chunky

Thank you. Steve

I don't have to have the last word... Steve

Depends how much natural talent you've got... Steve

At least we have a balanced post here... That is the theory, but it doesn't work like that in practice (see my previous post). That is our point exactly. However, as talented as Joe was/is, he never developed that talent into the success it deserved. Sadly, this has degenerated into argument over "black and white" and grey areas. There is nothing wrong with a healthy discussion, but when terms such as "codswallop" and "preposterous" are used, that's when things get ugly. There are no rights or wrongs when it comes to the opinion of whether Kenny or Joe had the "most natural talent". However, it is wrong to state that success is automatic, or perhaps greater, as a direct result of "natural talent", which is the point I am trying to make. Steve

Still having trouble with the English language, are we? Why do you twist everything I say? I said there is no direct correlation, and I stand by that. Yes, Carter, Moran, and Ward have achieved things early in their careers, partly - but not wholly - as a result of natural talent. However, there are many riders out there who had bags of natural talent, but due to a lack of effort, determination, and/or confidence, never achieved anything. Let's put it this way, and see if you can understand what I am saying... Natural talent is no guarantee of success. FACT. Lack of natural talent is no guarantee of failure. FACT. If you can't grasp that, then I don't know what to do. Again, I am speaking from experience. It doesn't seem to work with you when I do it, does it? Steve

So, now it's a case of "I'm right and you're wrong!", eh? How mature... What part of this are you not getting? ImpartialOne clarified this earlier: IT'S NOT ABOUT ACHIEVEMENT! Simply because an individual achieves more - and perhaps in a shorter space of time - than another, it is NO INDICATION OF NATURAL TALENT. There is no direct correlation. Natural talent alone doesn't get you anywhere. Effort, dedication, and confidence are what turn talent - or lack thereof - into success. Steve

16 3/4, actually... Steve

Sorry, but I don't agree. While Lee was an extremely talented rider, I still believe that PC and Screeny were far more natural. I think that like Nielsen, and also Briggs, Lee had to work harder to achieve his success as a result of his physical stature. As a result, they were less "naturally-gifted" than the two I mentioned. As has already been said, I would class the Morans in the same category. Steve

I honestly that think one of the major problems on this thread has been the inability of some to read (and write) - and comprehend - the English language. There is not one person who has contributed to this thread that has claimed that Joe Screen was a better rider than Kenny Carter. No, he wasn't "in the same league" as you put it, but does that mean that he wasn't a more naturally talented motorcyclist? No! It just means that he never reached the same level, and didn't achieve as much. When superstars like Mauger and Nielsen freel admit that they were less talented than many others - who achieved far less - that should give you some idea what we are actually saying. From what I saw - and from what I heard from other riders - Joe Screen was perhaps the most naturally-gifted rider to emerge in the last forty years. Other than PC, that is... Steve

Both Briggo and Ronnie Moore were good friends with my mother; we once spent the weekend at Briggo's place in Southampton. Do you really think that I would disrespect a family friend? When Barry started racing in the UK, many were calling for him to be banned, as he was considered a danger to others! His style was awful, and he had trouble controlling the bike. Did people feel the same about Ronnie Moore, or Mark Loram, or Joe Screen? Fortunately, Briggo worked hard to learn his trade, and did so very quickly. It was that effort and confidence in his own ability that made him an all-time great. You are still not getting it. A person can be much more naturally gifted at something, without ever achieving anything like the success of others less talented. Success in sport is all about effort. determination, and confidence, and as I said earlier, I am speaking from experience. Steve

[quote There you go, reading words that are not there again. [/quote To make it simple for you only in my opinion] screen wouldnt make the top 30 best british riders of all time.Thats even if he had [natural ability] talent,commitment whatever you like.Carter certainly in top 20].Impartial one in your opinion, who was the better rider SCREEN or CARTER? quite simple i think Sidney : You are now giving me a headache. Why do you persist in twisting everything people say? NOWHERE does ImpartialOne claim that Screen was better than Carter. The only claim is that Joe was a far more naturally-gifted motorcyclist, a fact with which most people - myself included - will agree. No, that doesn't mean he was better. Barry Briggs was perhaps the most ungifted rider as far as natural talent and ability, but he worked hard at making the best of what he had. Joe Screen had more natural talent in his little finger than Briggo had. Steve

I think that sidney is having trouble understanding what you are saying; I'm with you. Sidney : Kenny Carter WAS a brilliant and talented speedway rider. However, his success came largely as a result of hard work, and an incredible determination. Joe Screen was much more of a "natural" motorcyclist, but never had that little extra mentally to achieve the same sort of success. That's not being disrespectful to either Joe or Kenny in any way, but a simple fact. Carter's determination brought him incredible success on tracks that others considered "unrideable"; Screen could be untouchable on a track that suited him, but had trouble adapting to others. If you look at any sport, you will find that determination/effort/confidence will eventually bring more success than natural talent and potential. Simply put, it doesn't matter how good you are if you can't handle the situations that are thrown at you. Steve

However, you should be aware of the mistakes; it is STATHAM, not Staham, and FRANK (not Franf) GOULDEN (not Gouldon). Still, Cordy Milne would have won it... Steve

What you have appears to be listed without gate positions, simply going (after heat 4) with the riders in order 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, and 13-16. However, the numbers still correspond to the standard format, which gives us (in riding order) : 1 - Alec Statham 2 - Arthur Atkinson 3 - Frank Varey 4 - Eric Collins 5 - Jack Parker 6 - Wilbur Lamoreaux 7 - Ron Johnson 8 - Jack Milne 9 - Bill Kitchen 10 - Eric Chitty 11 - Eric Langton 12 - Lionel Van Praag 13 - Benny Kaufman 14 - Cordy Milne 15 - Vic Duggan 16 - Aub Lawson Steve

I'd wondered about that too, but quickly looking at the heats, it does appear to be the same as used in the post-war 16-man individual events. Take the 1936 Final for instance. In a modern event, the rider at no. 5 would be in heats 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20. In the 1936 final, Jack Ormston rode in those exact heats. Perhaps someone else could confirm this? Steve

This is what makes discussions like this interesting... It's impossible to quantify it, but I wholeheartedly agree that Joe Screen had far more natural talent than Kenny Carter. I also think that Tomasz Gollob is one of the most incredible motorcyclists that I have ever seen, and look how long it took him to win a World Championship. Ivan Mauger was not a natural, and neither was Briggo; they didn't do too badly out of that though, did they? I don't believe that there i such a thing as "a natural" in sport (some are naturally faster or stronger, but that is all), although it is very possible for a person to be more "natural" than others. Much of the natural ability and talent is developed from the time that a person starts out in a particular sport. If you learn the right way, development is a lot quicker and easier. However, it is the mental strength and agility that turns talent into success; there is no direct correlation between talent/ability and success. Whatever we say about Kenny Carter's frame of mind, wen he got on the bike, he could do more with it - in terms of success - than Joe Screen. Obviously, I can't speak from a motorcyclist's perspective, but as an individual who has achieved sporting success, I can tell you that it is very much in the head. I have achieved far more than 99% of competitors in my sport, yet I was never a "natural", and I was actually a slow developer. There were many far more talented than me, but they were never able to use that talent. Even now, I achieve success as a result of confidence and experience. Hans Nielsen is a prime example of this he had the talent and ability, but it took him a number of years to turn that into success. Phil Crump is another, except that he was never able to do that. Steve

That was the last time I saw Ron. My parents knew him well, and we used to play darts at his pub. Sad news indeed. A great rider and a great character. Steve

Firstly, I don't think that a World Under-21 Championship should automatically place someone like Chris Louis ahead of guys like Nigel Boocock and Ken McKinlay. Those two proved themselves to be top-line riders for MANY years, both domestically and internationally. Oh, and who mentioned Geoff Pusey??? Steve

156 points in 31 matches for Doncaster in 1970, Bob. Steve

Born in Austria, he became a naturalised Australian. Steve

Like you, I seem to remember the name from reports and articles he'd written in magazines; it sounds like he was a rider turned reporter. Steve

Um, that's what I said... Steve

Just did a little more research, and found that it was Gerald Goodwin, who also had second-half outings at Bradford that year. Must admit, I'd never heard of him until now. Steve

Not sure I know the name "Goodwin", but there was Geoff GODWIN. He rode for Middlesbrough and Cradley in the 1940's, and retired in 1950 at the age of 45. Steve