|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2008 21:25:08 GMT
Sigalos was in prime form during early 1984 - and was outstanding in the England vs USA test series. It could have been his year. Nonsense - like everyone else, he'd have been out-gunned by Gundersen's super-fast GM. And all that stuff about Embassy Opens, World Pairs and test meetings is just so much fluff and doesn't mean a thing. And the third place in Los Angeles on his World Final debut. Is that fluff as well?
|
|
|
Post by RegalRobin on Feb 15, 2008 21:28:17 GMT
And Kenny Carter topped the averages in 1982 - doesn't mean a thing. All that counted was a given night in a given season. Sanders may have played second fiddle to Sigalos at Ipswich, but on a given afternoon in Norden, he finished second and Sigalos didn't. Did Erik Gundersen ever top the averages? I can't remember him having done so, but he's thrice a champion. Oh i agree but i was talking about riders general abilities and potential. You also said Lee had a stella season in 83, i was just saying Sigalos had a better one and topped the averages. Would Sigalos have won a world title if he hadn't picked up that injury? Impossible to say for sure and nobody knows the answer but in my opinion yes he would have had every chance the way he was riding. Such a shame that with Penhall retiring early and Sigalos' injury, the Danes pretty much had everything their own way from then on.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 15, 2008 21:30:05 GMT
And the third place in Los Angeles on his World Final debut. Is that fluff as well? It's third place. Les Collins was second and might've been champion, but for Messrs Carter and Penhall having their "set-to".
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2008 21:34:26 GMT
And the third place in Los Angeles on his World Final debut. Is that fluff as well? It's third place. Les Collins was second and might've been champion, but for Messrs Carter and Penhall having their "set-to". And yet you were raving over Michael Lee's 1983 season - a year he finished third in the world, but achieved little else. Make your mind up.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 15, 2008 21:39:29 GMT
And yet you were raving over Michael Lee's 1983 season - a year he finished third in the world, but achieved little else. Make your mind up. That's hardly Lee's only accolade - he was, after all, world champion in 1980. Lee had proved he could do it at the highest level and you can't say the same about Sigalos. I liked Sigalos - he was a super rider and fantastic at domestic level, but to claim him a sure-fire world champion is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by RegalRobin on Feb 15, 2008 21:44:11 GMT
Nonsense. Sigalos was a great rider at domestic level, but I've seen no evidence that he had what it takes to win on the biggest stage. How many Overseas Finals did he win? How many Intercontinental Finals did he win? Wasn't he one of the riders who relied on Penhall letting him beat him in the 1982 Overseas Final to make it to the Intercontinental Final? Sigalos was in prime form during early 1984 - and was outstanding in the England vs USA test series. It could have been his year. I remember going to Wimbledon in 83 for the test series and Sigalos produced one of the best individual performances i've ever seen from any rider. He got an 18 point maximum and nobody got anywhere near him and you just got the feeling that they could have raced all night long and he wouldn't have been beaten. That performance has stuck in my memory ever since. The thing with Sigalos is its all guess work and what he may or may not have achieved at world final level as to be fair to him, he didn't exactly get too many chances did he. 2 in fact, 82 when he finished a creditable third on his debut and 83 when as someone said earlier, all his gear was nicked 2 days before the final. As i've said i personally feel he would have gone on to win it but its all guess work so no point going on about it really. What we do know is that he was a world class rider with the world at his feet until he nearly lost one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2008 21:45:19 GMT
And yet you were raving over Michael Lee's 1983 season - a year he finished third in the world, but achieved little else. Make your mind up. That's hardly Lee's only accolade - he was, after all, world champion in 1980. Lee had proved he could do it at the highest level and you can't say the same about Sigalos. I liked Sigalos - he was a super rider and fantastic at domestic level, but to claim him a sure-fire world champion is nonsense. But a FULL 18-point maximum in the 1982 World Pairs Final surely DID show that Sigalos could do it at the highest level. I don't agree that his performance in this meeting was "fluff". It showed just what Sigalos was capable of on the world stage. Sure-fire World Champion? No. Probable World Champion? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 15, 2008 21:49:40 GMT
But a FULL 18-point maximum in the 1982 World Pairs Final surely DID show that Sigalos could do it at the highest level. I don't agree that his performance in this meeting was "fluff". It showed just what Sigalos was capable of on the world stage. Sure-fire World Champion? No. Probable World Champion? Yes. Balderdash and piffle. World Pairs final - do me a favour. Means nothing at all. All that counts is that one day or night when the world title is on the line. Everything else is just fluff.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2008 21:57:50 GMT
Balderdash and piffle. World Pairs final - do me a favour. Means nothing at all. All that counts is that one day or night when the world title is on the line. Everything else is just fluff. Of course it means something - they're riding for their country. EVERY single race in every meeting counts - read the thoughts of someone like Ivan Mauger. He wanted riders to think he was invincible - so he'd go and beat them in a challenge match in the same way as he would want to beat them in a World Final. And Ivan puts up 1979 World Team Cup win with New Zealand right up there with his individual truimphs. But, of course, you know better. Or, at least, think you know better. You do spout a load of "balderdash and piffle" yourself at times, young fellow.
|
|
|
Post by RegalRobin on Feb 15, 2008 22:04:47 GMT
The world pairs was huge in its day, it certainly meant something alright. Even the test series meant an awful lot back in the 80's which riders today would turn their noses up at.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2008 22:08:04 GMT
The world pairs was huge in its day, it certainly meant something alright. Even the test series meant an awful lot back in the 80's which riders today would turn their noses up at. Exactly. All these meetings were shown on World Of Sport. I remember clearly the 1982 World Pairs Final being shown on the TV, and just how dominant Sigalos was, in a World class field.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 15, 2008 22:09:18 GMT
Of course it means something - they're riding for their country. EVERY single race in every meeting counts - read the thoughts of someone like Ivan Mauger. He wanted riders to think he was invincible - so he'd go and beat them in a challenge match in the same way as he would want to beat them in a World Final. And Ivan puts up 1979 World Team Cup win with New Zealand right up there with his individual truimphs. And why does Mauger rank that WTC win so highly? Could it be because he and his fellow countrymen had been ditched as soon as the British felt they could manage without them? Winning the WTC with New Zealand was a super achievement, because they were the underdogs - it was rare for Ivan Mauger to be an underdog on the biggest stage of all. Anyway, how does Sigalos being a "probable" world champion stack up with your belief in the perfection of Hans Nielsen? That world championship would "probably" have had to come at the expense of your hero.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2008 22:12:23 GMT
Of course it means something - they're riding for their country. EVERY single race in every meeting counts - read the thoughts of someone like Ivan Mauger. He wanted riders to think he was invincible - so he'd go and beat them in a challenge match in the same way as he would want to beat them in a World Final. And Ivan puts up 1979 World Team Cup win with New Zealand right up there with his individual truimphs. And why does Mauger rank that WTC win so highly? Could it be because he and his fellow countrymen had been ditched as soon as the British felt they could manage without them? Winning the WTC with New Zealand was a super achievement, because they were the underdogs - it was rare for Ivan Mauger to be an underdog on the biggest stage of all. Anyway, how does Sigalos being a "probable" world champion stack up with your belief in the perfection of Hans Nielsen? That world championship would "probably" have had to come at the expense of your hero. Don't be obtuse - Hans Nielsen wasn't the 1984 World Champion.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Feb 15, 2008 22:14:57 GMT
And nor would Sigalos have been - all the Weslake riders were trumped by Gundersen turning up on a super-fast GM.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Feb 15, 2008 22:18:05 GMT
And nor would Sigalos have been - all the Weslake riders were trumped by Gundersen turning up on a super-fast GM. Yes, that was all the other Weslake riders. But who says Sigalos wouldn't have been a different case? He was in the form of his life in the early part of 1984 - he was absolutely awesome in the England v USA matches shown on the TV. He could have been World Champion that year.
|
|