Kenny Carter Dvd.

[Gavan 5,050]

Are you being a twit or not? Not a fool and ask Davey fans family and sponsors Ipswich fans whether he was a mug or not,remember what BERRY said he knows more in his left hand than you will ever know.So Iris get off your high horse have a think and maybe you might come up with something i doubt it !!

Im an Ipswich fan and Davey was a greta rider hampered by injury.

 

he wasnt as good as Chris Harris has been though

[E I Addio 15,845]

Today's machinery is of a higher standard, as is technical back-up, track preparation and fitness levels. Previous generation riders competed with what they had then, today's riders compete with what they have now. Today's riders have an advantage which lifts the overall standard but if riders from the 60's/70's had the same advantage, their standard would have been higher.

Track preparation is not better today. Apart from the fact that it was not as critical then as it is with modern machinery, the quality lol shale was much better then, but so many of the pits producing good shale have closed over the years. Decent shale is very hard to come by today a nd very expensive. Modern bikes also churn the trades up much more which adds to the problem of decent track preparation.

[Gavan 5,050]

No one is saying he wasnt a good rider. But in that era where would he rank - just inside thr top 50 riders of the decade?

In comparison, I suspect harris would be top 30 riders of the first decade of the 2000s

absolutly spot on.

 

Davey was good but hasnt achieved anywhere near the level Harris has done. Maybe without injury he might of.

 

Im an Ipswich fan and also a speedway fan im not deluded about my own riders.

 

I listen to talksport and im sure Adrian Durham is on there to argue things to get more listeners and im thinking certain people on here are continually on the wind up with their comments......starman.........sidney

[moxey63 1,785]

Isn't the fact that many are answering the question posed, Davey vs Harris, draws some confusion about a rider (Davey) who was around 40 years ago, had his career ravaged by injury and didn't even make number one in his team, never mind regularly the top 40 of the national averages... how some people are arguing, that Mr Harris is actually better and has achieved more.

 

The answer is simple: Davey had a lot more reputable names to fend off to get to number one, in days making a British Final was actually as difficult as actually lifting the title nowadays. Scott Nicholls is good... but half-a-dozen times as good as, say, Peter Collins (who won the British crown once).

[iris123 20,997]

Scott Nicholls is good... but half-a-dozen times as good as, say, Peter Collins (who won the British crown once).

Your skewed way of looking at things is showing you up.If we(sensible people) judge PC and Nicholls careers we would not just use British Final performances.It would help your argument if you kept it real.If you judge a rider you use his career as a whole.I won't say Nicholls is a better rider than most english riders of the 70s because he has won the Czech Golden helmet and they didn't because that would be a rather childish way to look at things.Similar to your way in fact

Edited December 29, 2014 by iris123

[moxey63 1,785]

Your skewed way of looking at things is showing you up.If we(sensible people) judge PC and Nicholls careers we would not just use British Final performances.It would help your argument if you kept it real.If you judge a rider you use his career as a whole.I won't say Nicholls is a better rider than most english riders of the 70s because he has won the Czech Golden helmet and they didn't because that would be a rather childish way to look at things.Similar to your way in fact

 

That's alright. I am used to being shown up. The end of the day, there's is no answer to the question - Davey v Harris - and your need to post over 15,000 times on various topics, surely by now, tells you it's all about opinions.

 

I saw Mr Davey at his peak... and have witnessed Mr Harris.

 

I know who I class as the better rider, based on who they were up against at the time and what obstacles - opponents and injury-wise - lay before them.

 

Please, there is no need to answer.. as there is no answer.

 

Happy New Year!

[waiheke1 4,295]

Isn't the fact that many are answering the question posed, Davey vs Harris, draws some confusion about a rider (Davey) who was around 40 years ago, had his career ravaged by injury and didn't even make number one in his team, never mind regularly the top 40 of the national averages... how some people are arguing, that Mr Harris is actually better and has achieved more.

 

The answer is simple: Davey had a lot more reputable names to fend off to get to number one, in days making a British Final was actually as difficult as actually lifting the title nowadays. Scott Nicholls is good... but half-a-dozen times as good as, say, Peter Collins (who won the British crown once).

but noone is using the british final to argue why harris is better thsn davey. The key reasons are that harris has won a gp, finished 5th in the world, and regularly qualified for gp series. None of those are due to britain being weaker now thsn thrn.

fwiw, id rank both nicholls and harris below the likes of morton,louis, jessup etc. But ahead of davey who I would rank similarly to the likes of phil collins and thr grahame brothers.

[The White Knight 9,039]

 

No, that wouldn't be the case at all.

 

There are countless examples across all sports of athletes/competitors who have a lot of talent, but lack the dedication that is required to succeed in their given sport. Had they been around in an era of 20-30 years ago, they would have been fine.

 

By the same token there will be competitors from bygone eras who simply wouldn't have been able to adapt.. others such as Mauger most certainly would.

 

Besides, your argument defeats itself in that the level of professionalism WAS there in the 70's, but only from a select few of the riders. Now that level is far more widespread.

 

There are less of the worlds elite riders riding in the EL, but the 'standard' is an ambiguous term.

 

The reality is, the 'standard' of riders in the EL, head to head with those in the BL of the 70's is far higher.

 

The 'standard' compared to other riders of their era is lower.

I can't agree as a lot of the Riders that you are talking about are 'doubling up' Premier League Riders. Jason Doyle reached Number One for his Premier League Club and was able to do exactly the same for his ELITE League Club.

 

You/He could not have done that in the 'Seventies'.

[waiheke1 4,295]

Bwitcher is talking about absolute standards here, not relative standards. Relative to world standards you are correct, but you are missing his point.

 

Just as in relative terms the 70 Brazil footbsll team is the greatest of all time, but would be played off the park by an average 2014 premier league side.

 

id also add that doyle was in the top 15 riders in the world last year. A top 15 rider in the 70s would have ridden only bl, but had they ridden in the national league also would have likrly been number one for both teams.

Edited December 29, 2014 by waihekeaces1

[BWitcher 12,453]

It should also be remembered, bikes are a lot harder to ride these days and it takes more skill to become a decent rider.

 

This alone would have scuppered the hopes of a number of riders in the 70's... but again, the best would have adapted.

[stratton 1,491]

Im an Ipswich fan and Davey was a greta rider hampered by injury.

 

he wasnt as good as Chris Harris has been though

The quote from the late Great John Berry says it all surely you take what he said seriously.?

[E I Addio 15,845]

It should also be remembered, bikes are a lot harder to ride these days and it takes more skill to become a decent rider.

 

d.

Is that a fact? I stand to be corrected but I am sure I have heard a number of riders say the uprights were harder.

 

I think modern engines are a problem because these days they have a very narrow power band, but the chassis surely have to give a better ride with lay down engines giving a lower centre of gravity and modern leading link forks being less prone to twisting.

[moxey63 1,785]

As somebody who watches from the extreme comfort of the living room floor, I can't imagine today's riders have as much difficulty in riding their heavily fashioned for comfort bikes more than the boys of the 70s and 80, even the 90s. In decades gone by, riders used to have to battle with their machines and track conditions, often being thrown about like some rodeo passenger. Nowadays, the boys don't appear to be able to control their machines on the smoothest of circuits. If they can't rev and go, they usually end up on one wheel.

[BWitcher 12,453]

As somebody who watches from the extreme comfort of the living room floor, I can't imagine today's riders have as much difficulty in riding their heavily fashioned for comfort bikes more than the boys of the 70s and 80, even the 90s. In decades gone by, riders used to have to battle with their machines and track conditions, often being thrown about like some rodeo passenger. Nowadays, the boys don't appear to be able to control their machines on the smoothest of circuits. If they can't rev and go, they usually end up on one wheel.

 

Strange, you attempt to say it was more difficult in the old days and then present the opposite argument.

 

The facts are simple.. in by gone days, riders would 'pop along to a track' and be 'impress' in their first ever ride on a speedway bike. Within weeks they could be in a team.

 

Absolutely no chance of that happening now.

Is that a fact? I stand to be corrected but I am sure I have heard a number of riders say the uprights were harder.

 

I think modern engines are a problem because these days they have a very narrow power band, but the chassis surely have to give a better ride with lay down engines giving a lower centre of gravity and modern leading link forks being less prone to twisting.

 

Sam Ermolenko and Kelvin Tatum think so... especially since the new silencers came into play.

 

The margin for error is a lot less now, for a number of reasons.

[E I Addio 15,845]

 

Sam Ermolenko and Kelvin Tatum think so... especially since the new silencers came into play.

 

The margin for error is a lot less now, for a number of reasons.

I think they were referring to the way modern tuners anre getting more and more power from the engines resullting in an increasingly narrower power band. The new silencers undoubtedly make the situation worse because of the way the power comes in suddenly,but I am pretty sure modern chassis ride better , especially if set up properly.

 

Undoubtedly modern engines are more difficult to set up and, even the smallest adjustment can make a big difference to performance either better or worse, and that was at the root of a lot of Peter Karlsson's problems last season. He changed engines even chaged tuners but nothing worked. The other side of that coin though is that if an inferior rider gets his set up right he can beat much better riders. A classic example of that was Ben Morely at Lakeside who, once he got his home track set up sorted was beating some decent riders at Lakeside but he never really cracked it on away tracks needing different set ups.

 

I think modern tuning is one reason why it's very difficult to seriously compare riders. Greg for example has a terrific pit crew around him and does very well on it but I am not convinced he would ever be world champion in a previous era.

 

Fascinating discussion but nothing's provable so one can only say a rider was good in a particular era and enjoy them while they last.