Rest of the GP series

[Daniel Smith 5,646]

For the record, does anyone think Mark Loram wasn't a deserving World Champion? 

[Grand Central 2,654]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

For the record, does anyone think Mark Loram wasn't a deserving World Champion? 

No not undeserving at all.

Not really very overwhelming either.

But very nice chap.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Grand Central

[chunky 6,086]

20 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

For the record, does anyone think Mark Loram wasn't a deserving World Champion? 

I don't think anyone has been an "undeserving" champion. Sure, several riders who weren't actually the "best" rider in the world won, and there have been some who had a large slice of luck, but that doesn't mean they didn't deserve it.

In the old days, it was all about getting it right on World Final night, which mean that it was more unpredictable.

There are those who claim that Loram didn't deserve it because he didn't win a single GP, but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to score more points over the series than anybody else. He did that, therefore he deserved it.

[Pinny 2,536]

1 hour ago, Daniel Smith said:

For the record, does anyone think Mark Loram wasn't a deserving World Champion? 

Of course he deserved it. He was the best rider over the course of the series. And was pretty damn good in the leagues that season as well

[HenryW 1,178]

2 hours ago, chunky said:

There are those who claim that Loram didn't deserve it because he didn't win a single GP, but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to score more points over the series than anybody else. He did that, therefore he deserved it.

It's a little like debating ancient history to talk about the 2000 title, but Mark had some huge slices of "luck" in 2000. The fact that he didn't win a GP isn't a big issue for me, but the two dodgy exclusions that TRick received in Linkoping and Vojens made a huge difference to the title that year.

Having spoken to the ref who was in charge in the Swedish meeting, I know that he regretted the decision he made at the time once he had seen the replays, and it's not hard to see why when you watch it again. The points swing from that decision alone were ultimately the decider of the World title that year, and then you can consider the incident in Denmark...another where Tony seemed hard done by in my view, but that one was maybe more debateable, but also more costly points wise for Tony.
 

[chunky 6,086]

11 minutes ago, HenryW said:

It's a little like debating ancient history to talk about the 2000 title, but Mark had some huge slices of "luck" in 2000. The fact that he didn't win a GP isn't a big issue for me, but the two dodgy exclusions that TRick received in Linkoping and Vojens made a huge difference to the title that year.

Having spoken to the ref who was in charge in the Swedish meeting, I know that he regretted the decision he made at the time once he had seen the replays, and it's not hard to see why when you watch it again.

I agree 100%, and I was referring specifically to the incident with Loram when I mentioned "luck". It seems that a lot of people have forgotten about it - maybe because it was Mark - but that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen at that level. It has really stuck with me, probably because of the impact it had on me. People tend to think of the last-minute incidents that can cost titles, but that was every bit as crucial.

The other incident that bugs me is when Ermolenko wasn't excluded from the rerun in 1993, as he clearly wasn't under power at the time of the stoppage.

[steve roberts 9,242]

2 hours ago, chunky said:

I agree 100%, and I was referring specifically to the incident with Loram when I mentioned "luck". It seems that a lot of people have forgotten about it - maybe because it was Mark - but that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen at that level. It has really stuck with me, probably because of the impact it had on me. People tend to think of the last-minute incidents that can cost titles, but that was every bit as crucial.

The other incident that bugs me is when Ermolenko wasn't excluded from the rerun in 1993, as he clearly wasn't under power at the time of the stoppage.

Totally agree. I know that winning often requires some 'luck' or decisions that are maybe badly mis-judged by the official in charge but the Ermolenko incident was very clear and not open to interpretation.

[iainb 4,962]

5 hours ago, chunky said:

I agree 100%, and I was referring specifically to the incident with Loram when I mentioned "luck". It seems that a lot of people have forgotten about it - maybe because it was Mark - but that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen at that level. It has really stuck with me, probably because of the impact it had on me. People tend to think of the last-minute incidents that can cost titles, but that was every bit as crucial.

The other incident that bugs me is when Ermolenko wasn't excluded from the rerun in 1993, as he clearly wasn't under power at the time of the stoppage.

 

2 hours ago, steve roberts said:

Totally agree. I know that winning often requires some 'luck' or decisions that are maybe badly mis-judged by the official in charge but the Ermolenko incident was very clear and not open to interpretation.

You could argue that Ermolenko was "lucky" to win the 93 final with 12 points... he was clearly the best rider in the world that year though imo

[customhouseregular 1,651]

Am I alone in thinking the double header format is a good idea?. Assuming we get back to normal next year, how about every gp being a double header?. Gives us 20 gp’s a year that way.

[bigcatdiary 3,164]

1 minute ago, customhouseregular said:

Am I alone in thinking the double header format is a good idea?. Assuming we get back to normal next year, how about every gp being a double header?. Gives us 20 gp’s a year that way.

Not sure we need 20 but Friday and Saturday GP,s have been excellent.

Already been a lot of debate on this subject 

[screm 8,050]

1 hour ago, customhouseregular said:

Am I alone in thinking the double header format is a good idea?. Assuming we get back to normal next year, how about every gp being a double header?. Gives us 20 gp’s a year that way.

Under the circumstances it has been a success, whether it would continue next season, when hopefully we are back to normality, I very much doubt.

[Pinny 2,536]

Double headers would be great if you cut out a few of the crap rounds. 
 

sadly one of them would be Cardiff - and none of us want that to happen despite the racing being poor at times.

[bigcatdiary 3,164]

8 hours ago, chunky said:

I agree 100%, and I was referring specifically to the incident with Loram when I mentioned "luck". It seems that a lot of people have forgotten about it - maybe because it was Mark - but that was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen at that level. It has really stuck with me, probably because of the impact it had on me. People tend to think of the last-minute incidents that can cost titles, but that was every bit as crucial.

The other incident that bugs me is when Ermolenko wasn't excluded from the rerun in 1993, as he clearly wasn't under power at the time of the stoppage.

It’s a pity Ermolenko isn’t excluded from commentating, talks utter drivel continuously.

[chunky 6,086]

1 hour ago, screm said:

Under the circumstances it has been a success, whether it would continue next season, when hopefully we are back to normality, I very much doubt.

There is no normality when it comes to speedway!

[Dave Jones 2,124]

6 hours ago, steve roberts said:

Totally agree. I know that winning often requires some 'luck' or decisions that are maybe badly mis-judged by the official in charge but the Ermolenko incident was very clear and not open to interpretation.

I firmly believe that decision by Frank Ebdon was more to do with ensuring Nielsen didn't win the title that year..