Ghostwalker 1,859 Posted October 24, 2012 Which actually proves what a stupid System applies in the GP. You can have a World Champion who has NEVER won a GP that year. Mark Loram is an example. A silly System. most certainly not. The system have changed since Loram's title 12 years ago. Imo the current system rewards consistency which is good. I think current system is as fair as it can be and IMO none of those who won since the system with 5 guaranteed heats was introduced, can not be considered unworthy winners. So if we would have a champion who wouldn't have won a gp? so what? In speedway, just like in F1, MotoGP and WRC its the best driver/rider over the entire season who wins the title, the one who can master all types of tracks/surfaces/conditions. You say that it was 12 years ago since it last happened. I say, I think that we can say then, that its nothing to worry about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Humphrey Appleby 13,961 Posted October 24, 2012 Which actually proves what a stupid System applies in the GP. You can have a World Champion who has NEVER won a GP that year. Mark Loram is an example. A silly System. That could happen under any points system, unless you award so many points for winning a single GP that even if someone comes second in every GP they'd still end up with fewer points. I think most would agree that would be equally silly. Don't see there's anything wrong with becoming a world champion if you're the most consistent rider. Winning a single GP isn't the be-all and end-all, as surely Chris Harris has demonstrated over the years... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave_minall 232 Posted October 25, 2012 I'd much rather have seen a points system that rewards the rider who came in 4th in the final. They should be rewarded for getting there in the first place. Perhaps 4, 3, 2, 1? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mixy230 120 Posted October 25, 2012 Dave I have got to agree with something for 4th in the final 6, 4, 2, 1 ? 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,737 Posted October 26, 2012 Anyone with the time(and inclination) to work out how the revised 3210 scoring in the final would have changed this season`s final table. Many thanks in anticipation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,999 Posted October 26, 2012 Bad publicity at the moment.Monster was all over tv and newspapers because a 14 year old has died and Monster drink is being blamed.Seems she was at least the 4th death blamed on Monster!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gray 11 Posted October 26, 2012 Anyone with the time(and inclination) to work out how the revised 3210 scoring in the final would have changed this season`s final table. Many thanks in anticipation. 1 (8) Chris Holder 160 - 11 = 149 2 (10) Nicki Pedersen 152 - 9 = 143 3 (1) Greg Hancock 148 - 8 = 140 4 (5) Tomasz Gollob 142 - 9 = 133 5 (6) Emil Sayfutdinov 133 - 3 = 130 6 (4) Jason Crump 126 - 5 = 121 7 (12) Antonio Lindbäck 122 - 8 = 114 8 (9) Fredrik Lindgren 119 - 5 = 114 9 (2) Andreas Jonsson 88 - 2 = 86 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,737 Posted October 26, 2012 1 (8) Chris Holder 160 - 11 = 149 2 (10) Nicki Pedersen 152 - 9 = 143 3 (1) Greg Hancock 148 - 8 = 140 4 (5) Tomasz Gollob 142 - 9 = 133 5 (6) Emil Sayfutdinov 133 - 3 = 130 6 (4) Jason Crump 126 - 5 = 121 7 (12) Antonio Lindbäck 122 - 8 = 114 8 (9) Fredrik Lindgren 119 - 5 = 114 9 (2) Andreas Jonsson 88 - 2 = 86 Thanks Gray -didn`t make any sort of difference to the final result at all ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woz01 3,589 Posted October 26, 2012 Bad publicity at the moment.Monster was all over tv and newspapers because a 14 year old has died and Monster drink is being blamed.Seems she was at least the 4th death blamed on Monster!!!! Same thing happened about Red Bull a few years back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,999 Posted October 26, 2012 Same thing happened about Red Bull a few years back. Ah,i never caught that.Just thought this was a first and a big problem at that as it is in California and the parents would probably sue the company for millions and try for a ban.If i am right Monster is already banned in Denmark? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dave_minall 232 Posted October 26, 2012 Bad publicity at the moment.Monster was all over tv and newspapers because a 14 year old has died and Monster drink is being blamed.Seems she was at least the 4th death blamed on Monster!!!! I don't understand how this is even a case. The parents and the child knew she had a heart condition, and still they let her drink the stuff. It's called an energy drink for a reason, that and its very clearly written how much caffeine is in a can. I drink the stuff like it's going out of fashion, but if I knew I'd got a condition that means it could have a negative effect on my body, I wouldn't go near it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grand Central 2,654 Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) THE CCP members at the FIM felt that the differential between first (six points) and last (zero) in the final was too great "too great" for what? When you hear people 'at the top' (the CCP, not PR!) making such specious comments with no basis it just make me want to scream. Last year's championship went right down to the wire, and as other people have proved, the scoring change would not have made ANY alterations to the ranking order. In fact I do not think any championship would have changed hands if the scoring systems were changed. so why the hell bother? It is to justify their existence at all. Their weekends away and freebies may dry up if they can't find a rule to tamper with, especially if it is of no import. They could make decisions for the good of the sport, but they don't. They could have had the gonads to entirely scrap the joker system in the SWC but they didn't. At least it was a nice weekend in Czecho. I'd much rather have seen a points system that rewards the rider who came in 4th in the final. They should be rewarded for getting there in the first place. Perhaps 4, 3, 2, 1? I have no problem with giving that extra point to the 4th in the final, ... BUT he did get the extra 3 or 2 for his first/second finish in the semi-final. So he was rewarded something, wasn't he? The guy that finishes last in the semi, however, doesn't get anything extra over a non-qualifier. But no-one seems to mind that. Edited October 26, 2012 by Grand Central Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gavan 5,050 Posted October 26, 2012 Dont see why people find fault with the gp system! yes a one off world final was dramatic but you had a couple of 'lucky winners'. the gp system determines and rewards consistency. Under the old one off we could have had Bjerre, MJJ, Vaculik or Lindback as champion on one night only! Mark Loram wasnt the best rider in 2000 Rickardsson was granted but over the 6 rounds he got the most points end of story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Triple.H. 1,987 Posted October 26, 2012 Which actually proves what a stupid System applies in the GP. You can have a World Champion who has NEVER won a GP that year. Mark Loram is an example. A silly System. i would think Mark Loram thought it was a great system consistency won it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The White Knight 9,039 Posted October 26, 2012 i would think Mark Loram thought it was a great system consistency won it I bet he did. But it doesn't make it right though does it?? I am a Fan of Mark by the way. :approve: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
