of a return to the old ways?

I'd suggest FIFA executives and associated companies are lining their pcokets far more than IMG! I understand what people are saying, but do we think IMG are making huge amounts from the GP (obviously they are making some). I understand that they pay a licensing fee to FIM, so maybe some of that money should also be filtered back to the riders. But, that said, I'm certainly not disagreeing that riders should be paid a fair "market rate" for competing in the sports' premier event. I certainly support that thy should be. But I'm not sure what the solution is - I'm not sure for example that there's an obvious alternative party to run the series which would result in a better deal for the riders.

Parsloes - this is the point I was replaying to. Note, you don't say its mathematically easier, you say its a mathematic fact that it it easier. Using this logic, it would be a mathematical "fact" that it was easier to qualify via inter-contiental final (11 places out of 16) than the continental final (top 5 out of 16). Clearly this is nonsense, as I demonstrated via comparing the performance in the finals of riders qualifying via various routes. To illustrate this one final time. If I personally entered the 100m in the Olympics, and had to finish in the top 11 out of 15 to make the final, I would have no chance of doing so. If I had contest a 100m event against 80 people who had to be aged over 60 and over 150kg, I would have a pretty decent chance. My point is that you cannot look at the number of qualifying spots alone and state that because one option is easier than the other, without taking into account the whole rangve of other variables which contribute to how easy/difficult that task is. Surely that is self evident!!?!?

ok, arguing that the continental final might have been a harder qualifying route than the inter-continental??? I don't think I can try rational discssion any further...

And in Emil's first GP season he finished 3rd, one place better than Mike Lee managed. Hardly a glass ceiling!?! It would be harder for a rider like John Louis now because I would argue the standard of the top riders is higher. Everything is more professtional, from bikes to diet etc. Its the same in any professional sport, that you just don't get people taking them up at the age f 30 and becoming an instant potential world champion. I'd suggest top riders can also stay around longer due to factors such as keeping in shape better (better knowledge of sports science etc) safer racing conditions and more confrotable transportation, rather than it being due to the GP system

Firstly, you can't really compare Speedway with Football, the money isn't comparable at all. Secondly, comparing with the premiership isn't really valid - premiership is comparable with club speedway, where riders are paid, from what i understand, reasonable amounts. A more legitmate comparison would be with the World Cup, where players are paid a pittance compared to what they earn for their clubs. Or the Olympics, where competitors aren't paid at all. However, what those events do is put competitrors in a global window, where if they perform well they can nail the big sponsorship deals, or big club contracts. Re Darcy Ward - unquestionably its a huge shame. But if the EPL put in place a rule that each side could have only say 3 international players, I'd be pretty confident you'd see a spate of international retirements.

Sidney, to clairfy the 100k wouldn't have been prize money, it would have been extra earnings from sponsorship, and being able to demand extra appearance fees, getting extra bookings for meetings on the continent etc. I've a book at home somewhere (1980 the Grand Slam or something similar), in which Ian Thomas bemoans the FIM pay rates at that time. And Mike Lee in 81 expresses that he was disillusioned with how there was less money there for a WC than he had expected. Addtiionally - I'd be pretty confident that today's World Champions do ok out of the sport, but again this is via increased earnings from other sources, not from picking up a huge kitty of proze money. End of the day, we need to realise also that speedway is not Formula 1, never will be, and hence the financial rewards will be comparitively slim.

Parloes, plenty of people have provided arguments for the current system, you just seem to ignore them. Finishing in the top 9 out of the worlds best riders is arguably a greater achievment, than finishing in the top 3 of "the rest." If you don't agree with this - who out of the riders who have "re-qualified" via this method for the 2012 GP would you not consider to be one of the top 15 riders in the world? In addition the wildcard system ensures that a) you can have representation from all the worlds main countries (including Britain!) and that the best or most promising of the riders who haven't qualified can still appear in the series. In the last 3 seasons, 2 wildcards (Emil and Jonsson) have made the rostrum, none of the "qualifiers" have come close. Noone is claiming the current system is perfect - I'd suggest holding the old school GP challenge, and reducing WC to two would be a better option Or alternatively, as someone suggested above, the qualifies should have a series of meeting to decide who took the three available slots (I don't think you could have too many meetings, or it would impact too much on the leagues, but I'm sure a decent system could be put in place) edit: i have no idea why the smiley face with sunglasses has appeared mid sentence above

Parsloes - so you do believe under the old system it was a "mathematcal fact" that it was easier for those qualifying via the inter-continental final to get to the final, than those qualifying via the inter-contintal final, because they had more places available?

Humphrey, you make valid points. However, I'd expect that the sponsorship rewards possible for the GP riders, given that they are in 11 televised world final events must be greater than for riders in the old world champs? also, if you were an english rider in the 80s, you'd race in 5 qualifying rounds plus the final, in addition maybe 8 test matches, possibly a couple of World Pairs meetings and a few WTC meetings as well - so I'd argue you would have missed more league meetings then than now? And of course, there wasn't the option of riding in multiple competitive and rewarding leagues. Raising sport "to a new threshold" sounds like pure marketing speak i have to say - but i reckon there's an excellent product, and the fact that the top riders compete against each other so regularly has to have improved their quality (some may argue this is a bad thing in increasing the quality gap between those in GPs and those outside).

is this based on any sort of reliable source (nothing posted on this topic to support this), or simply speculation by the anti-GP brigade? only seem to be two named riders (DW/PP)of those in the 15 expected not to accept their spots based on what i can see on this thread (and others). So would seem to be a worst case 13 riders, but I'd be pretty confident that two replacements will be found.

true, you could have made arguments for both those riders, also I guess Mauger, though I'm not sure any of them were better in that year than any of the other riders who qualified via th inter-continental final. i guess 81 was less obvious than off the top of my head say 80 (reigning champ MAuger and also Olsen), 82 (Gundersen, ), 84 (Carter, Morton), 85 (Carter), 86 (S Moran, Wigg), 87 (S Moran) 89 (Pedersen, S Moran).

<unnecessary quote of previous post removed> Yes, its a shame Darcy won't take part. But that's the fault of the Polish league surely, not the GPs. If the British League had put a restriction on the number of World Finalists per team, its quite likely Peter Collins wouldn't have entered until he thought he had a genuine chance of winning - after al, league seedway was always the "bread and butter" of a riders earnings. Emil finished on the rostrum in 2009 as a 19 year old. Hampel is still in his 20s and has finished on the rostrum the last two years, so its hardly just the golden oldies fighting it out? Its also a cyclical thing - at the moment, you happen to have a core of riders who are the best in the world and hapen to be in their 30s. In 2 or 3 years I expect you'll see younger riders such as Holder,Emil, Ward and Hampel dominating the fight wfor the title. My point about continental qualifying was in reponse to one of your arguments against GPs, namely that qualifying is not a "level playing field." Yet, you are now justifying some riders getting an easier qualifying route unde rthe old system. So, should all riders have an equal qualifying route or not, it seems you are saying its wrong that the GP doesn't, but it was right that the old system didn't? FWIW, I agree that the continental riders desrvced some represenation (though not as much as they got), just as I would defend the inclusion of a Brit Wildcar on the GP system. Yes, the Fooball world Cup includes dome teams which have no chance of winning. But when was the last time that a team with a genuine chance of winning didn't qualify? France in 1986? Compare that with the one-off Speedway Champs, where you were missing a genuine contender from the final practically every year! Regarding the maths. So, you believe then that it was a mathematical fact that it was easier to qualify from the inter-contiental final (top 11/16) than from the continetnal final (top 5 out of 16)? But you just acknowledged that the continental riders has an easier qualifying route? You seem to be contradicting yourself there. It is simply not correct to say that it is a mathematical fact that it is easier to stay in the GP than to qualify. (You could say, that for a randomly selected rider currently in the GP, the statistical probability of them qualiying for the next GP is higher than that of a randonly selected rider from outside the GP. But to argue that one route is mathematically easier than the other would require a highly sophisticated algorithm which took into account all sorts of variables). End of the day, its pretty much like the difference between the Premiership and the FA Cup. The FA cup (like the one off WC final)always has the possibility of a romantic, surpirse winner, and the final is always an occasion, even if the game itself is often anti-climatic and missing the best teams. The premiership winner (like the GP)may be decided before the final weekend, but there is still excitement elsewhere in terms of who makes the european slots (rostrum) and avoids relegation (makes the top8). The winner of the Premiership is almost always the best team, and no-oine would for example that Man Utd didn't deserve to win the league, just because they didn't have to beat say Aldershot in doing so (and no one would argue that it was unfair that Aldershot didn't take part in the Premiership because they hadn't won promotion the previous year).

"speedway gp in tatters"... except its not really, is it? So a couple of riders have opted out (or are likely to opt out). We still have say a dozen out of the world's top 15 riders competing, and no one is missing that you would expect to be genuinely challenging for a rostrum spot (yes Ward is quality, but not sure you would expect him to do much better than Holder managed in his first season)? Compare that to the old "one-off" World Finals, where you might have say 8 of the top 15 riders competing, and invariably be missing at least one leading candidate for at least a podium sport (from the 80s, I can think of only 1981 where this was not the case). All the GP haters seem also to be seizing on the fact that the financial rewards for riders in the GP arent great. But back in the "old days" I recall Billy Sanders contemplating not entering the World Champs, because he reckoned unless you finished in the top 3, it wasn;t worth competing (from a financail point of view). Mike Lee in 1981 said that one of the reasons he lost motivation with speedway was because the financial rewards he thought would be there for a World Champion didn't eventuate. And countless riders complained about losing money riding for their country in test matches or World Cup events. Ward I'm sure will enter the GP the next year (2013) , and no doubt do well. Yes, it's sad he's not likely to compete next year, but its hardly the end of the world.

I'd say he rates below all time greats Craven, Peter Collins and Mike Lee. I'd put im in the same category of great British riders such as Havelock, Loram,Louis, Simmons, Jessup, C Morton etc. You could put equally valid arguments (IMHO) for him ranking above or below any given rider in that category. And I'd rank him above very good British riders such as Tatum, Les Collins, Doncaster etc. In terms of the discussion on natural ability. The great Ivan Mauger himself points out that he (MAuger)didn't have the same natural talent of someone like Peter Collins, but that noone did more practice than he and Ole Olsen, and that's why they achieved more World titles than someone like PC, who because he could rely on natural ability never put in as much work as they did. You could apply the same to the likes of the Moran brothers who were as talented as the grear Danes of the 80s, but achieved nowhere near as much. You can argue or or against the natural abiliy of Carter, but one point to note is that while his form tailed off after 82, that could be linked (according to both his biograpghy and his brother's autobiography)to both injury and that he didn't have a proper mechanic from 84 onwards I think. To be World Champion, you need the blend of natural talent, hard work, good equipment, to stay injury free and a bit of luck at the right times - I don't think Kenny ever had all of those at once , but that's not to say he would never have been World Champion if not for his untinely demise . In 85, he was racing almost as well as ever (British Champ, overseas runner up, dropped only 1 point in world Pairs final, 10pt+ average)- so I certainly don't think he could have been written off. on the 81 World Final, as seems to have been some discussion on that. If n-one had suferred engine troubles, then heading into the final 4 heats standings would probably have read Penhall 12, Jessup 11, Carter 10, Gundersen 9, Knudsen 9, Olsen 7. All speculation from there, but I suspect Jessup (who had only beeen beaten from the gate by Penhall all night) would hav beaten Knudsen, and needing to win the final I think Penhall would have beaten Carter. Which would likely have left Carter facing Gundersen in a run off for 3rd, which would very much have been 50/50 who would have won (though given gundersen's later record in run-offs I'd lean towards him). And, around Hyde Rd I would rate Kenny Carter as the best British rider I saw in the 80s, just edging out Chris Morton (the two had about a 50/50 head to head record in league matches, but I'd go Kenny on the basis of his two BLRC). Was he as good as Mauger/Olsen/Collins at their peak, impossible to say, I supect not, but given we are talking absolute all time greats on a track which would rank amongst their favourites that is hardly a criticism. For what its worth, PC was still pretty handy around Hyde Rd in the 80s, but I don't recall ever seeing him beating Kenny in my time (81 onwards), possibly once the Northern League Riders Champs.

I loved the old individual finals, as well as the cut-throat qualifying meetings, but don’t think you can deny that the system achieves the aim of the Worlds Best rider winning in a given year, and having a field which contains at least the top 12 riders in the world in the field. Parsloes – I’ve responded to some of your arguments, have tried to give rational arguments, would be interested in your response. So Mauger winning in 79 was bad for the sport? Fundin and Nielsen being strong candidates for the WC into their 30s was bad for speedway? How exactly is it bad? and like Collins and Lee, Darcy would have been a world finalist as a teenager..except he turned down the opportunity. If Lee or Collins had turned down their opportunity, they wouldn't have been world finalists either. Given that he couldn't qualify for the GP challenge (i.e. final 16) even without the presence of the top dozen riders in the world, I don't think he would have done. That's not saying he's not one of the top 16 riders in the world (I belive he clearly is), but one of the flaws with the old WC system is that many of the world's best missed out on the final. This isn't a mathematical "fact" at all. Just because the riders have to finish in the top 8 (or even 11) out of 15 to stay in, doesn't make it easier than finishing in the top 3 out of 80 qualifiers. If that was a "mathematical fact", then it would also be a "fact" that is it is easier for riders to qualify via the qualifiers(finish top 3 out of 80,) than it is to finish on the rostrum of the GP itself (finish top 3 out of only 15). Or from a different sport, easier to get promotion from the Championship to Premierleague (finish top 3 out of 24) than it is for a premier league to qualify for the Champions league (top 4 out of 20). None of those are “facts.” Lee and Moore certainly, but I believe they were the exception rather than the rule. Peter Collins made one World Final as a teenager, didn’t finish on the rostrum in any of the qualifiers, and finished 12th in the World Final. Was he therefore more of a contender as a youngster than Emil is in the GPs, or than Darcy would have been if he had accepted his place? In the 80s I believe there was one rider (Knudsen) who made a rostrum as a teenager – so the WC was hardly dominated by teens at anystage. In the 60s and early 70s the continental riders deserved their places, at least on Eastern soil. But look at the 1980s. Riders via continental qualifying took 50 out of 160 slots(31%), yet achieved only 1 rostrum finish (3%) and one World Champion (10%). Below is how they did year on year. Continental Qualifiers Year R Pts PPR Ave 80 25 15 0.6 3.0 81 26 23 0.9 4.4 82 25 22 0.9 4.4 83 25 28 1.1 5.6 84 23 15 0.7 3.3 85 25 14 0.6 2.8 86 25 24 1.0 4.8 87 49 35 0.7 3.6 88 25 22 0.9 4.4 89 25 20 0.8 4.0 Total 273 218 0.8 4.0 Inter-continental Qualifiers Year R Pts PPR Ave 80 55 105 1.9 9.5 81 54 96 1.8 8.9 82 55 98 1.8 8.9 83 55 92 1.7 8.4 84 57 105 1.8 9.2 85 55 106 1.9 9.6 86 55 96 1.7 8.7 87 111 205 1.8 9.2 88 55 98 1.8 8.9 89 55 100 1.8 9.1 Total 607 1101 1.8 9.1 I would suggest this proves it was a “fact” that they benefited from an easier qualifying route. Do you believe (and this is a matter of opinion) that Mauger wouldn’t have qualified for 1980 ahead of Petr Ondrasik, or Gundersen ahead of Starostin in 82, or Carter ahead of Adjoran in 85, if the qualifying routes were the same. I believe they would have done, I also believe the final would have been better for the inclusion of these riders who had a genuine chance of winning, rather than riders who had a genuine chance of scoring a couple of points. Even when the qualifying routes was made fairer in the early 90s, you still had genuine title contenders (e.g. Nielsen in 92) missing out because of one poor meeting, an injury at the wrong time etc. My opinion is that this de-valued rather than enhanced the final. This is where I believe the permanent wildcard helps under the current setup, and I believe the system of 3 qualifying routes (GP performance, GP qualifying and wildcards) is the system best designed to ensure the GP contains the worlds best riders. I won’t claim that the GP is perfect, but I don’t think any system is. Yes, the drama and excitement of the one-off World Final is something missed, but in return you get a system which truly finds the best rider in the world, the standard of racing is generally higher (look back at some of the old World Final’s such as Norden 83 or Gothenburg 84 and see how processional the racing was) and due to the point system every rider has something to race for in almost every race of every meeting.