chunky

You know, I don't go to speedway any more (not easy here in the United States), and while I am one of the older generation - remembering the great times of the 60's, 70's and 80's - I retain a keen interest and watch it when I can. For me, it is about the entertainment, and the value for money. Yes, there are some strange rules (as there always have been), but I can live with those if I am getting pleasure from watching. I don't like guests, but like many others on here, I feel that they are a necessary evil. Having said that, there should NEVER be a need for a guest for a non-heat-leader, and certainly no more than two guests in any team. I have no problem with allowing extra r/r rides, as they at least taken by members of "your" team. I am fine with a limit on team averages, as long as the averages are realistic; you should never have to dump a long-time team member to stay within the limit, or worse still, see a rider forced out of a league because they are "too good", and nobody can fit them in. Not all the possible solutions are easy to implement, but these two SHOULD be. I was a lifelong Dons supporter, and it still hurts that they are gone. Like iris, I see little value putting a bunch of individuals together and calling them a "team" just to keep the name alive. As fanatical as I was about my team, I still loved travelling around as a neutral and taking in several meetings a week. Good racing and enthusiastic (and large) crowds were just as important to me as watching my team. Now, when I watch British speedway online, one - if not both - of those factors are missing. Like other forum members, I often prefer watching racing from Poland or Sweden, and that makes me sad. I have said it before, and I will say it again; it is easy to complain about the cost of going to speedway, but I feel that "value for money" is far more important. Struggling to afford a night out is one thing, but struggling to afford a night out that fails to entertain is a bigger issue. It doesn't matter how cheap a product is if the quality is not there, which means that even if it were free, people wouldn't go - and therein lay the main problem. Okay, I don't like double points OR playoffs, but they are not - and should not be - the deciding factors in whether or not people attend speedway. We should go to watch great racing, and when appropriate, support our teams. THAT is what speedway should be about. Steve

I just find it a little confusing that Sidney obviously felt that Wilson had a world final win in him? Yes, he was a great rider, but I am not sure that he was in that class. Louis - maybe - but not Willie. Thing is, it is easy to say that somebody IS good enough to win a world title - when they have won one! What about riders that WEREN'T good enough to win one - yet still did. Like Szczakiel, Muller, or Havvy, for example... Because they DID win one, does that make them better than everyone who didn't? Was Szczakiel a better rider than Plech? Was Muller better than Simmons? While it is easy to say that Morton was never going to be world champ, it is easy to say the same about Louis, Wilson, Betts, Ashby, the Boococks, Crump, both Morans, Autrey etc. No, they never did, but on their day, every single one of them WAS good enough... Steve

Grand Prix champion, BLRC champion, Inter-Continental champion, World Pairs champion, twice WTC top scorer, seven World Final appearances, and he wasn't one of the top riders in the world??? Okay... Steve

I can't believe that people are simply using the BLRC to support their claims for Morton... Yes, it was a great achievement (albeit on his home track), but is that it? And Sidney, you really think that Willie's WTC max would elevate him above Mort? Come on, let us look at what else he won; things that everyone seems to have forgotten (other than a vague mention in passing by falcace). First was the 1978 VW/Daily Mirror GP. He won the final, and overall, against Simmons, Louis, and a host of other top names. Then - and for me, THIS was the highlight of his career - there was his triumph at the 1980 Inter-Continental Final. In a meeting that was generally considered to be tougher than the World Final, Mort turned in a superb display of racing to top the list. In view of this brace of victories (which everybody else seems to ignore), along with the other achievements mentioned above, I would DEFINITELY put him no lower than third in the list. Oh, and yes, I hated Carter, but I can differentiate between "ability" and "favouritism"... 1 - Simmons 2 - Carter 3 - Morton 4 - Louis 5 - Wilson Steve

You know, a lot of the posters on here wobble on about "free speech", and are quite happy to say what they want because of that. However, when a rider exercises that right, they are instantly deemed to be be ungrateful and insulting. Of course, it's not just a speedway issue; everybody wants to have say say, although much of the time things could be worded a little differently. In some cases, things would be better unsaid. Having said that, foreign riders do not simply ride in British league speedway for "training" purposes. Yes, it is the way - it traditionally, it was the way - to hone one's skills by competing in Britain. With any sport, one of the best ways to improve and develop is to compete against quality opposition, but let's not forget that applies to the British too, but apparently, British riders don't seem to "owe" British speedway anything, while foreigners do... The other fact worth mentioning is that people seem to think that speedway riders simply exist for the benefit of the supporters". No, they don't "risk their lives to entertain the public"; they do to earn a living. It is their job. It is a dangerous job, but nobody FORCES them to race. Riders take up speedway because they WANT TO RACE MOTORCYCLES, and it's nice to have a job you love. As it is their job, a speedway rider has - and in my opinion, SHOULD have - the right to choose when and where they race. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not talking about breaking contracts or stuff like that, but they are no different to the rest of us. If somebody offered you more money and better perks than you get from your current employer, why wouldn't you take it - or at least consider it? A little loyalty doesn't hurt, but It is the individual's choice to race when and where he wants, and for whom he wants. If he feels a change of track - or country - would be beneficial, then good luck to him (and again, no, that doesn't mean he should be slagging off anyone). If a rider wants to retire from the sport altogether for another job - a la Bruce Penhall - or for whatever reason, we shouldn't question it, let alone hate someone for it. Steve

See, that is why we have problems; some people will take statements like that as a challenge... The same reason why nothing is "foolproof", as a true fool will always find a way... Steve

I was there that night too! Worst thing about Crayford was that poxy drive around the south circular. Steve

Yep, I thought about mentioning that too, but you beat me to it! Steve

If we are going to digress, what about Hans Nielsen? Away from home, he was unbeaten for the entire 1986 league season! Steve

Aaahhhh... Thank you so much for that! I honestly don't recall that rule (it obviously wasn't used a great deal), but I was only 14 in 1976... Sounds a bit weird now (not that there are any other weird rules in speedway) but I would say that is preferable to filling a team with a bunch of guests... Steve

Yes, but you said Cradley were never behind! That is why I said, " seven rides, with no tac subs??? Steve

Good question! I just wonder how and why it was possible then - seven rides, with no tac subs??? Steve

While we are on the subject of seven ride performances, I seem to remember John Boulger picking up 20 points in one meeting - and the team (can't remember if it was Leicester or Cradley) won 40-38! I believe this is the only time one man has scored as many points as the rest of the team, and finished on the winning side. EDIT - Just found it. In 1976, Cradley beat Reading 40-38, with Boulger recording a 21 point max... Steve

Absolutely. I just figured that The Third Man was talking about the top five. I love weird stats like this, and I knew it had been done. So, this is a little more unlikely; I wonder if anyone has picked up a bonus point in every ride in a double-header??? Steve

Actually, it WASN'T impossible for that to happen after 1968; it was just impossible for the three heat leaders to achieve that. Riders listed at 2, 3, and 4 could all record 12-pointers... Steve

What I find as hilarious as anything is the one real link I have found. Just Google "toto franchitti" and the first thing to see is a Facebook post from him to F1 driver Mark Webber. The post looks like it was made by a four-year-old, rather than a successful businessman! What do you think? https://m.facebook.com/aussiegrit/posts/1000853456640177 Steve

I wonder why??? Steve

Again, this is one of those freak occurrences. Nigel didn't die as a result of injuries sustained in the crash, but from a blood clot that was likely to have been caused from being in bed. Steve

It has to be. Tony O'Donnell crashed on December 6, 1975, and died at the end of the month without regaining consciousness. Steve

I apologise for any offence caused, as there was none intended. The simple fact is that it does have a poor record, alongside several other tracks. As I said, I have never been there, so I cannot comment on design or other aspects that might make it more dangerous. That is why I asked. Hackney was generally considered a "dangerous" track, but I have never heard that said about Newcastle, which makes the number of fatalities there a little surprising. That is the point I am trying to make, that while there are factors that can increase/decrease the safety rating, it does basically come down to "chance". Steve

This is why I raised the issue of "dangerous" tracks, as it does seem to be something that is consistently ignored in discussions on the subject. Now, I cannot argue your point about a serious incident "more likely", but I still don't believe that whenever something happens, we can just blame it on "design". Sometimes things just happen, and in the case of a speedway fatality, I just think that it is a tragic combination of circumstances. I have never been to Newcastle, but what is the design there? Would you consider it "dangerous"? More dangerous than other tracks because of the design? Is it as dangerous as Hackney? Again, I will not argue your claim, but while I am a total anorak who loves stats, I don't allow myself to get too carried away by them. No, statistics do not lie in themselves, but the story behind them isn't always a reflection of the truth. You raise an excellent point about the chances of a fatality occurring at certain points in time when there are more untrained riders in action. It is interesting how we tend to forget things like this when we look for specific "reasons", but that is why it is important to look at various factors. Charlie Biddle and Cliff Mawson were both killed in 1928, but you raise another interesting point. Realistically, one would have expected more fatalities in the first year. Steve

Despite the fact there seem to be an alarming number of high-speed crashes - usually the result of picking up unwanted grip - these days, I certainly feel that speedway is much safer now than it used to be. One of the issues is that we look for reasons. Sadly, true "reasons" aren't always what they appear to be - or even what we want them to be. Of course, air fences have helped, but so has improved helmet design. One other factor to perhaps consider is dangerous "tracks", and I am not talking about track conditions. As I said, it is difficult to pinpoint specific reasons, but look at tracks like Newcastle and Hackney. Both have a terrible record as far as fatalities, but is it an accurate reflection of the track, or merely tragic coincidence? Of course, a major factor in Hackney's history was exposed lamp standards, but does that mean it was too dangerous? Does that mean that with Hackney's demise, British speedway automatically became a little safer? Sounds feasible, but I am not convinced... Without knowing the EXACT circumstances of each accident, it is hard to say. What if Vic Harding and Steve Weatherley had come together ten feet before/after the point they actually did? Those who died as a result of being hit by a machine; what if the bike went six inches to the left of where it actually hit them? While simple statistics like the amount of tracks operating, and the amount of meetings and races completed can APPEAR to lead to a definite conclusion, I don't go for that. I am of the mind that in each particular fatal crash, it was simply a case of a bunch of unique and coincidental circumstances coming together to provide a singularly tragic conclusion. Yes, it can make interesting - if macabre - reading, but I honestly don't think that there is any definitive reason for any individual fatality, or a seemingly connected series (ie at a specific track, or within a particular time frame) of fatalities. Steve

And I saw them both at the 1976 WTC Final at White City... Steve

Actually, no; iris123 was correct! I am currently reading Mr Jacobs' excellent Speedway in London, and I hope he won't mind me quoting him. This was at the end of 1953: "At the end of the campaign, Young asked for a move from West Ham because he felt the track was too big and more a test of speed than skill. As he was probably the most skilful rider around at the time, he wanted to ride at a track where he could use this to his advantage, In a desperate bid to hang on to his services, the West Ham management agreed to shorten the 440-yard circuit to 415 yards and Young agreed to stay." Steve

Although I never went to West Ham as much as you did, I do echo your sentiments. Funny you should mention Christer and Sverre, but they were great to watch there. I was at Christer's debut, which was also the night Sverre broke his arm... What I also remember is the cold wind that used to blow across from the river! Steve