Tai Woffinden Best Ever!?

[tyler42 150]

5 minutes ago, chunky said:

Do you not agree?

Do you not think that the luck aspect is reduced?

Do you think the old system was designed to find the best 16 riders in the world?

Steve

maybe not, but if you look at the records of the one off world finals Its hard to find a rider who did not deserve to win it in that particular year. Maybe one or two might have been unlucky with a fall or an ef i.e Jessup`, Plech, but if you look at the list, i don't see many surprises. in all those years from the 50's onwards.

[chunky 6,092]

3 minutes ago, tyler42 said:

maybe not, but if you look at the records of the one off world finals Its hard to find a rider who did not deserve to win it in that particular year. Maybe one or two might have been unlucky with a fall or an ef i.e Jessup`, Plech, but if you look at the list, i don't see many surprises. in all those years from the 50's onwards.

Nail on the head! It is not that riders who won DIDN'T deserve it; it is that there are riders who SHOULD have won it.

People always talk about Jessup, but what about Nielsen in 93 when Ermolenko SHOULD have been excluded - no question.

It is more about those who qualified for finals, rather than who won them. I liked Rembas, and he was one of the best Eastern Europeans. However, under a qualification system like we have today, he is unlikely to have been near a final, let alone in a run-off for a rostrum place.

It is also about those who DIDN'T qualify for finals. Riders like Muller, Plech, Jancarz etc were worthy of a world final spot, but were they more deserving than riders who missed out from the Inter-Continental qualification?

Steve

[tyler42 150]

54 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

I get it perfectly.

You don't understand maths. That's all there is too it, simple maths.

Let's just take the top two riders in the league, who they are doesn't matter.. but these two are the two very best, head and shoulders above the others.

Now, what you are claiming is that they would find it easier to get a higher average in the second of the two scenarios:

That in a league where their teams will race once at home and once away.. with them racing each other very often just once in a meeting, sometimes twice.. meaning the maximum they're going to race is four times over a season.. Now, in all of those races one of them will finish 2nd.

In a league where they race each other twice at home and twice away and meet each other at least twice in a meeting, but most often three times (can even be four!)... that means they're likely racing each other twelve times in a season... not four.  Again, one of them is going to lose.

Now go to the 10th best rider in the league.. in the old format he's racing the nine riders above him 2-4 times a season... in the current format he's suddenly racing them up to 18 times a season as in some matches he'll be against two of them. 

For the 20th best the problem is even worse.

The number of high average riders is not dictated by the ability of the riders but by the size of the league. The larger the league, the more 'top riders' there appears to be as you simply aren't seeing the real top riders race so often and therefore riders of a lower level of ability look better as they aren't losing so often. 

 

What you say is absolutely true, but you are not telling the whole story of your argument. The above is all average based . Whereas  a lot of your posts you state on a regular basis that the standard of league racing of today is of a higher standard than that of yesteryear. This is where i don't agree with you. It is all too easy to look back with rose tinted glasses and spout ' oh it was so much better in my day" I don't agree with that analogy, but on the other hand i don't agree with you and other posters who say it was so amateurish. Quote "Riders turning up with a bike on the back of a car" Its called progress. It would be pretty sad that 40 years on and nothing had changed.

Its ironic that todays riders "in the UK" turn up with three bikes, 2 mechanics and look so professional, but the sport is falling on its arse. 

Its fantastic that the sport is on t.v on a regular basis and the stadiums look fantastic ' Unfortunately not in the UK" And of course it a lot faster than of yesteryear.

The sport looked a lot more faster in the 80's than it did in the 70's and so on, but it does not mean the riders were any less skilful. As for the riders of today, They are very much like athletes Its called progress. You would never see a footballer down the bookies or a snooker hall in this day and age and you would never see a rider having a smoke in the pits either, both of which was the norm back in the day. Have a look at an old football match from the 70's its so slow compared to today. Does that mean the likes of Best, Osgood, Marsh etc are not as good as todays footballers? Fitness wise of course not, but skill wise its all relevant.

Todays top riders are fitter and on the whole a lot more professional, than there counterparts of yesteryear. But more skilful?,  But the one one thing we should be able to agree on, is that todays standard of speedway in the UK has fallen year on year and as i said earlier it is now made up of mostly 2nd division riders. The polish Extra league is now like what the old 1st division use to be over here. All the best riders rode here and just like in Poland now. all the top riders ride there.

So my point is, if the polish league is of such a high standard "which of course it is", why was the old 1st division in the uk not of the same standard? which some on here spout.

Well of course it was, you had the best riders just like Poland has now. You can't have it both ways. imo.

 

[ColinMills 1,728]

4 minutes ago, chunky said:

Do you not agree?

Do you not think that the luck aspect is reduced?

Do you think the old system was designed to find the best 16 riders in the world?

Steve

I don't think it was designed to find the best "16" riders in the world due to the eastern block contingent. Of course it had luck involved, anything with  sudden death nights has that eliment, but as a spectator, I found that part of the excitement. Again I can only say what I preferred. (whilst this part is slightly off topic),  british final (part of the qualifying),was cut throat, you had the rostrum places to watch, plus the cut off mark. you never had this 6th spot finish, then could still end up being british champion..as I said earlier I liked the variation of riders along the way..of course it wasn't perfect, not always brilliant, but every rider had their "dream"..Did Jerzy win because of luck? or should Mauger of bided his time? theres loads of differences and I agree with you on some points, but on the whole, we will never agree 

[chunky 6,092]

5 minutes ago, tyler42 said:

What you say is absolutely true, but you are not telling the whole story of your argument. The above is all average based . Whereas  a lot of your posts you state on a regular basis that the standard of league racing of today is of a higher standard than that of yesteryear. This is where i don't agree with you.

Of course things are average-based; that is how we "rate" riders. The point you seem to be missing is that league racing is now more "equal" than it was, with the result that more riders are at the same level.

In the old days, a team invariably had three heat-leaders, two second strings, and two reserves. The real stars were 10+, regular heat leaders were 7.5-10, second strings 4-7.5, and reserves below 4.

With some 130-140 riders in the league, there was greater variation in the averages. Now, with fewer than 50 riders, you don't have that variation. More riders at the same level means that the level of competition is much tougher, and fewer riders have stand-out averages.

Steve

[tyler42 150]

1 minute ago, chunky said:

Nail on the head! It is not that riders who won DIDN'T deserve it; it is that there are riders who SHOULD have won it.

People always talk about Jessup, but what about Nielsen in 93 when Ermolenko SHOULD have been excluded - no question.

It is more about those who qualified for finals, rather than who won them. I liked Rembas, and he was one of the best Eastern Europeans. However, under a qualification system like we have today, he is unlikely to have been near a final, let alone in a run-off for a rostrum place.

It is also about those who DIDN'T qualify for finals. Riders like Muller, Plech, Jancarz etc were worthy of a world final spot, but were they more deserving than riders who missed out from the Inter-Continental qualification?

Steve

Its so open to debate. The three riders you mention. Muller won it Plech, made the rostrum twice and ironically Jancarz's record was very poor, but he imo had the best British league record of the three. Yes Ermolenko should have gone, but thats the luck you sometimes get. Do you not think lady luck was on TW side when he won his first world final? He and Emil Sayfutdinov were just a couple a points apart. the Emil Sayfutdinov got injured. Was that the slice of luck needed to go on and win his first championship?

 

1 minute ago, chunky said:

Of course things are average-based; that is how we "rate" riders. The point you seem to be missing is that league racing is now more "equal" than it was, with the result that more riders are at the same level.

In the old days, a team invariably had three heat-leaders, two second strings, and two reserves. The real stars were 10+, regular heat leaders were 7.5-10, second strings 4-7.5, and reserves below 4.

With some 130-140 riders in the league, there was greater variation in the averages. Now, with fewer than 50 riders, you don't have that variation. More riders at the same level means that the level of competition is much tougher, and fewer riders have stand-out averages.

Steve

You seemed to have missed my point. How can 50 riders of which 40 plus are of 2nd div standard be stronger than the old 1st div which included the top riders of the day. How many riders in todays league can you tell me are of world class? there are no comparisons to be had.

[chunky 6,092]

13 minutes ago, ColinMills said:

I don't think it was designed to find the best "16" riders in the world due to the eastern block contingent. Of course it had luck involved, anything with  sudden death nights has that eliment, but as a spectator, I found that part of the excitement. Again I can only say what I preferred. (whilst this part is slightly off topic),  british final (part of the qualifying),was cut throat, you had the rostrum places to watch, plus the cut off mark. you never had this 6th spot finish, then could still end up being british champion..as I said earlier I liked the variation of riders along the way..of course it wasn't perfect, not always brilliant, but every rider had their "dream"..Did Jerzy win because of luck? or should Mauger of bided his time? theres loads of differences and I agree with you on some points, but on the whole, we will never agree 

Exactly. The GP qualification system is designed to find the best riders, regardless of what nationality they are. The old system wasn't, so that is a FACT.

Making a mistake, or suffering bad luck, in one of five rides could prove costly, not just as far as winning a title, but even qualifying. Having a minimum of 50 rides drastically reduces the luck aspect, which means that ability and consistency is more likely to be rewarded. Another FACT.

Okay, you may not like that, but is it better to be fair to the competitors, or is it better to make it more unpredictable because a few fans want it.

As someone who has been involved in competitive/professional sport for most of my life, I can tell you that virtually every serious competitor prefers ability and achievement to be rewarded, rather than luck playing a huge part.

Steve

 

[ColinMills 1,728]

1 minute ago, chunky said:

Exactly. The GP qualification system is designed to find the best riders, regardless of what nationality they are. The old system wasn't, so that is a FACT.

Making a mistake, or suffering bad luck, in one of five rides could prove costly, not just as far as winning a title, but even qualifying. Having a minimum of 50 rides drastically reduces the luck aspect, which means that ability and consistency is more likely to be rewarded. Another FACT.

Okay, you may not like that, but is it better to be fair to the competitors, or is it better to make it more unpredictable because a few fans want it.

As someone who has been involved in competitive/professional sport for most of my life, I can tell you that virtually every serious competitor prefers ability and achievement to be rewarded, rather than luck playing a huge part.

Steve

 

not quite a FACT...its not regardless of nationality...because how/why did Tai get in? was it not due to lack of GB riders? they always has to be a Swede, Zagar just got re-entered (suspect) to a Slovenian GP...

[chunky 6,092]

14 minutes ago, tyler42 said:

Do you not think lady luck was on TW side when he won his first world final? He and Emil Sayfutdinov were just a couple a points apart. the Emil Sayfutdinov got injured. Was that the slice of luck needed to go on and win his first championship?

 

You seemed to have missed my point. How can 50 riders of which 40 plus are of 2nd div standard be stronger than the old 1st div which included the top riders of the day. 

Tai didn't win a world final. Yes, luck will always play a part, but it is greatly reduced with a GP system. Look at Doyle a couple of years ago.

Look at it this way; Tai could have been injured, and missed the Krsko GP. He would still have won the World Championship. Had Fundin, Mauger or Collins missed a meeting because of injury, their World Championship hopes would have been ended...

Does ANYONE actually know the exact level of riders in a particular league? You can only compare them against each other.

Steve

Edited October 7, 2018 by chunky

[chunky 6,092]

4 minutes ago, ColinMills said:

not quite a FACT...its not regardless of nationality...because how/why did Tai get in? was it not due to lack of GB riders? they always has to be a Swede, Zagar just got re-entered (suspect) to a Slovenian GP...

I get your point regarding the wild cards, but in the old days, look at this. Two Americans qualified from the American Final, when at least five of them would have qualified for the world final had they been allowed to! Same with qualifiers from the British Final. Qualifying opportunities for world-class riders were limited because of their nationality.

Steve

[BWitcher 12,453]

20 minutes ago, tyler42 said:

 

 

You seemed to have missed my point. How can 50 riders of which 40 plus are of 2nd div standard be stronger than the old 1st div which included the top riders of the day. How many riders in todays league can you tell me are of world class? there are no comparisons to be had.

Nobody has ever said that, you've just dreamed it up.

The only fair comparison is to look at the country where the worlds top riders ply their trade now.. so either Poland or Sweden. There the standard is considerably higher.

[ColinMills 1,728]

1 minute ago, chunky said:

I get your point regarding the wild cards, but in the old days, look at this. Two Americans qualified from the American Final, when at least five of them would have qualified for the world final had they been allowed to! Same with qualifiers from the British Final. Qualifying opportunities for world-class riders were limited because of their nationality.

Steve

The wildcard system just does what the eastern block did...of course the eastern block were poor, but it is STILL, now to do with having certain nationalities involved.  Andy Smith, bomber, just two examples, never top 16 riders....

[BWitcher 12,453]

8 minutes ago, ColinMills said:

The wildcard system just does what the eastern block did...of course the eastern block were poor, but it is STILL, now to do with having certain nationalities involved.  Andy Smith, bomber, just two examples, never top 16 riders....

Andy Smith qualified on merit, was he ever given a 'wildcard'?

[tyler42 150]

2 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

Nobody has ever said that, you've just dreamed it up.

The only fair comparison is to look at the country where the worlds top riders ply their trade now.. so either Poland or Sweden. There the standard is considerably higher.

If you go back a tad had read my posts. I said that Poland was what you could compare the old 1st div with. Your argument has always been that todays league uk is far stronger than the old 1st div?

The old 1st div was of the same level as The Polish extra league is now, because it had the same criteria i.e the best riders in the world competing in it.

Are we getting any nearer or have i dreamed that up as well ?

[ColinMills 1,728]

1 minute ago, BWitcher said:

Andy Smith qualified on merit, was he ever given a 'wildcard'?

yes correct....but when people say you have the best 16 in the world, just never been true