ImpartialOne

Don't even get me started on puns.. Cedar thing is, I would like to offer an Olive branch and Willow nup and say that Privetly I be leave that World Finals were Larchly Very Poplar and deserve their place in his tree. Howheather, I can't let you rest on your Laurels; I do think you and others are barking up the wrong tree with the old Chestnut of gate positions. I can't Conker with that, but by Gum we've certainly sapped the life out of this thread. When Phil saw how much bandwidth we've used he must have Cactus self.

My god you're hard work! Success, greatness, whatever. The key word you are failing to come to terms with is verge. On the verge of greatness = not yet achieved greatness. On the verge of success = not yet achieved success.

I grasp it perfectly well. Unfortunately you are failing to grasp the difference between somebody achieving success and being on the verge of success. At the point he hadn't won anything he was on the verge of success, coming desperately close twice. Jason Crump had a similar agonizing experience before finally achieving success and the pressure with every near miss becomes ever increasing. I predicted (as I'm sure many did) that, like Nielsen, once Crump had finally shaken the monkey from his back success would come much easier.

My point wasn't about what Muller did or didn't do but a direct response to your claim that Nielsen wasn't on the verge of greatness in 1983. But for that EF he would have been either World No. 2 or 3 that year.

Hence he was on the verge of greatness He would have been the only rider to beat Egon Muller in the World Final but for an engine failure on the last bend of his final ride which would have put him on 12 points and into a run-off for 2nd place with Billy Sanders. In the winter of 1983/4 he was transferred from Birmingham to Oxford for a record fee (£30,000) and of course the rest is history.

I don't know how anyone can dispute Nielsen's right to be among the top 6 ever. If you can't count achievements to compile the list, what can you include? The fact is Nielsen has won more FIM gold medals than any other rider in the history of the sport. As I've said before, I admit some of that was down to being fortunate to be Danish but the man was like a machine at domestic level and at world level he was always a threat when he didn't win individual titles. He was on the verge of greatness by 1983 and still bowed out in his final year in 1999 as World No. 3 at around 40 years old. Whilst he had his share of luck, he also came desperately close on occasions and could easily have achieved at least 6 world titles but for misfortune. His World Final record from 1984 speaks for itself: 1984 - 2nd (lost by 1 point) 1985 - 2nd (after run-off for title) 1986 - 1st 1987 - 1st 1988 - 2nd (after run-off for title) 1989 - 1st 1990 - 4th 1991 - 3rd 1992 - didn't qualify (broken foot if I recall?) 1993 - 2nd (lost by 1 point) 1994 - 2nd (after run-off for title) 1995 - 1st 1996 - 2nd (lost over 6 rounds by 2 points) 1997 - 7th 1998 - 4th 1999 - 3rd I was never a Nielsen fan; I found him boring to watch most of the time (usually because he was so far ahead) but you can't deny he was one of speedway's all time greats.

Yes, riders no longer score maximums now that gate positions are so vital, unlike the good old days when all gates were exactly the same.

My head is about to burst.

Gate positions have always been important. No two grids will ever be the same and whether the track is condusive to good racing or not, as a rider you want the best advantage possible from the start. That has always been the case. Just because you might be Peter Collins who can pass on a decent track doesn't mean you want to give Ivan Mauger a head start! As I said, commentators didn't delve as far as they do now, that's why it's now brought to the attention of the specttator/viewer. Every rider has a different preference for gates; some like slick, some like deep ruts, others will go off fresh if it's available. Some say deep ruts are better because the tyre walls grip the sides of the rut but they can also cause you to bottom out and lose ground. It all depends on the rider and the way the track is on the day but it has always been important and riders have always watched which gates are duffers and which are working.

The difference is they are drawn randomly so riders aren't trying to manipulate positions in order to get a decent draw like they did for world finals. People are saying that gate positions didn't matter. Of course they mattered or riders wouldn't have dropped back in qualifiers to get the draw they wanted. The only difference is commentators didn't analyse it like they do now.

It's not an opinion that Jan O was using tyre warmers but a fact. And it's also a fact that they were banned before anyone else could take advantage of them. I'm not moaning about his win at all, just giving the reason for his uncharacteristic lightning starts that day. He saw an opportunity and took it. But the danger was that others would have to then do the same, which creates more expense and if everyone used them it negates the advantage. The point was that without tyre warmers Jan O would likely have struggled off certain gates.

I've already explained this to you earlier. This shows you don't read anything properly or you would have challenged me over it at the time or just not asked this question. There is of course, a very good reason why Jan O. strangely blitzed everyone from the gate that night. He was using a F1 type tyre warmer which was subsequently banned as a result of him using one.

I seem to remember a few riders winning in the No. 13 jacket. Some riders didn't like being drawn at 13 but others thought it was lucky 13, but I would hazard a guess it was more to do with gate draw than the number. Did 13 get two gate 1s? Edit: Just looked at the GP draw for Number 13; 4,1,1,2,3 which I believe is the same as the World Final draws. So 13 is an advantage on paper.

Interesting to note that you pick your years so specifically again. Why start at 1950 when there were only 4 finals before that? Oh yes, 4 finals, 4 different winners. Why stop at 1989 for instance? It only ran another 5 years after that. Oh but hang on.. We had a different champion every year from 1988 to 1994 didn't we? So I will use that to my benefit and say that the last seven years of the competition provided seven different champions. It's called manipulating an argument. In contrast, the GP has been in existence for 17 years with just 8 different champions.

Of course the draw played a big part. I can't recall the exact format but some riders would get two gate ones, others would draw two gate fours, etc. The draw was also pre-determined by the finishing order in the previous round which many riders used to their advantage. I'm pretty certain that 2nd place in the Inter-Continental Final gave you a better draw on paper for the World Final than winning it. I believe the gate draws are the same now but the difference is that 1) they are drawn after practice and not determined by the previous round, and 2) it changes from round to round.

I did see a fair amount of Crump and I just don't think he compares to Adams. Leigh was at the very top for 20 years which is an incredible achievement. How long was Crump at the very top of British League averages and the world stage? Not even half that I imagine. Also I would say that if you are a rider such as Rickardsson, Mauger, Nielsen, Jason Crump, etc, it would be as "easy" to make a world final as it is to stay in the GP. If you are someone of the caliber of Andersen, Harris, Tatum, Phil Crump, etc it would be just as hard to stay in the GP as make a World Final.

During his career Leigh was World No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8! So he certainly didn't fall short of rostrum placings. Every year he appeared to get ever closer to his goal and I don't think it was down to nerves as Iris suggests. It just wasn't meant to be. Many thought Gollob would go the same way. Maybe Leigh just needed one more year? We'll never know. Incidentally, Phil Crump's World Final record: 1975 - 3 3 1 1 2 = 10 (6th) 1976 - 3 3 2 1 3 = 12 (3rd) 1982 - 1 1 1 1 0 = 4 (14th) Never in the same league as Adams in any way.

Jessup was a superb little rider and definitely capable of becoming world champion. Unfortunately his biggest downfall was always equipment. I've never known another rider of his caliber have so many silly breakdowns. Bad luck doesn't strike that often and in one case, I believe 1981 at Wembley, his carb fell off because the jubilee clip wasn't tightened properly. That just isn't good enough in a world final I'm afraid.

I agree with your last point, which would prove the GP system provides the best World Champion. But how do you come to the conclusion that gaining the most points over one meeting is harder than gaining the most points over 11/12 meetings?

The old World Final v GP debate rumbles on... So how many genuine world title contenders have been robbed of potentially taking the title through one dodgy exclusion, injury or engine failure? GPs - can't think of any apart from possibly Knudsen when the system penalized a rider for a bad meeting by eliminating them from the following meeting. World Finals - (off the top of my head) Jessup, Carter, Gundersen, Knudsen, P. Collins, Mauger. I'm sure there are more. So which system has consistently provided the best rider in the world that year as World Champion? Answers on a post.

Yes you are correct. The Americans have never hidden their willingness to help out their fellow countrymen.

You let me win though

But how can you say the 1984 scandal has not been well documented? What would constitute well documented in your view?

It's not a question of making yourself clear, more a case of back tracking from what you originally said.