chunky

You know, if it's a choice between spending silly money to stay within a 10-minute walk, or having to sit on a train for 45 minutes in order to save 50 or 60 quid, I know what I'm doing... Steve

So, what about all the hotels I've just searched for that are well under a hundred notes? That includes a number in the Heathrow area. Steve

I know that the World Pairs semi was the first meeting there, pretty much as a test, but I believe the track was basically laid for the World Final. Unlike other tracks, there was the opportunity to race on it before the Final. Steve

What about Bradford '85, Munich, and Amsterdam? Weren't they one-off tracks? Steve

Valid point, but I'm still not convinced about the feasibility of having more than one. Again, a lot could depend on outside sponsorship as well as the income that GP's can generate for local businesses. Steve

At first glance, that does seem strange. However - and for whatever reason (sponsorship, public support etc) - the Poles seem very capable of sustaining multiple events. Do you believe that the same would apply in the UK? Personally, I doubt it. Steve

I figure it is (months are approx) : Hancock (41) Mauger (39 and 11 months) Gollob (39 and 5 months) Price (37) Nielsen (35 and 9 months) Rickardsson (35 and 1 month) Muller (34 and 10 months) Fundin (34 and 5 months) Crump (34 and 1 month) Olsen (31 and 10 months) Briggs (31 and 9 months) Pedersen N (31 and 5 months) Michanek (31 and 3 months) Steve

Trust me, I'm not going to hide it, and this will be the first place to know! It is probably going to be a little while, as I have some other sites which are taking priority. I'm hoping to have it up sometime in the spring. Steve

It doesn't alder the fact that you have hijacked the thread, so I don't think you'll get very fir with this. What a pear you and parsloes are... Steve

Let's assume that it WAS a lottery, and then ask this question : how many individuals have won the BIG prize four, five, or six times? Steve

Yeah, you're right iris - sorry! Anyway, of course I miss World Final nights, probably as much for the atmosphere as anything. They were more unpredictable, because of one bad race. However class usually told in the end. Here's some food for thought : From 1949 to 1994, we had 46 World Finals. We had a total of 21 World Champions, with 11 one-off Champions. A number of World Finals were won by "home" track riders (I will include Muller, Michanek, and Szczakiel with Williams and Price). Removing these from the mix (totally - unfair advantage) we now have 40 World Finals, 16 World Champions and 7 one-off champions. From 1995 to 2011, we had 17 GP Series. We have had a total of 8 World Champions, with 4 one-off Champions. Hans Nielsen (one GP) and Tony Rickardsson (one Final) won using both formats, so let's reduce that to 6 and 3 one-off champions. That leaves us with : 40 World Finals, with 16 World Champions, and 6 one-off Champions. 17 GP Series, 8 World Champions, and 3 one-off champions. Looking at it realistically, not much of a difference as far as percentages, eh? Obviously, we can't base it TOTALLY on medals, because that would put Williams ahead of Collins and Lee, and Szczakiel equal with them), but Nielsen's record is impressive enough to stand on its own. Throw in the incredible brilliance and consistency as far as league is concerned, and there can be no doubts whatsoever. Steve

These four all enjoyed LONG careers, and were able to perform on a very consistent basis. That's why they are not "ifs". The same with Olsen. Don't get me wrong, I think that Eric was a legend, and although he did have a relatively long career, I still feel that he had some World Titles left in him. Had he been able to continue, and perhaps win one or two more, then I possibly would include him in a top six. However, he didn't, so that is all conjecture. I would put Olsen ahead of Craven, although again, had Craven been able to continue, and perhaps added to his brace, I might include him. Again, he didn't, so that is all conjecture. Why would that make you laugh? I have given my opinion of Erik above. Just because someone had a favourable record over another individual doesn't necessarily mean that they were better. In my own sport, there are people who I consider better than me - yet I usually beat them. Then, there are others who I am head and shoulders above, but they usually beat me. So, I'm speaking from experience. What counts is what you do in the long run. Thing is, it's NOT about personal preference. Choosing your FAVOURITE riders is about personal preference; rating riders is not. Obviously, there will be a little bias, but one should be more objective. I was no particular fan of Mauger, Fundin, or Rickardsson, but I cannot put Ronnie Moore or Bruce Penhall - both favourites of mine - on quite the same level. Steve

Providing we could keep plain bias out of the discussion, that could be an interesting thread... Steve

Just because he finished 3rd doesn't mean that he was still at the very top of his game, because he wasn't. Honestly, it wasn't so much that the ban destroyed him as the fact that he constantly destroyed himself. The problem is that YOU are the one who is limiting the choice to six. If I had to choose six, it would be Mauger, Fundin, Rickardsson, Briggs, Nielsen, and Olsen. Gundersen would be the one to miss out. Still, you keep saying about all these "ifs". If Gundersen hadn't had that terrible crash at Odsal, if Lee hadn't been so hell-bent on destroying himself, if Penhall hadn't decided that acting was where his future lay... Nielsen had a long and truly exceptional career which - for most people - would secure him a place in their all-time top six. The reason I place Olsen above Gundersen is because Ole had to work so much harder to achieve what he did. No disrespect meant to Erik, but the opportunities and facilities were there for him BECAUSE of Olsen. To come from a very minor speedway nation - as Denmark was - and achieve such greatness is testament to the guy's ability and determination. Steve

We've been here before... You can't include all these "ifs". Besides, Lee was already on the downward slide before Nielsen emerged as a true contender. Loram was very lucky to get away with the Rickardsson incident, which is how he won the title. Lucky or not, that's the way it is. Crashes are often viewed differently by different people; rules that are blatantly ignored by referees aren't. Nielsen should have won in 1993 as Ermolenko shouldn't have been allowed in the rerun. Again, that is all "ifs". I cant argue that point at all, but Nielsen didn't win his first title until four years after Penhall's retirement; who's to say that Penhall would still have been at the top of his form? He may have been, and he may not. Four World titles and a long spell as THE dominant rider in domestic competition is enough for me to put Nielsen above Olsen. However, I would still include Olsen in that elite group - along with Gundersen. That was always something that perplexed me. I was a great fan of Sanders, but I rated Crump the much better rider. It's a pity he couldn't - or didn't - do it when it really counted. Can't argue with that assessment at all... I never queried the frequency of such incidents compared to those in the GP, merely that they were - or could be - of equal significance. Sad. but true... My point exactly. To not include Nielsen in a list of the GREATEST riders of all time baffles me... (see above) I would basically agree with everything there, particularly when one considers that you didn't even include riders like Simmons, Shirra, and Phil Collins from the 1982 list. Steve

...along with : Graham Warren (1950), who fell attempting to pass eventual champion Freddie Williams. Had he stayed in second, the two would have a run-off for the title. Jack Parker (1951). While everyone talks about Jack Biggs, the English Jack emerged pointless from his first outing, on paper, his easiest of the night, A win would have seen him champion, and a second place would have meant a four-way run-off. Sorry, but while Olsen was one of the all-time greats, there's no way that I would put him above Nielsen... Steve

Personally, I would hate to lose the SWC, and think that while it would nice so see a pairs back, it would have to be in addition to the SWC. In any sport, the greatest honour of all is to represent one's country, and now that we have lost all those glorious Test Series, reducing the SWC to a pairs would be a retrograde step for both riders as well as supporters. They tried it a few years ago and it didn't last long... It is nice for a number of countries to get a bite at the cherry, but I did enjoy having a week-long SWC event in one country; it certainly makes it easier for the riders. I see no reason why we couldn't compact the SWC to a weekend event, in the same way that we used to with the NL Fours and Grand Slam. Obviously, injuries could be a concern, but not much more than we have currently. I do think that seeding the host nation to the final is a wise move economically. After all, I was at White City in '79 and '82! Steve

Easy to say that, but not necessarily less significant. Remember that Loram won the 2000 GP as a result of a terrible refereeing decision. He lifted and wiped out Rickardsson, who was the inexplicably excluded. Had the decision been different, Rickardsson would have won. Steve

You are of course correct, Rob. I think we could be struggling to beat Vic, now... Steve

While it is possible that some kind of "deal" was offered, I agree that nerves simply got the better of him. When one looks at that Heat 19 lineup, Split Waterman could not have been ruled out as a possible winner of the race; at that stage, he had 9 points in the bag, and however unlikely it may have seemed, he was still in contention for the title. Williams had 6, and Lawson 5, going into the race. Biggs didn't have to worry about winning it, but just had to finish in front of one of those two. That's why nerves seem the most logical conclusion. Obviously, he had another bite at the cherry (albeit against much stiffer opposition), but was probably still ruing that Heat 19 disaster... Steve

I think you'll find that riders did that in order to get a position in the lineup that gave them some well-spaced rides, rather than concentrating on gate positions. With the old 20-heat format, a rider had to go off every gate at least once, so the most they could do is to hope that they had good gate positions when up against their main competition. Still, in those days, most tracks had enough dirt on them so that it was quite possible to come from the back. Gate 2 at Coventry was the exception, I think! Steve

Don't know if you were there, sidney, but I'm sure that Parsloes will remember the 1980 Grand Prix final at Wimbledon. Dennis Sigalos won in conditions that I would put up there with Gothenburg in 1977. Steve

Hang on Bob; didn't we say a few weeks ago that Goochy was 37 when he made his World Final debut? That would make him two years older than Henny, who was born in 1952. Of course, he also qualfied as reserve for Norden in 1983... Steve

According to my programme, Stape scored 10 (2, 2+1, 3, 3), and Neil 4 (0, 1+1, 3). The result from Heat 4 was : Lovaas, Stapleton, Cameron, Saunders (F/EX) The result from Heat 7 was Cameron, Stapleton, Morton, Lomas. Steve

Think you will find that David was Cyril's nephew, actually. Steve