Jon Cook

[semion 2,192]

With the state of Speedway in this country how dare the fans question the Promotors of the Sport as they all should hold their heads up high and say 'hey, Look at the Job we have done'. (yeah right !)

 

I wonder what the Top Promotions of yester year would make of the Incompetence we are having to witness these days. Jon Cook has plenty to be proud of, I think Not, and he calls the fans. The words pot kettle and black spring to mind.

[hrhbig 69]

Yawn....boring

[TesarRacing 1,825]

Only just caught up with this thread - I must be a bit thick!

 

I did think Shawn had gone a bit far with the title of the thread but when you read what a promoter has said about the supporters that keep this sport going and another promoter using the same language in a Twitter feed earlier this year, it is hard to disagree with SCB.

[Najjer 2,890]

Only just caught up with this thread - I must be a bit thick!

 

I did think Shawn had gone a bit far with the title of the thread but when you read what a promoter has said about the supporters that keep this sport going and another promoter using the same language in a Twitter feed earlier this year, it is hard to disagree with SCB.

 

I think that's it in a nutshell - Although Starman still doesn't get it....

[lisa-colette 6,040]

Interesting title change!!

[Woz01 3,589]

Interesting title change!!

Just spat my coffee out on break at work! Brilliant! 😄 😄 😄

[SCB 0]

I'm not keen on the new title of this thread anyway. Just putting a name on a BSF topic is confusing and always makes me think someone has died.

I've changed it to avoid confusion

[BluTiger 21,705]

I've changed it to avoid confusion

That's a fail then

[LagutaRacingFan 1,939]

Is Jon Cook a homosexual, so what?

 

We are all humans who need to be loved.

[Alan_Jones 1,005]

I've changed it to avoid confusion

 

I understood the original title but I don't have a clue with this one. I'm guessing we still don't like him, right?

[BWitcher 12,453]

[E I Addio 15,846]

Well, I have at last managed to purloin a copy of SS from Dave Spartt over lunch and having now become one of the very few on here that has actually read the article I am beginning to wonder what all the fuss is about.

After all the huffing and puffing from SCB and the rest who hadn't read the thing, I was expecting something outrageous, but to be honest it was a bit of an anti-climax.

As I hinted in an earlier post I thought I was going to go into one of my tirades about sloppy journalism at SS but having read it I have to say I think that Peter Oakes has done a really good job with an article that is well prepared, well written, clearly explained and concise so credit where its due and well done to him. In fact if you removed the last three lines that caused all the fuss I doubt if anyone in their right minds could fault it on any level.

So to Jon cooks comments. Contrary to what some on here have implied the BSPA have looked at the statistics of the riders concerned in their roles as heatleaders and as second strings. Cook uses Jacob Thorssell and Peter Karlsson to explain why the one with the lower average is a HL and the one on the higher average is a SS. He quotes the number of matches ridden in each role and averages attained at each level, in fact much the same as SCB has already done. However it was difficult, says Cook to get down to a hard a hard and fast formula because of inconsistencies. Of the 19 riders looked at over half scored 25% more as a SS, 7 had amore marginal difference and 2 actually scored more in the HL role than they did as a SS. So for that reason they had to weigh in different factors and look at the situation first as clubs then as a body. That is basically it in summary form although you'll have to buy SS for the whole picture, but I doubt whether anyone other then the usual handful of malcontents on here who will always say the BSPA are wrong, can really find a substantial criticism of the methodology. More particularly its very difficult, I think, to lay claims of manipulation at Matt Fords door although no doubt those who haven't read the article will continue to do so.

So we come to Cooks concluding remarks and the reason for them. Loose language perhaps or an injudicious choice of words maybe ? Of course the last three lines about people being thick or biased would have been better unsaid, but lets look at the article as a whole and look at the context. I think you have to look at the second paragraph and then look at the last one. The second paragraph is Peter Oakes referring to critics of the scheme (in other words the keyboard warriors who went into melt down before the method of composing the list had even been explained) from the third paragraph it is Cook explaining what was done, then in the final paragraph he comes back and answers the critics (who apparently don't like being answered).

So was Cook wrong ? Shouldn't have said it but it is true. Anyone who didn't understand the method after Peter Oakes set it all down so clearly must be a bit thick and anyone who jumps in with criticism without waiting for an explanation must be a bit biased. Skidder 1 has made two good posts on the subject which nobody has been able to properly contradict if he is wrong

So, all in all a storm in a tea cup. The acid test will be whether it results in good racing and avoids too many 70-20 type wins, which Cook says is the objective.

Edited December 18, 2015 by E I Addio

[SCB 0]

For the record, I've since read the article. Jon Cook is a knob, there was no need for calling fans "stupid".

[Blazeaway 1,501]

For the record, I've since read the article. Jon Cook is a knob, there was no need for calling fans "stupid".

 

Though to be fair, most of them are.

[lisa-colette 6,040]

Just spat my coffee out on break at work! Brilliant! 😄 😄 😄

Yes, I can imagine! Glad I wasn't drinking anything at the time!