BWitcher

Why are people allowed to stand on the track when technically the race is still in progress?

Especially with bonus pts thrown in too.

Who is this Darcy Ward? Is he good? What league does he ride in?

Except you are wrong again as the best riders in the PL don't have to move up anymore, than can go into the top league and continue riding full time in the PL. In the past they wouldn't, they'd be gone. But you are right, the league still predominantly consists of average riders and journeymen, just as it always has. Doesn't mean its a bad league to watch!

Even so, the facts remain the same, it was the 2nd division. So by definition the riders were at best of average standard. The majority of above average riders would be in the top flight. It's really not complicated.

Because this isn't about opinions. How many riders were British Champion whilst riding in the National League in the 70's/early 80's? How many riders reached a World Final whilst riding in the National League in the 70's/early 80's? If the leagues as good as you say it was there will be plenty.. look forward to the list.

It's not about opinions and very much is about facts. The league comprised of journeymen and lower level riders. That is 100% fact. There was a league called the British League above it, which consisted of better riders. That is 100% fact. As for your riders from the late 80's, you are moving into the modern era after foreign riders were allowed into the league, its not the period under discussion, which is the late 70's/early 80's. The league became stronger at that point.

The debate has been well covered across the past few pages. Only you and Sidney seem to be getting worked up and failing to comprehend some pretty basic points being made. Other posters have more than backed up my initial claim, giving sound factual reasons as to why. Nothing has been forthcoming from your side other than a list of names who rode perhaps 1 or 2 seasons in the league, over a 20 year period and were nowhere near their best when they did so. That leaves a good 300+ riders at a level below them, none of whom you've come up with yet. Your other points regarding lack of British riders etc I agree with, but that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Of course I said that! Simply because it was. Although it seems I over-estimated the strength of it. As Grachan says, only SOME of the riders were MEDICORE and JOURNEMAN.... Many of them were worse So yes, I agree, my statement was off the mark, I gave the league more credit that it was due. Thanks for pointing out my error Sidney

That's MDL level you're talking about now. Sidney, give it a rest. Others are very clearly saying the league was WORSE than I said it was. I said it was full of journeymen. Grachan says only the top riders were journeymen, the rest were of a lower standard. I haven't wavered from my original statement that the current PL is stronger than the NL of the late 70's because its correct. So why on earth would I change? Others have since joined in and explained why, exactly as I did earlier on. Put aside your personal vendetta and move on.

It's interesting.. over the course of the debate its gone from being a 'mega tough league full of world stars' to 'its better than the current PL' and now its down to whether its better than the current NL! Meanwhile the journeymen have now been clarified as the top riders in the league, the lower end way well below average riders.

No it wasn't damn hard. Or they would have stayed in it. They didn't stay in it because they had nothing to learn from it, it was a decent learning league, but if you were a rider of reasonable ability, you moved up a league to test yourself at a higher level.. A higher level means a harder level. Ás Oldace has pointed out, there are examples of people buying a bike, riding for the first time and being in a team within a couple of weeks! Would that happen now? Absolutely no chance!

Because at that stage, they weren't great riders, just decent ones. As you have been told over and over, the moment they became decent, they moved on. I find this offensive, are you trying to mock Billy Legg and Sam Hurst? Do you know them? Have you raced them CBS? haha forget the C, BS, that's your name. shown you up. Owned. Learn!

Sidney, we're agreeing on something

Nobody has questioned the quality of the racing, like now there were good and bad meetings. Although, of course, the quality of the racing has little bearing on crowd figures.

I've read this a few times to make sure I hadn't misunderstood.. You are seriously suggesting that the 'top riders' were the ones who struggled under the old system and of all people you've chosen Ivan Mauger to prove your point???? That goes against everything I've ever read about, heard about and seen from video footage. Mauger was meant to have been the master of that method of starting??

Exactly, its what the vast majority are in any profession!

Absolutely spot on, agree with every word of it.

It was a league full of journeyman, young riders who as soon as they got good, for the most part moved up a league and older riders, no longer as good as they were on their way down. That is the reality no matter how much you cry and whinge about it. Therefore, in the context of being a professional speedway rider it wasn't 'mega tough'. That part is not even a debate. What can be debated is whether the current PL is stronger or not.

Another one who fails to understand the English language. Mediocre means average. The National League was the SECOND DIVISION. The best riders, i.e. the GOOD riders were in the British League, i.e. the FIRST DIVISION. Which left a few good riders to race in the NL, along with many average ones and even more BELOW average ones. So, you're actually right, mediocre is wrong, I should have said mediocre to less than mediocre for the overall standard of rider. That of course, has nothing to do with either the standard of racing or how good the overall product was from an entertainment point of view.

I totally agree.. in this case though only one rider was at fault. As I said earlier I wouldn't have batted an eyelid had it been all 4 back.. just that I can see why the referee made the decision he did.

Who needs opinion when there are rules? They clearly state the rider who caused the stoppage should be excluded. Gollob caused the stoppage. Not my fault so many don't know the rules.

Whooosh!

You didn't offer an opinion, you said something that was incorrect. i.e. that Gollob was 'left no room'. That was false. It doesn't matter what anyone said, by the rules of the sport Gollob was the cause of the stoppage and so was excluded. Normally the referees don't apply that particular rule when its 1st bend hence riders and fans alike assume it will be All 4 back each time. I assumed the same, but couldn't argue with the referees decision.

That's a good question Phil and one that has been debated in other incidents recently. Namely, should a rider have to fall off to be deemed a victim of foul riding. I note though you agree that it was Gollob's footrest that caused the crash and hence the subsequent stoppage. Given Gollob was the rider who changed line and rode into Pedersen that means he was the primary cause of the stoppage and as per the rules of the sport should be excluded. So a bit baffled as to why you objected against it? It wasn't an unsatisfactory start though, the start was fine, nobody rolled, nobody jumped the gate.

If you read Ghostwalker's posts, he agrees 100% with me, he was simply pulling me up for mixing up my lefts and rights. So wrong person to seek help from for your fabricated story. Those are your posts, a fabrication of what happened. Gollob had the same amount of room as he had from the starting gate, he chose not to use it.