Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Sign in to follow this  
norbold

Who is number six?

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by steve roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by chunky
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy