norbold

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?

Coming to Bill Crampton, memories and oral histories are notoriously unreliable. For example I once asked Wally Green what he could remember about winning the Division Three Match race Championship from Bert Roger in 1948. His answer was that he'd never won the Championship. So, do I trust Wally's memories or contemporary newspapers, speedway press reports and Stenner's Annual, who all say he did and give reports of his victory? The fact is that Bill Crampton had raced in motor cycle events on a showground in the Hunter Valley BEFORE he took part in Johnnie Hoskins' meeting. And Bill wasn't the only one who raced at that carnival at West Maitland which featured motor cycles who had raced on a showground previously.

It depends what you mean by speedway of course. But, whatever it is, the meeting at West Maitland was no different to those other Carnival meetings held before it in Australia. West Maitland 1923 was definitely not the first SPEEDWAY meeting. Motor bike racing was held as part of an overall Carnival programme as it had been many times before. It was also held on grass, whereas Thebarton for one had actually been held on cinders. If the definition of speedway is riders not using brakes and sliding round corners then the Americans were at it back in c. 1912. This didn't happen at West Maitland anyway. There was nothing special about the West Maitland meeting that hadn't been done before apart from Johnnie Hoskins' showmanship and his later claims in his own inimitable way that it was the first. What was important in the development of speedway about West Maitland was that regular Carnival meetings featuring motor bike racing were held there in 1923/24, but these were promoted by Billy Dart and Campbell and Du Frocq not Johnnie Hoskins, whose only involvement seems to have been the December 1923 meeting.

Sad news indeed. Ron was probably the most underrated rider in the history of the sport!!! I think this was for two reasons, the first that he rode in a team of greats like Ronnie Moore and Barry Briggs and the second that he wasn't the most spectacular rider around, being more classy than spectacular. He qualified for 8 world finals; not many riders can equal, let alone better, that consistency. His best finish was fifth. He was, of course, a regular in the England Test team. To us, of course, at New Cross, he was the enemy, but, sadly for us though happily for the Dons, he used to pile up the points at the Frying Pan and was responsible for the Dons beating us more often than not on our own track. R.I.P., Ron

The four tracks I have mentioned are all in Australia and all held meetings similar to the one held at West Maitland by Johnnie Hoskins. Indeed, unlike the meeting at West Maitland which was held on grass, the meeting at Thebarton was even held on cinders. The four American riders I mentioned all raced on dirt tracks and all broadsided in speedway fashion before the First World War and into the early 20s, again all before West Maitland.

And here's a quote I made earlier: Anyway, enough of the name calling. I would be interested in hearing, Dave and Olddon and White Knight come to that, your views on the meetings held at Townsville, Thebarton, Rockhampton and Newcastle prior to December 1923 and also your views on riders like Don Johns, Albert "Shrimp" Burns, Eddie Brinck and Maldwyn Jones. Let's keep it all factual. Let's try and make this a serious discussion as the subject really deserves that.

I know it was Ian Hoskins who made the remark, thank you, Dave. But nice of you to reiterate it. The point I was actually making was that there is no date when football or cricket was said to be founded. In fact, it seems to me that Ian is rather shooting himself in the foot using that argument because like football and cricket, speedway evolved and there is no starting date. So are you saying that Olddon does not think Hoskins invented speedway? I think you'll find that's exactly what he's been saying. What difference does that make? I think your mind has become too fuddled trying to defend the indefensible, Dave. If you re-read Olddon's post it was he who was making the point that apparently you had to be there to know whether something happened or not. It was he who was denying the benefit of research. I was trying to point out the absurdity of that view. Of course, I'm not too lazy to do the research. I have done lots of research just as Nigel and Ross have. Anyone who has actually researched the beginnings of speedway will tell you it was NOT 'invented' by Johnnie Hoskins. It's you and people like you who are too lazy to do the research who just accept the old myth without question.

How do we know Napoleon didn't win at Waterloo? Were any of us there? How do we know King Harold didn't with the battle of Hastings? Were any of us there? How do we know the French didn't win the Battle of Agincourt? Were any of us there? Well done, Jack, you have added a whole new dimension to historical research.

The point is, olddon, there is no proof that Hoskins "invented" speedway other than him saying he did. But there is plenty of proof he didn't. Tell me what the absolute proof is that Hoskins invented speedway. Indeed it is people who insist against all the evidence that Hoskins invented speedway who are the true flat-earthers. And by the way, why is it that those who defend Hoskins just resort to ad hominem attacks on those with whom they disagree. Neither you, nor Ian Hoskins nor Philip Dalling can provide proof of your assertion. All you do is make personal attacks on people who do not agree with you. As it happens I have the highest regard for Johnnie Hoskins. He was the promoter at New Cross when I started going to speedway. As you can see I still regard New Cross as MY team in spite of following West Ham and Ipswich in later years. There is no doubt that Hoskins was the showman supreme of speedway and did much to promote speedway and make it popular throughout Australia, Britain and indeed the world. We do owe him an enormous debt for popularising our sport and making it what it is...but, that doesn't mean he "invented" the sport. Why people like you can't accept this fact I am not quite sure. For one thing it does a great disservice to those who came before Hoskins who really began speedway and gave Hoskins something to popularise. Why should they be rubbed out of history when, really, we should be honouring their names AS WELL as Hoskins?

Great answer, Dave. Those two dates are so instantly recognisable that you don't know what they are.