Carter Where Does He Rate With The Great British Riders?

[stratton 1,491]

Loram was far more naturally talented than Carter though. Carter, as good as he was, very much relied on his fighting spirit and determination and got awfully out of shape at times whilst doing so. Don't get me wrong, he was a great rider but he wasn't in harmony with the bike like Loram and Screen, who I still regard as two of the most naturally gifted riders of my time.

Loram and Havelock did great in there careers but i couldnt put them in front of Carter.I dont go on actually what people have won,ie going back years examples Warren, Crutcher both great riders but in a way underachieved.But in my mind both great riders same with the Boocock brothers think Carter is in there bracket.

[ImpartialOne 160]

Loram and Havelock did great in there careers but i couldnt put them in front of Carter.I dont go on actually what people have won,ie going back years examples Warren, Crutcher both great riders but in a way underachieved.But in my mind both great riders same with the Boocock brothers think Carter is in there bracket.

Im not going on what they've won. They are/were simply better motorcyclists and had so much more natural ability.

 

Carter was a fantastic rider but he wasn't a natural on a bike. Joe Screen probably hasn't achieved as much as Carter in all his 22 years but Screen is 20 times more gifted than Carter was.

[stratton 1,491]

Im not going on what they've won. They are/were simply better motorcyclists and had so much more natural ability.

 

Carter was a fantastic rider but he wasn't a natural on a bike. Joe Screen probably hasn't achieved as much as Carter in all his 22 years but Screen is 20 times more gifted than Carter was.

Dont think so if that was the case,Screen massively underachieved.You dont go as fast as Carter did, by not being a good motorcyclist not in my opinion.Carter and Screen no contest in my book as much as i like Joe still like him now . Would Joe have won 2 B.L.R.C. Titles[Top class line up no in my opinion.Michael Lee, was gangly awkward not always pretty on the bike but he was a natural motorcyclist more so than any one i see.

[ImpartialOne 160]

Dont think so if that was the case,Screen massively underachieved.You dont go as fast as Carter did, by not being a good motorcyclist not in my opinion.Carter and Screen no contest in my book as much as i like Joe still like him now . Would Joe have won 2 B.L.R.C. Titles[Top class line up no in my opinion.Michael Lee, was gangly awkward not always pretty on the bike but he was a natural motorcyclist more so than any one i see.

It's not about what they've won. But if you want to compare then they have both won two British titles and neither have won the world title. But I'm talking about natural skill and talent on a bike. Carter is not even in the same town, let alone the same ball park as Screen or Loram in that deparent.

[stratton 1,491]

It's not about what they've won. But if you want to compare then they have both won two British titles and neither have won the world title. But I'm talking about natural skill and talent on a bike. Carter is not even in the same town, let alone the same ball park as Screen or Loram in that deparent.

Natural ability,Lewis Bridger has that loads of others also over the years.You mentioned Screen and Loram but you never even mentioned Lee?To say Screen had 20 times more natural talent than Carter is mad.Ivan Mauger had talent he worked hard at it its getting the complete package talent commitment the right people around you helping you.Ask most people did Screen have 20 times more talent than Carter be surprised if many people agreed with you. The bottom line if i had to put my life on who would win more races Carter or Screen only one winner Carter all day.

[ImpartialOne 160]

Natural ability,Lewis Bridger has that loads of others also over the years.You mentioned Screen and Loram but you never even mentioned Lee?To say Screen had 20 times more natural talent than Carter is mad.Ivan Mauger had talent he worked hard at it its getting the complete package talent commitment the right people around you helping you.Ask most people did Screen have 20 times more talent than Carter be surprised if many people agreed with you. The bottom line if i had to put my life on who would win more races Carter or Screen only one winner Carter all day.

It's nothing to do with who would win a race, who's fastest or who has the best team around them. Why would I mention Lee? I'm not talking about him. Have a look at the previous few posts and you'll see that as far as natural raw talent and skill on a bike is concerned, people do agree with me. As I said, Jason Garrity has more natural ability on a bike than Carter. What's he won?

Edited October 15, 2011 by ImpartialOne

[stratton 1,491]

It's nothing to do with who would win a race, who's fastest or who has the best team around them. Why would I mention Lee? I'm not talking about him. Have a look at the previous few posts and you'll see that as far as natural raw talent and skill on a bike is concerned, people do agree with me. As I said, Jason Garrity has more natural ability on a bike than Carter. What's he won?

I think there were two others who made similar posts to you thats fine about opinions.In simple terms,you dont ride to Carters level by not having ability or talent if you think Screen had more natural ability than Carter thats ok all about opinions.

[ImpartialOne 160]

I think there were two others who made similar posts to you thats fine about opinions.In simple terms,you dont ride to Carters level by not having ability or talent if you think Screen had more natural ability than Carter thats ok all about opinions.

Of course he had ability and talent, I'm not disputing that. But as an example, most riders when they lift mid corner, their bike naturally shoots them in a straight line towards the fence. I've seen Screeny on numerous occasions somehow continue to broadside on one wheel by pure balance and throttle control and not even move off his line. I've never seen any other rider do this and it defies centrifugal force.

I once saw Screeny when he was about 18 come out of a bend, look behind, lift whilst still sideways, and remove a tear-off all at the same time! He didn't even have to think about it, it's that natural to him.

[stratton 1,491]

Of course he had ability and talent, I'm not disputing that. But as an example, most riders when they lift mid corner, their bike naturally shoots them in a straight line towards the fence. I've seen Screeny on numerous occasions somehow continue to broadside on one wheel by pure balance and throttle control and not even move off his line. I've never seen any other rider do this and it defies centrifugal force.

I once saw Screeny when he was about 18 come out of a bend, look behind, lift whilst still sideways, and remove a tear-off all at the same time! He didn't even have to think about it, it's that natural to him.

Great point, i think i see Joe in a Briggos greats meeting i think at Coventry looked terrific a young kid then.Going on to styles my all time favourites probably were Simmo[always looked like he was sat in a armchair] Tommy Jansson,Ole Olsen, and Mark Courtney who i thought had a great riding style loved watching him ride.

[chunky 6,101]

This is what makes discussions like this interesting... It's impossible to quantify it, but I wholeheartedly agree that Joe Screen had far more natural talent than Kenny Carter. I also think that Tomasz Gollob is one of the most incredible motorcyclists that I have ever seen, and look how long it took him to win a World Championship. Ivan Mauger was not a natural, and neither was Briggo; they didn't do too badly out of that though, did they?

 

I don't believe that there i such a thing as "a natural" in sport (some are naturally faster or stronger, but that is all), although it is very possible for a person to be more "natural" than others. Much of the natural ability and talent is developed from the time that a person starts out in a particular sport. If you learn the right way, development is a lot quicker and easier. However, it is the mental strength and agility that turns talent into success; there is no direct correlation between talent/ability and success. Whatever we say about Kenny Carter's frame of mind, wen he got on the bike, he could do more with it - in terms of success - than Joe Screen.

 

Obviously, I can't speak from a motorcyclist's perspective, but as an individual who has achieved sporting success, I can tell you that it is very much in the head. I have achieved far more than 99% of competitors in my sport, yet I was never a "natural", and I was actually a slow developer. There were many far more talented than me, but they were never able to use that talent. Even now, I achieve success as a result of confidence and experience.

 

Hans Nielsen is a prime example of this he had the talent and ability, but it took him a number of years to turn that into success. Phil Crump is another, except that he was never able to do that.

 

Steve

[ImpartialOne 160]

Chunky you are bang on there. When it comes down to say, the GP, the difference in speed between Greg Hancock and someone like Chris Harris or Freddie Lindgren is minuscule. I've always said it's 75% in the head and confidence plays a huge part in sport.

 

It's kind of a placebo effect; Chris Harris spent £15,000 on engines in one go but did nothing. He knew all the boys are raving about Johnsy, he borrowed an 11 year old engine from a PL rider which was tuned by PJR and suddenly feels he has a chance because of those three little letters. Now, of course the motor was fast, but was it that much faster than his brand new engines or was it that he suddenly felt more capable because he knew he had a Johnsy motor under him? It does make a difference.

 

Anyway, going back to the point, I think you could point to several riders who had so much talent that riding a bike came easy to them. Kelly Moran was another. I nearly said earlier that Ivan Mauger wasn't a natural but felt I'd get a barrage of people saying I am talking rubbish, so I'm glad you said that and I fully agree. Ivan was clever, determined and extremely focused and had a mental edge on his opponents.

When I watch Briggs I see a rider with an awkward style which would never work today but it worked for him then and fair play to him. Carter could beat anyone on his day because he had an unshakeable belief in himself. He feared nobody and he wasn't afraid to make enemies to be the best. That was what carried him to what he did achieve and he had to work twice as hard as someone like Kelly Moran because his natural ability on the bike alone wasn't enough. Kelly used to go out the night before a big meeting, pass out and not remember it the next day and still rattle off a maximum. He relied on his talent to carry him through where as Carter couldn't.

[high edge 103]

pETER cRAVEN and Peter Collins had great tallent on a bike both did not need to gate to winn races,Mauger would be lost today having to sitt still at the start he would not have been as succesfull today.Carter was a racer and on his day was the best,but he did not have the brains to think a race throu abitt like Garrrity today.

[stratton 1,491]

pETER cRAVEN and Peter Collins had great tallent on a bike both did not need to gate to winn races,Mauger would be lost today having to sitt still at the start he would not have been as succesfull today.Carter was a racer and on his day was the best,but he did not have the brains to think a race throu abitt like Garrrity today.

I always think comparing eras is a difficult thing. ie Mauger, Briggo, Collins all great riders for me so would of been in any era. Mauger who i was never a fan of his main asset for me was consistency he would of loved todays gps he could of even won more titles?I no he messed around at the start but boy he was a great gater.IF Anything Collins would of found it harder now more so than Mauger because of his poor gating and slicker tracks now.Also most of the big tracks have gone now ie Hyde rd Sheffield[p.l] Halifax, Exeter,.But i always say class is permanent and you can only do what was put in front of you at the time.Same as Greg now he would of competed in any era because he is a great rider.

[Sprog1 79]

pETER cRAVEN and Peter Collins had great tallent on a bike both did not need to gate to winn races,Mauger would be lost today having to sitt still at the start he would not have been as succesfull today.Carter was a racer and on his day was the best,but he did not have the brains to think a race throu abitt like Garrrity today.

 

Apart from the fact that I am no in position to comment on Peter Craven, I think you have made some accurate comments there. We can never prove these things one way or the other but Carter had taken some big knocks in a relatively short career I my gut feeling is that his aggressive riding style had a lot to do with it I think and the likelihood is that he would have continued have some serious injuries. A rider can take bad injuries when he has one or two in his early twenties but if the bad injuries continue when one gets older then, in most cases there will be a psychological effect that in most cases eventually causes the rider to back off a fraction.

 

I agree about Mauger. He was quite a relatively late developer by World standards and in a sense he was the opposite of Carter, but really applied himself to learning whatever it took to organise himself into a World class rider. Mauger, like Greg Hancock managed to keep himself reasonably free from serious injury and that has a lot to do with their success.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Custer Mouse

[ImpartialOne 160]

Some of Carter's injuries may have been a result of his style but the broken leg in 1984 was unfortunate as he was run over by his team mate at Cradley. His broken leg in 1985 was the result of first bend bunching on a wet track at Vetlanda. Not sure about his broken jaw and collapsed lung though. I just think the Carters were cursed when you look at everything that happened to them.