BWitcher

As Bruiser says, I don't see the major issue with the 'gardening'. There's something to see when that's going on. Meetings do drag on too long though and I am beginning to hate the inevitable 'interval' more than ever, especially on cold nights.

Correct. Although you will be told to 'ignore averages'. Which in effect is telling you ignore 'all the wins riders had'.. which in effect is telling you to 'ignore them'... and then judge.. The point is that the more you see a rider win, the better you will think that rider is. A large league format, with no fixed gate positions and and the old 13 heat format provided opportunity for far more riders to win more races, creating the impression there were far more top guys around. When it came down to it though, on the international stage etc it was, as in all eras, a select group who dominated.

And still you don't understand. If there are 20 teams in a league, you will have 60 heat leaders regardless of the quality of the riders. If there are 5 teams in a league, you will have 15.. regardless of the quality of the riders. The 5 team league could have better riders in it, but the perception would be there are more top riders in the 20 team league. You're still also making an incorrect comparison. The BL back then was the strongest in the world, so you have to compare it with the strongest league in the world now, which is either Poland or Sweden. The top 20 in those leagues is just as strong as the top 20 in the BL in the 70's.

No, I'm not saying that at all as they were the upper echelon of the time, as riders such as Chris Holder, Darcy Ward, Greg Hancock etc are the upper echelon now. Its the next bracket down, riders 10-20 as an example. If they were competing in a 10 team league during the 1970's, under the heat format of today you would not remember them as being as good as quite simply, you wouldn't have been watching them rack up 9-10 pt averages. Do try and read a post, rather than make something up GRW.

As above, its not a strange comment. Its a fact. Simple as daylight. You can only compare a riders achievements in his era against that of another and even then that is flawed on many occasions as people look at certain riders who consistently averaged 9-10 pts in the old BL, but did relatively little on the World Stage. In a league of half the size, they'd be your average journeyman 2nd heat leader and viewed very differently, rather like a Chris Harris or a Rory Schlein now.

Its not a strange comment Parlsloes. Its a factual comment. You cannot accurately compare riders 'ability' from different eras. It matters not one jot whether you have 'seen them' or not. It's a different era, different bikes, different tracks, different opposition, almost a different sport to some extent! As has been said many times also, if you wish to compare the top 20 riders in a league, then you have to look at the equivalent strongest leagues around now, which is either Poland or Sweden. Both of whom the top 20 easily matches that top 20. Indeed Tomasz Gollob was no 25 in the Polish league last season.

Sidney, you have absolutely no idea about the ability of riders in the 70's compared to the riders of today and there is no way for you to do so.

Perfect post Bruiser.

You brought figures in. Facts are facts Sidney. If the top 3 are winning all the races.. the bottom end aren't doing a lot. A larger league over a continual period of time will create a perception of there being a lot more world class riders. However, as we saw on the world stage, there was a difference as it was in the main the same top 'few' who dominated. Just as they do now. You're confusing the argument again. Nobody is questioning that Britain was the 'place to be' then. Poland and Sweden are the place 'to be now'. The standard of those leagues is as high as the British League in the 70's.. but there aren't as many high averaging riders? Why? Smaller League. Its that simple. Which would be the same as it is now... Take MJJ for instance, brilliant on the World stage, but only managed 6.5 in the weak Elite League. A rider of his class in the 70's would be averaging 9.5 easily.

So Sidney, if 'most teams' had 3 out and out heat leaders as you are saying, that are winning most of their races every week, must mean the bottom end of the teams was pants... So were they that good, or just racing against dross? You see, you are saying to 'dismiss averages' but then use them to back up your argument.

Of course the Elite League is weaker, it has been purposely weakened to reduce costs. However, teams in Poland and Sweden are at least of as high standard and likely higher. Nobody is disputing that. However, there were a mulititude of riders averaging around 9 that you likely class as world class riders that would be averaging around 6 in a smaller league and different heat format. Then you'd barely remember them.

Lots of dirt these days = Awful meeting, or abandoned meeting. The bikes are completely different and handle differently, even more so with the new silencers. Folk also have very, very selective memories and only remember the great races. There's a number of myths that go round.. "Racing is more strung out these days".. "Too much of a gap between the top riders and reserves".. are to name just two.. yet at the same time we have people telling us how much more dominant the top riders were in the old days... so that's one argument well and truly busted. I have a perception/belief that the racing was miles better in the late 80's/early 90's than it is now. As a teenager/young adult growing up the great races stick in my head much more than they do now. Yet I have every Wolves home meeting on DVD from 1988 through to 1996.. and when I watch them back.. there's very little difference in the quality of the racing and it's nowhere near as fantastic as I remember it to be.

And just exactly what do you judge the 'quality of the riders on'. Ah yes, how many races they win and as a result their averages. The simple fact is that it was easier for the top riders to win most of their races in a meeting back then, than it is now. For starters, there were more teams in the league. The more teams you have, the easier it is to win most of your heats and stand out as a 'star'. This was demonstrated as recently as the mid 90's, when the leagues merged. Suddenly you had run of the mill 2nd strings/3rd heat leaders such as Dukie Ermolenko and Shane Parker who would normally be 6-7 pt riders become No 1's with averages of around 8.5. The top 20 riders in the Polish and Swedish leagues now are on a par with those in the 70's.. however they don't appear so dominant because they are racing against each other and beating each other far more often. Its simple maths. 10 teams in a league.. you have 10 no 1's.. 30 heat leaders etc... 20 teams in a league, you've got double the amount regardless of the standard of rider.

Sidney, don't start this again. You were made to look a fool the last time.

Is it? I would suggest there are many, many 'niche' markets within board/card games. The fact is, the theme is not altogether vital, if the mechanics of the game are sound and it produces a good playable game, word soon spreads within the community.

If we had a 13 heat formula again, we wouldn't be hearing so much of there being far more top riders around back then.. as the top riders would meet far less, and their averages would all rise as a result.

You've assumed everything. You are labelling a product 'pathetic' yet you have no idea what it is. That's not an opinion. That's just you making something up to attack a product. Forgive me for asking, if you don't play 'games' and have no interest in games, why are you posting your ill-informed opinion regarding it?

Most of the thread has I think.

The riders who race in the sports you allude too say different.

Clearly there is little point in explaining things to you as you either don't read what is posted, or blatantly ignore it and post the same thing over and over.

Have you emailed them?

I find it interesting that the 'music' played at speedway is often brought up in these discussions, with the fact that old tunes are often played being highlighted as a problem. I would suggest its not the music being played per se that is the issue, but simply how it is presented. If one casts a glance at Darts, you will see many walk on songs that send the crowd into raptures that when played at a speedway meeting are considered ancient old boring music. The difference? The way it's presented.

I'm not being aggressive. Simply asking why you are acting the fool? If you had 'read' what he has posted you would know it is not a 'Top Trumps style' speedway game. That is something you have made up. Not an opinion, a made up theory of your own that others have explained to you is false, yet you continue to peddle it. You tried to justify your claims by jumping on another game he mentioned (Arcana) and were shown to be incorrect again in your obervations. Now you resort to someone being barking mad to buy 100 bits of printed card. One has to wonder if you have ever bought a dvd/cd? Barking mad to spend such money on a cheap piece of plastic. See how foolish you sound now? Probably not... If you wish to offer an opinion, that's all well and good. However, you've peddled the same tripe about Top Trumps now on numerous posts despite being informed by others that there is no correlation between the two. Give up on the trolling.

Why post on something you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? As for basing your analogy on Arcana.. its 'out of stock', which means all the copies have been sold from that supplier. Its actually still in stock with many retailers and has shifted a vast number of copies worldwide, including the UK selling at anything between £22.99 and £27.99. You are right though, speedway fans, as demonstrated by your good self and a couple of others are not the best target audience.. they're the kind of folk who are happy to pay £30 for a product that has some fancy pieces, an interactive dvd and a colorful board and probably some sort of celebrity tie-in.. play it twice at christmas and it never be used again (and not likely to be used as it's the same each time..) Personally, I'd rather spend £18 on a game that can provide hours of entertainment and be replayed for years to come as many games of this nature can be. Whether the mechanics of this game will allow that to be the case remains to be seen, but first impressions look favourable. The UK is also one of the worst markets for this kind of game. Stores over here focus primarily on the dumbed down/celebrity type game as mentioned above which are all heavily overpriced and offer zero in terms of playability. Mainland Europe and the US its a completely different scenario. So in essence, yes its going to be a difficult sell, simply due to a lack of knowledge in the UK of the product on offer. It also astounds me how we complain and moan that the sport doesn't get exposure and yet when we get new products available the first thing some folk want to do is attack it and stamp it out as quickly as they can.. be it a new magazine, or a board game of this nature. Its a game, its about speedway, I'd be willing to give it a chance and learn more about it even if I didn't already know how such games work.

Correct Bryce, Even then its not totally at the higher end, game such as Dominion can retail quite a bit higher, upwards of £30 upon release in many places.