Tai Woffinden Best Ever!?

[ColinMills 1,728]

Just now, BWitcher said:

 

What happened on Saturday destroyed your argument. Woffinden won the GP. He knew the rules and what was required and won it. End of story. 

Everything else is supposition on your part. 

I understand, it's difficult for you. Every piece of available factual evidence is against you so you have to get creative.. It's tough. One day you'll just realise you're wrong and can move on.

is there something about your discussion that HAS to be factual? comparisns, viewpoints, discussion seems pointless? you appear to think EVERYTHING you say is factual...its actually NOT. not everything is "argument"..i clearly may of been wrong about certain things, but its impossible to compare todays riders to the past, its totally different from every aspect, machinery, finances, rules, track surfaces, the list is endless...Jason Bunyan was New Zealand champion 10 times, is it a FACT, hes best ever New Zealand rider? these other posters DO KNOW what they are on about, they just have a different OPINION

[BWitcher 12,453]

18 minutes ago, ColinMills said:

is there something about your discussion that HAS to be factual? comparisns, viewpoints, discussion seems pointless? you appear to think EVERYTHING you say is factual...its actually NOT. not everything is "argument"..i clearly may of been wrong about certain things, but its impossible to compare todays riders to the past, its totally different from every aspect, machinery, finances, rules, track surfaces, the list is endless...Jason Bunyan was New Zealand champion 10 times, is it a FACT, hes best ever New Zealand rider? these other posters DO KNOW what they are on about, they just have a different OPINION

Once again.. opinions are fine, but when they are backed up by something that is wrong.. that renders it pretty worthless.

You are correct that it is impossible to compare precisely due to all the differences. Yet despite that we keep hearing the argument put forward that today's riders aren't as good. There is zero evidence to support that argument and indeed all available evidence says the opposite.

Some take that as an insult or an attempt to belittle riders in the past for some unknown reason. It isn't and never will be the case. 

[ColinMills 1,728]

2 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

Once again.. opinions are fine, but when they are backed up by something that is wrong.. that renders it pretty worthless.

You are correct that it is impossible to compare precisely due to all the differences. Yet despite that we keep hearing the argument put forward that today's riders aren't as good. There is zero evidence to support that argument and indeed all available evidence says the opposite.

Some take that as an insult or an attempt to belittle riders in the past for some unknown reason. It isn't and never will be the case. 

I think that's why this discussion is going on a bit, simply because, quite rightly, opinions are split. its very hard to say something is factual when the sport today, is totally different to that of yesteryear. 

[BWitcher 12,453]

1 minute ago, ColinMills said:

I think that's why this discussion is going on a bit, simply because, quite rightly, opinions are split. its very hard to say something is factual when the sport today, is totally different to that of yesteryear. 

It's going on a bit because the same old fossils can't grasp basic things.

The standard of speedway riders today is higher than of the 70's. Massively so.

That's the case across all sports, not just speedway. Everything is always improving, athletes learn from others and build on it. 

Where some get their knickers in a twist is believing that by saying that you are denegrating riders of the past.. far from it. 

That is why you can only compare rider's achievements in their own era's and how good they were against their peers.

 

[ColinMills 1,728]

Just now, BWitcher said:

It's going on a bit because the same old fossils can't grasp basic things.

The standard of speedway riders today is higher than of the 70's. Massively so.

That's the case across all sports, not just speedway. Everything is always improving, athletes learn from others and build on it. 

Where some get their knickers in a twist is believing that by saying that you are denegrating riders of the past.. far from it. 

That is why you can only compare rider's achievements in their own era's and how good they were against their peers.

 

these "old fossils" have seen both, they have a view on both, and may I say, if it wasn't without these "old fossils" speedway wouldn't exist today!...I don't see youngsters rushing through turnstiles, I don't hear school kids talking bout Tai Woffinden walking home from school, im all for discussion, but name calling is something different

[iainb 4,963]

1 hour ago, iris123 said:

Further to my theory on PC,i did a random check on how he went at my old club Wimbledon in 1956(the year he was reigning world champion)

In the opening meeting of the season he finished 6th on 9 pts,behind R.Moore,Briggo,A.Forrest,A.Wright and Ken Middleditch.Now the first few ok world class,but the last couple?

Then he rode in a best pairs and got beat by Crutcher,Ronnie Moore,Peter Moore,A.Wright,Briggo but did beat Fundin and Aub Lawson

Then in NL got beat by Briggo and Ronnie and also lost a Golden Helmet match race against Ronnie 2-0

Even at Belle Vue he then got beat by Briggo,P + R.Moore

At Plough Lane in the next match he got beat by Brine,P + R.Moore,but did win his heat against Maidment and reserve Goldfinch!!

In the next meeting at BV he was beaten by Hagon and How,then by Hagon and in his heat against Briggo and Ronnie Moore he fell

In the Laurels he was actually top scorer in the quails,only being beaten by Peter Moore,but was last in his semi final against P.Moore,Hunt and How

The next meeting at BV he got a max,so can take nothing away from him there

Then in the meeting at Plough Lane he was beaten by P.Moore then Ronnie beat him then Ronnie and Briggo beat him,then P.Moore beat him and he finished in front of Briggo!!then he beat Brine and How and then Ronnie beat him but he beat Peter

 

So really in a season when he was world champ he didn't have a very great set of results at Plough Lane and even at home wasn't really looking like a world champ 

Also looking at his appearances abroad in 4 WTC finals and he never was better than the 4th best scorer in any of those meetings!!!

 

I seem to remember Per Jonsson being quite an average rider in the league in 1990 and his world championship came as quite a surprise, it was certainly the making of him though and took him to another level

[Barney Rabbit 725]

50 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

 

What happened on Saturday destroyed your argument. Woffinden won the GP. He knew the rules and what was required and won it. End of story. 

Everything else is supposition on your part. 

I understand, it's difficult for you. Every piece of available factual evidence is against you so you have to get creative.. It's tough. One day you'll just realise you're wrong and can move on.

You keep seeing your opinion of what might have happened had last Saturday's meeting been run under the old system as fact and I'll keep believing that, after five rides each, two riders had scored more points than Woffinden and we'll keep it at that.

[BWitcher 12,453]

5 minutes ago, Barney Rabbit said:

You keep seeing your opinion of what might have happened had last Saturday's meeting been run under the old system as fact and I'll keep believing that, after five rides each, two riders had scored more points than Woffinden and we'll keep it at that.

I haven't said any opinion of what 'might' have happened. It is you that is saying what might have happened.

I am stating what did happen. What happened is Woffinden knew the rules of the GP and Woffinden won the GP. 

You are claiming what 'might' have happened in a different competition with different rules. 

Yet again you have to make something up to try and justify your non existent argument.

[BWitcher 12,453]

20 minutes ago, ColinMills said:

these "old fossils" have seen both, they have a view on both, and may I say, if it wasn't without these "old fossils" speedway wouldn't exist today!...I don't see youngsters rushing through turnstiles, I don't hear school kids talking bout Tai Woffinden walking home from school, im all for discussion, but name calling is something different

And once again unable to refute reality you blabber on about something completely irrelevant.

 

[ColinMills 1,728]

Just now, BWitcher said:

And once again unable to refute reality you blabber on about something completely irrelevant.

 

YOU brought up "old fossils" not me...had you the decency to not be rude I would of politely answered you...those statements add nothing to debate..FACT

[BWitcher 12,453]

Just now, ColinMills said:

YOU brought up "old fossils" not me...had you the decency to not be rude I would of politely answered you...those statements add nothing to debate..FACT

Old fossil, it's a term used to describe those stuck in the past. 

I wasn't even referring to that, I was referring to once again you reverting to not many people having heard of Woffinden etc. Irrelevant.

[ColinMills 1,728]

1 minute ago, BWitcher said:

Old fossil, it's a term used to describe those stuck in the past. 

I wasn't even referring to that, I was referring to once again you reverting to not many people having heard of Woffinden etc. Irrelevant.

I think its relevant in terms of the future of the sport. if you have a ENGLISH world champion, and kids don't know him, its not bright. but take your point its off thread

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Barney Rabbit said:

We're having facts, FACTS even, thrown at us to back up the pro argument but now conjecture is fine if facts hold up the anti argument.

Woffinden came a purler with nothing on the line - he had two further rides to get the points needed to finish in the top eight - so why should we suppose things would have been different if the ride was important. More pressure (at that time, anything that happened in a sixth or seventh ride is irrelevant) could have affected him adversely, we don't know.

What we do know is that, after five rides, Woffinden had not scored enough points to have won the Championship. FACT

Neither on that basis had Zmarzlik...

[Grachan 7,314]

1 hour ago, Barney Rabbit said:

You keep seeing your opinion of what might have happened had last Saturday's meeting been run under the old system as fact and I'll keep believing that, after five rides each, two riders had scored more points than Woffinden and we'll keep it at that.

And Peter Collins might not have won in 1976 if he had had to do it over a whole season rather than on one night. But he didn't have to. So we'll never know.

[Mr. Clemens 646]

 

 

Reading this thread it appears that the best thing to do if you don't like the product is to not bother watching speedway.

Taking low attendances, at British speedway meetings, into consideration, it appears that a lot of people, who once attended speedway in this country, don't like the product.