norbold

Yes, iris, the timescale is all wrong. Also, the bit olddon highlights in red as though it's proof is lifted straight from Johnnie Hoskins' own book, "Speedway Walkabout", so it's not an independent view nor a first hand account by someone else verifying what Johnnie wrote. It's just a straight copy.

No-one has ignored it Dave. But the problem is, it is just not true. you say it is "provable", but the only evidence you have given so far is a plaque put up 80 years later. You have still not pointed to any original research to show that what you have said is actually the case. Some of those "rough and ready bunch of rural rogues and roustabouts" were motor-cyclists who had already ridden at a number of the other meetings and venues I have mentioned before. It was not their first time. It is true that probably the greatest contribution West Maitland made to speedway was not that it was the first but that regular meetings were held there. BUT, after that meeting on 15 December they were not promoted by Johnnie Hoskins. Most of them were promoted by Campbell and Du Frocq under their manager, Billy Dart. And why do you have to use emotive words like "vitriol" "slanted", "jaundiced" in what should be a rational debate? Just because you disagree does not give you the right to say that about what other people say. Why should I not say that your views are "slanted", "jaundiced" and "vitriolic"? What possible reason do you think we could have for saying that Johnnie Hoskins didn't invent speedway other than historical research shows that to be the case? As I keep saying I have the highest regard for Johnnie Hoskins. I certainly have nothing personal against him. Why would I? I didn't know him personally. The nearest I got to knowing him was seeing him every week at New Cross. He was a hero of mine in my younger days. It was him that brought me to speedway by re-opening New Cross, the team I still regard as MY team (see my avatar). But my lifetime as a historian shows me that you cannot ignore proven historical research in favour of something you'd like to be true. Sadly, the fact of the matter is that Johnnie Hoskins did not invent speedway and no-one here so far has given up anything but second-hand writings and anecdotes to back up the claim that he did. Whereas there is a whole body of first hand evidence to show that he did not invent speedway and that the meeting at West Maitland held on 15 December 1923 was nothing new nor particularly special in Australia at the time.

My first contribution to this debate was that it was like a debate between Creationists and, for want of a better word, evolutionists. The creationists say the Bible says God made man so it must be right. The evolutionists have painstakingly built up a picture since Darwin of just how man came about through an evolutionary trail going back millions of years. There is still no definitive answer to the final trail that led to us, but enough has been discovered and proved to show that Man did indeed evolve and was not just created by God. Creationists still do not believe this position in spite of the fact that the only "proof" they have is what it says in the bible. All evolutionary evidence is just dismissed as either fake or that the timescale is all wrong etc. In speedway we have the Creationists who fervently believe that Johnnie Hoskins "invented" speedway and those who have painstakingly built up a picture of just how speedway came about through an evolutionary trail going back decades. There is still no definitive answer to the final trail that led to speedway, but enough has been discovered and proved to show that speedway did indeed evolve and was not just created by Hoskins. The Hoskinists still do not believe this position in spite of the fact that the only "proof" they have is what it says in an old letter to the Speedway Star and on a plaque. All evolutionary evidence is just dismissed for some reason which is not even as clear as the Creationists do re the evolution of man. Now, here's a thing for you, Dave. You say that the meeting of 15 December 1923 was the first meeting to be held under the banner of speedway. When asked for some evidence for this you continually refer to the plaque put up at West Maitland, which, incidentally, is not quite as unequivocal as you seem to suggest as it says it is "widely accepted" that the first speedway meeting was held there. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. The fact is that until recently it was "widely accepted". However, the point is that just because it says something on a plaque doesn't make it true. There is another plaque at the Camden Motordrome which is headed, "Prominent Riders who Appeared at the Motordrome, Camden S.A. from Sat Dec 28th. 1935-April 1940" There is then a list of all the riders who "appeared there". 10th down in the second column is the name Tom Farndon. So, as it appears on a plaque it MUST be true, eh, Dave? How do you account for the fact then that Tom Farndon died on 30 August 1935 following a crash at New Cross and couldn't possibly have ridden at Camden between 28 December 1935 and April 1940? And yet, if it's written on a plaque it must be right? There is no need to investigate whether what is written on the plaque is actually correct. Far better to take the plaque's word for it. It saves having to do a lot of hard work in investigating the true origins of the sport. I have to admit I have resorted to a bit of abuse but it is born out of sheer frustration on behalf of those who have spent years of their lives trying to piece together the origins of speedway and with those who have made no effort at all but just simply refuse to looks at the facts and say "Goddidit" or, in this case "Hoskinsdidit". I tried to make this a serious debate early on by talking about the American pioneers and the tracks that staged "speedway" before West Maitland. The only real reply I got to this from BFD was, "No-one is denying that most if not all of these riders had raced before, so why do you keep banging on about it? What we are saying is that this meeting, on 15 December 1923 at Maitland, was the first one under the banner of SPEEDWAY." I have tried asking several times what BFD means by "15 December 1923 at Maitland, was the first one under the banner of SPEEDWAY," but so far the only answer I have had is that it says so on the plaque. That is not the response of a serious historian or someone who cares about finding out the truth of the matter. Yes, I do keep banging on about the meetings held before Maitland because they show that Maitland wasn't the first. I've also mentioned the report in the local paper of 17 December 1923 which, at no time, refers to the racing that took place as part of a bigger Carnival programme as speedway but calls it motor-cycle racing and even mentions the fact that there have been other similar meetings at other venues previously. So far, olddon has not commented on this, preferring instead of a contemporary account to rely on wikipedia. Some of my abusive comments are born out of this complete and utter frustration with people who refuse to look at the facts as they are and stubbornly cling to their views without answering the relevant points raised by serious historians. Though I have to say, when it comes to hurling abuse, I can't help feeling that BFD is hardly more sinned against than sinning. I would still like to know what those who support the idea that Johnnie Hoskins "invented" speedway think is different about all the similar meetings that were held in Australia before 15 December 1923. And don't say because it says so on a plaque! What was the difference between the meeting on 15 December 1923 and the one, say, at Thebarton Oval on 24 January 24 1923 on a cinder track?

Ah yes, so I am,that's why I have already written on this thread: and An obvious attempt at denigrating the man. :blink:

Oh, for God's sake, Dave, give it a rest. You said: Please point out to me where I ever said you attacked anybody in your first post. I have not once made that accusation. Your snide comments only started after I asked a legitimate question which you couldn't answer, that's the point at which you started making personal attacks on me. Not in your first post. I have never said you did attack anyone in your first post. Nowhere. Not once. I can't apologise for something I didn't do. Do you understand that? Your first post consisted of a quote from Ian Hoskins with an addition of your own supporting Hoskins. It did not attack anyone, but nor did I ever say it did. It's a neat trick, Dave, to try and divert the discussion away from the real topic because you have no evidence to back up your claims, but trying to do it by accusing me of something I haven't done is not really helpful to anyone. OK? Oh, by the way, I have not at any time said your first post constituted an attack on anyone. Now can you please leave the discussion to those who wish to find out the real place of that meeting on 15 December 1923 and are prepared to discuss it rationally?

So, in other words, you have no evidence to support your claim that the first meeting "held under the banner of speedway" was on 15 December 1923 other than a plaque, put up in 2003, that says "it is widely accepted that..." In other words no contemporary evidence at all.

You didn't attack anyone in your first post. Happy now, Dave? Right, now you're happy, can you please answer the crucial question, what evidence do you have that the West Maitland meeting on 15 December was the first to be held "under the banner of speedway"?

OK, Dave, if you seriously want to discuss this issue, yes, let us take a look back at some of the contributions to this topic. You started it off by quoting from Ian Hoskins. To start with, let's note the last line which was your own addition. As a result of your post, I then asked in relation to the sentence, "Speedway should have a birthdate to be recalled by riders and the public like football and cricket have." To which you replied So, I think the first avoidance of the question and first personal attack belongs to you old chap. Anyway, to continue... In response to some further debate on the subject, you then said, Now let's deconstruct this a little, which seems suspiciously like a personal attack to me. Firstly, you seem to be trying to weasel out of your original statement, which to remind us said, "I'm sure everyone who's been to Maitland and seen the commemorative plaque under the Grandstand would agree - this is the birthplace of Motorcycle Speedway and Johnnie Hoskins was the Godfather." So, not just a messenger after all. Next, your statement, "facetiously asking other people to prove one's own points" I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Can you please clarify? What evidence have you seen at Maitland apart from a plaque? I then went on to say: To which you replied: and My reply: You have still not answered this crucial question. Preferring, instead, to make personal attacks on me. If you want to continue this debate in a serious manner, I am more than happy to do so, but can you please answer my question. Why do you say that the 15 December meeting was the first meeting "held under the banner of Speedway"? What is your evidence for this? Historians work with evidence not on statements plucked out the air; they need to support statements with some evidence. Please tell me what yours is.

I suggest you re-read the Wikipedia entry on speedway, olddon. My reading of it is that it says something quite different to what you are saying. Just to make it easy for you, this is the link again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_speedway

Exactly so, Humphrey.

Your contributions to a serious debate remind me of when you're having a serious discussion at home with some of your friends and your three year old son keeps interrupting to tell you about Igglepiggle, Upsy Daisy and Makka Pakka's latest adventures in the Night Garden. Anyway, on to more serious matters. Olddon, you cannot be serious quoting Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Anyone can write what they like on there. In fact I added the last sentence, so you presumably must accept there were meetings before 15 December because Wikipedia says so. I have asked you repeatedly to have a look at the newspaper report of the first meeting, but you have decided to read Wikipedia instead. If you read the newspaper report you will see that nowhere is speedway mentioned and, in fact, it talks about previous similar meetings - that's what the report of the meeting on 15 December says and printed just two days later. Why will you not read or accept what the nearest contemporary source we have to the event says? You might like to read this article as well, by the way: http://www.philipcoppens.com/wikiworld.html

Please tell me who is trying to "belittle" Johnnie Hoskins? Johnnie Hoskins was a great speedway promoter and character; a man who did a tremendous amount to popularise the sport. No-one disputes that. What is in doubt, however, is his claim that the meeting on 15 December 1923 was something new and that he "invented" speedway. No-one doubts the meeting took place. But it was just another in a long line of similar meeting held throughout Australia in the late teens and early 20s. The idea that there was anything different about the 15 December meeting is what is in dispute. And if you think that we should listen to the people who were actually there rather than later historians, even though these people who were there are recalling events from 40 or 50 years later (and in Ian Hoskins' case, not there at all), why are you so opposed to reading the contemporary newspaper report of just two days after the event, which surely must have the greatest claim to immediacy and therefore accuracy of anyone or anything?

Says the man who has consistently done nothing else since this thread started!

Of course it's possible. And if that evidence is available why has no-one ever produced it? It would be invaluable. Just like the report from the Monday December 17, 1923 Maitland Daily Mercury is invaluable but if you refuse to read it because it might upset your cosy little world, there's really not much point in continuing this discussion with you.

Thanks. That explains that then! It was said that he broke EVERY bone in his body...though I doubt that is true!

You obviously still haven't read the contemporary newspaper report of the 15 December meeting I recommended to you, then. This was written two days after the meeting not 56 years later. More on oral history and people's memories. I am currently writing a new book on Clacton - a Then and Now book. My publisher has asked me to take 45 photos from one of my old books on Clacton and take a photograph from the identical spot today as a comparison. One of the photos I've decided to use is of the swimming pool at Butlin's Holiday Camp. The camp was closed in 1983 and demolished a couple of years later. There is now no sign of it left, so getting a "now" photo is a bit difficult as there is nothing left on the ground to indicate where it actually was. The only clue are some old plans showing where the swimming pool was in relation to the main entrance to the camp, the position of which you would think would be easy to remember. Now I visited the camp several times myself and I think I know where the main entrance was, but, to be sure, I have asked several people I know who either worked at the camp or visited it. Every one of them has a different idea of where the entrance was, differing by something like 400 metres. We are talking here of people's memories of 25 years ago (not 56 years ago) and not just a one-off occurrence but something some of them went to every day. People's memories are not to be trusted without supportive contemporary evidence and, in regard to 15 December 1923, that contemporary evidence is not only not supportive but is actually contrary to the idea of that meeting being the first "speedway" meeting.

Yes, of course he was. Sorry I missed that out. He rode there with his brother, George, in 1930.

Phil Bishop rode at High Beech in 1928 and began his league career with Lea Bridge in 1929. He later rode for Southampton, Clapton (again), Harringay and, in 1936, joined West Ham. After the War, he signed for New Cross then moved back to West Ham and back to Southampton....my trail goes cold after that, until he became manager of West Ham.

Hi there olddon, you might like to have a further look at "another site". Ross has just posted, via Jim, the report from the Monday December 17, 1923 Maitland Daily Mercury of the carnival which took place on Saturday December 15. I'm sure a true historian like yourself will find it fascinating.

Well, I'm glad you been reading "another site", olddon. You might have learnt something.

Most were probably bigger than quarter mile, the dirt tracks were loose surfaced, riders went anti-clockwise and broadsided without brakes. Now, tell me, from your extensive knowledge of the meeting at West Maitland, how big was the track, was it loose surfaced, did the bikes have brakes and did the riders broadside?

There was motor cycle racing under lights at Thebarton Oval, Adelaide, and on cinders, not on grass like West Maitland some 12 months prior to December 1923. And here is the Monday December 17, 1923 Maitland Daily Mercury's report on the Saturday December 15 carnival: - "For the first time motor cycle racing was introduced into the programme and the innovation proved most successful. In an exhibition ride at the last sports several riders gave the track a good test and they then expressed themselves satisfied with it. They also stated that it was better than several other tracks that have been used for this kind of sport on a number of occasions..." Please note the last sentence! (Also note, in spite of BFD's protestations, it was called motor cycle racing, not speedway.)

Why does there have to be a beginning for everything? Ian Hoskins mentions the definitive starting date for football and cricket. I asked earlier - and got no reply - what are these dates? Most sports evolved and do not have definitive starting dates. Speedway is very much in this category. It's nice to know you regard serious research as tish-tosh. Says it all really.

I was merely pointing out that you can't always rely on memories to be accurate historical fact. I'll give you another example. I give lots of talks on the history of Clacton. Once I was doing this and I said that the open air swimming pool on Clacton Pier was opened in 1932. A woman interrupted me to say I was wrong and that it opened in 1936 and she should know because she was there. How is it that I can point to three local newspaper reports from 1932 reporting the opening of the swimming pool? Ask any respected historian, including those who specialise in oral history, and they will all tell you that you cannot take what people tell you at face value. People's memories get clouded by time, dates merge, facts forgotten. It is far better to rely on contemporary written evidence than "eye witness" evidence produced years after the event. I'm not really sure why you expect better of me than to accept the generally accepted wisdom that I have gone along with for most of my life - O level history, A level history, college history, 37 years at The British Museum and 23 written history books just because one person's memories happen to fit in with your pre-conceived ideas. Perhaps you should try delving into the subject yourself. Spend a few hours in local libraries looking up contemporary literature, newspapers, town records and so on like Ross, Nigel and I have done, before coming to your conclusion that if Bill Crampton says it it must be right.

The problem is, Dave, I really don't understand what you mean when you say this was the first meeting held under the banner of SPEEDWAY. It was not advertised nor reported as a speedway meeting. Why, in your opinion, was the West Maitland Carnival meeting which included all sorts of other sports, any different to all those held before it?