Parsloes 1928 nearly 495 Posted October 18, 2011 I too was brought up on the old World Final but I'm not biased towards them. As good as they were, they were always filled with 5 token continental places with riders who didn't even race against any Danes, Swedes, Brits, Aussies or Americans until they got to the World Final. How was that a fair system? Apart from Muller, they rarely brought anything to the final and were often out of their depth. Yes the Poles & Russians back then didn't ride in the British or other western Europe leagues but that surely is no reason to have prohibited them. And you misrepresent how well they did. Plechanov was runner-up two years running in the mid-60s, Poles Walosek, Jancarz (who you mentioned in totally unfairly disparaging terms), Woryna (twice) and Plech (twice also) all made a WF rostrum. And I hesitate to mention the dreaded 'S' word as I know what reaction it'll bring (though Rob shall leap to the hapless Mr. Szczakiel's defence! ), but if one recalls '73 one will see that if Jerzy was an unlikely winner two riders very unlucky on the day not to have in fact pipped him were contryman Plech and top Russian, Chlinovski. Indeed between 1964 and 1984 the 'Continentals' produced 10 rostrum finishes to Australia's three!! So let's not be having it made out that they were all totally useless!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skeletor 20 Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) Yes the Poles & Russians back then didn't ride in the British or other western Europe leagues but that surely is no reason to have prohibited them. And you misrepresent how well they did. Plechanov was runner-up two years running in the mid-60s, Poles Walosek, Jancarz (who you mentioned in totally unfairly disparaging terms), Woryna (twice) and Plech (twice also) all made a WF rostrum. And I hesitate to mention the dreaded 'S' word as I know what reaction it'll bring (though Rob shall leap to the hapless Mr. Szczakiel's defence! ), but if one recalls '73 one will see that if Jerzy was an unlikely winner two riders very unlucky on the day not to have in fact pipped him were contryman Plech and top Russian, Chlinovski. Indeed between 1964 and 1984 the 'Continentals' produced 10 rostrum finishes to Australia's three!! So let's not be having it made out that they were all totally useless!! But was it fair how they got to the final ? the answer is no so the old rules was rubbish . Edited October 18, 2011 by skeletor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ImpartialOne 160 Posted October 18, 2011 But was it fair how they got to the final ? the answer is no so the old rules was rubbish . Precisely, and as usual, Parsley has completely swerved the issue I was making, which was not that they shouldn't be there, but how they came to be there. Why couldn't they qualify against the test of the world? Had the continentals joined the rounds at the overseas stage there would have been a lit less making up the numbers in World Finals. Parsloes, are you honestly trying to tell me that any three of Hack, Jancarz, Stancl, Starostin and Verner were more worthy of a place than Olsen, Knudsen and Gundersen? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parsloes 1928 nearly 495 Posted October 18, 2011 But was it fair how they got to the final ? the answer is no so the old rules was rubbish . Ha, ha, ha... So you all ignore the obvious fact that the current system is grossly weighted in favour of those in it and excludes others from a fair chance of competing, yet somehow come with a hypothesis that the likes of a two-time World Final runner-up (Plechanov) didn't, er, deserve to even be in the Final!! That's utterly - as was said by someone earlier... - bonkers!!! The fact that Eastern Europeans like him and indeed all bar Plech & Muller of those previously mentioned (at the time they made the rostrum...) did so with the clear disadvantage of not having had even the chance of racing in Britain, shows what a meritocracy the old system was.. You all (well most of you...) clearly prefer the GP series but to me it's been handled so badly.. I would - of course - prefer the old one-off World Final (it was bar none the greatest sporting event in the world - a night of unrivalled excitement..) - but okay if there has to be season-long series fair enough. What is NOT fair enough is what we have, when 11 of the same riders (out of 15) can stay in it unchallenged from outside their ranks leaving the slimest of pickings for 'outsiders'... Can you honestly imagine what would've been said if the old WF had changed so that the top eight one year were automaticaly in it the next year... Anyone who would've suggested that would have been laughed out of the place; but that is EXACTLY what we have now... And it's not as if all of the other eight places are even up for grabs either.. I think we should agree to differ but I still have yet to hear one argument even attempting to defend the gross unfairness of the current 'cosy club' system we have... You all just want to defend it regardless of even attempting to put forward an argument in its defence... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WIE-JA 72 Posted October 18, 2011 Muller did so with the clear disadvantage of not having had even the chance of racing in Britain Hull not in England then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parsloes 1928 nearly 495 Posted October 18, 2011 Hull not in England then? And English not your language either as I clearly posted THIS: "The fact that Eastern Europeans like him and indeed all bar Plech & Muller of those previously mentioned (at the time they made the rostrum...) did so with the clear disadvantage of not having had even the chance of racing in Britain, shows what a meritocracy the old system was.." Bordering on the pathtic that you misquote like this... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skeletor 20 Posted October 18, 2011 Ha, ha, ha... So you all ignore the obvious fact that the current system is grossly weighted in favour of those in it and excludes others from a fair chance of competing, yet somehow come with a hypothesis that the likes of a two-time World Final runner-up (Plechanov) didn't, er, deserve to even be in the Final!! That's utterly - as was said by someone earlier... - bonkers!!! The fact that Eastern Europeans like him and indeed all bar Plech & Muller of those previously mentioned (at the time they made the rostrum...) did so with the clear disadvantage of not having had even the chance of racing in Britain, shows what a meritocracy the old system was.. You all (well most of you...) clearly prefer the GP series but to me it's been handled so badly.. I would - of course - prefer the old one-off World Final (it was bar none the greatest sporting event in the world - a night of unrivalled excitement..) - but okay if there has to be season-long series fair enough. What is NOT fair enough is what we have, when 11 of the same riders (out of 15) can stay in it unchallenged from outside their ranks leaving the slimest of pickings for 'outsiders'... Can you honestly imagine what would've been said if the old WF had changed so that the top eight one year were automaticaly in it the next year... Anyone who would've suggested that would have been laughed out of the place; but that is EXACTLY what we have now... And it's not as if all of the other eight places are even up for grabs either.. I think we should agree to differ but I still have yet to hear one argument even attempting to defend the gross unfairness of the current 'cosy club' system we have... You all just want to defend it regardless of even attempting to put forward an argument in its defence... First of all are you saying that the old system was fair by allowing mainly weaker riders get into the final by getting a easy route to others ? Picking out four or 5 riders who were good enough out of about 300 makes your point look stupid . The new system always finds the best champion and mostly you have the best 15 riders in the world . that got to be much better than the lottery of a system that you liked . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ImpartialOne 160 Posted October 18, 2011 Ha, ha, ha... So you all ignore the obvious fact that the current system is grossly weighted in favour of those in it and excludes others from a fair chance of competing,: the only person ignoring facts is you. Who are these "others" you keep banging on about? I've asked you outright probably 10 times now and you've yet to name even one rider to back up your claim. So come on, prove us all wrong, if you can. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grand Central 2,654 Posted October 18, 2011 Ha, ha, ha... So you all ignore the obvious fact that the current system is grossly weighted in favour of those in it and excludes others from a fair chance of competing, yet somehow come with a hypothesis that the likes of a two-time World Final runner-up (Plechanov) didn't, er, deserve to even be in the Final!! That's utterly - as was said by someone earlier... - bonkers!!! I used the term BONKERS to describe YOUR view. And yours alone. It is hardly good form to present it as being used against others. Poor show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryW 1,178 Posted October 18, 2011 I think we should agree to differ but I still have yet to hear one argument even attempting to defend the gross unfairness of the current 'cosy club' system we have... You all just want to defend it regardless of even attempting to put forward an argument in its defence... Well, I thought I offered an argument defending it in my previous post, linked here, but I guess you didn't think that initial paragraph was a defence or you just chose to ignore it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WIE-JA 72 Posted October 18, 2011 And English not your language either as I clearly posted THIS: "The fact that Eastern Europeans like him and indeed all bar Plech & Muller of those previously mentioned (at the time they made the rostrum...) did so with the clear disadvantage of not having had even the chance of racing in Britain, shows what a meritocracy the old system was.." Bordering on the pathtic that you misquote like this... Many apple ogies about that. Yes I did misread your post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parsloes 1928 nearly 495 Posted October 18, 2011 I used the term BONKERS to describe YOUR view. And yours alone. It is hardly good form to present it as being used against others. Poor show. Come off it - I ignored your very rude comment (the "bonkers" one) when it was made, but I won't now as you bring it up again (er, in what way do I imply that the word wasn't used against me!!). I deserve an apology because you said my argument that it's easier to stay in the GP series than to qualify for it (or to qualify for the previous system of a WF) was "bonkers". In fact, it's 100% entirely the case that it is easier to 'qualify' again from within the 15 of the GP field. I've no intention of stating the bleedin' obvious yet again by explaining why having to only finish in the top 11 of 15 is easier than having to qualify through a set of open rounds.. The ganging up, misquoting and downright bullying tactics on here is so, so typical of the BSF.. Especially when it comes to the subject of GP vs. WF, where so many who defend the former adopt a vicious and downright nasty approach of utter intolerance to those who take an alternative view. So tell you what, I shall indeed stop posting on this thread but if you think that in any way the purposes of healthy debate and sharing of views on this sport we're all meant to love has in any way been helped by the tactics deployed on here - yet alone your particular 'arguments', which have actually not been proven in any way - then you are sadly mistaken... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parsloes 1928 nearly 495 Posted October 18, 2011 Well, I thought I offered an argument defending it in my previous post, linked here, but I guess you didn't think that initial paragraph was a defence or you just chose to ignore it. Oh and Henry yes, I do apologise as you did indeed make some good points here and I did mean to acknowledge that. You are someone who does argue fairly and with clarity about the differing points of view and I fully acknowledge that, so sorry for implying otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ImpartialOne 160 Posted October 19, 2011 Oh and Henry yes, I do apologise as you did indeed make some good points here and I did mean to acknowledge that. You are someone who does argue fairly and with clarity about the differing points of view and I fully acknowledge that, so sorry for implying otherwise. Any chance of an answer to my question this year? Or have you given up on that one? By the way, I don't know who you were referring to regarding bullying and ganging up but I have tried to be as reasonable as possible in this debate. If you term several people having one point of view to one person having another as bullying then I'm afraid you are wrong. (again ) I can understand your frustration at so many people disagreeing with you but maybe there is a reason for that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,364 Posted October 19, 2011 Both systems are ok by me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
