Controversy

[Genghis]

Dec 31, 2008 16:42:02 GMT admin said:

We were discussing the relative strengths of riders and their racing equipment. You stated that since the Eastern bloc countries were effectively state-sponsored their equipment was equal to, or superior to, the equipment from the commercially driven Western riders. But if that were the case Lada and Skoda cars would've been the match of Western marques, even those Western marques built by communists, such as British Leyland, Renault, Citreon and Peugeot, but they weren't.
The communist system held back the riders from the Eastern bloc.

But it only held them back in the 1980s. Up until then the Poles seemed to be doing very well under their state funding.

So Muller being a big cheese in Continental circles from the mid-70s onwards should not be understated. And the GM engine you keep on banging on about only came to prominence with Muller in the 1983 final.

In the mid-late 70s and early 80s, he would have been on a Wessie or a Jawa, just like the Poles and the Russians.

[admin]

Dec 31, 2008 17:31:31 GMT Genghis said:

So Muller being a big cheese in Continental circles from the mid-70s onwards should not be understated. And the GM engine you keep on banging on about only came to prominence with Muller in the 1983 final.

But the Weslake engine was dominant towards the end of the 1970s, wasn't it?
I contend that from the mid-1970s onwards the Western riders were able to use their financial muscle and the competitive pressures to forge ahead of the Eastern Europeans. Then came the technological advances that Weslake, Godden and then GM brought, while the Eastern Eropeans were on Jawas.

[Genghis]

Dec 31, 2008 17:42:08 GMT admin said:

Dec 31, 2008 17:31:31 GMT Genghis said:

So Muller being a big cheese in Continental circles from the mid-70s onwards should not be understated. And the GM engine you keep on banging on about only came to prominence with Muller in the 1983 final.

But the Weslake engine was dominant towards the end of the 1970s, wasn't it?
I contend that from the mid-1970s onwards the Western riders were able to use their financial muscle and the competitive pressures to forge ahead of the Eastern Europeans. Then came the technological advances that Weslake, Godden and then GM brought, while the Eastern Eropeans were on Jawas.

But the Godden and GM weren't about at the point you are talking about. I think you've got your dates wrong.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2008 17:31:31 GMT Genghis said:

But it only held them back in the 1980s. Up until then the Poles seemed to be doing very well under their state funding.

I think you'll probably find that the financial situation in the East had deteriorated by the mid 70's, and only got worse.

However, the reason we even got to discussing this was because you were bigging up the 4 Continental Final wins that Muller had. Those came in 1976, 1981, 1984 and 1985.

As PC was the first to win the World Title on a Weslake in 1976, can anyone confirm if Muller was actually on one of those at that stage as well?

Dec 31, 2008 18:06:04 GMT Genghis said:

But the Godden and GM weren't about at the point you are talking about. I think you've got your dates wrong.

I'm pretty sure that the Godden actually came onto the scene in the late 70's.

edit - have just checked and the GR500 made it's debut in 1979 before getting serious production numbers in 1980.

[Genghis]

Dec 31, 2008 18:27:25 GMT @henryw said:

Dec 31, 2008 17:31:31 GMT Genghis said:

But it only held them back in the 1980s. Up until then the Poles seemed to be doing very well under their state funding.

I think you'll probably find that the financial situation in the East had deteriorated by the mid 70's, and only got worse.

However, the reason we even got to discussing this was because you were bigging up the 4 Continental Final wins that Muller had. Those came in 1976, 1981, 1984 and 1985.

As PC was the first to win the World Title on a Weslake in 1976, can anyone confirm if Muller was actually on one of those at that stage as well?

But both your argument and Sub's is based a false premise. Which is that Muller had much more money available to him than the Poles and Russians, because he was based in a top Western speedway nation.

But since when has Germany been a leading speedway nation?

[Deleted]

Muller always had top quality equipment. I remember this being very much an issue in 1976 - and reading reports that he had extra-light bikes etc which would somehow make him a threat.

Also, in the Ivan Mauger documentary video, Ivan's wife talks about Ivan getting well stressed out and up tight trying to find out what Muller was doing with his bikes and trying to get his own equipment to be as good.

I've always been an admirer of Muller personally. Loved him in 1976 and appreciated his 1983 win as a truly brilliant performance.

[Genghis]

Dec 31, 2008 18:39:41 GMT @grachan said:

Muller always had top quality equipment. I remember this being very much an issue in 1976 - and reading reports that he had extra-light bikes etc which would somehow make him a threat.

Also, in the Ivan Mauger documentary video, Ivan's wife talks about Ivan getting well stressed out and up tight trying to find out what Muller was doing with his bikes and trying to get his own equipment to be as good.

I've always been an admirer of Muller personally. Loved him in 1976 and appreciated his 1983 win as a truly brilliant performance.

Just shows he had a sensible head on his shoulders. All the top riders have always tried to keep a mechanical advantage on their rivals - it's common sense.

And anyone thinking the Poles and Russians were ever at a disadvantage - look at the state funding the Russians recevied in Ice Racing.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2008 18:42:03 GMT Genghis said:

Just shows he had a sensible head on his shoulders. All the top riders have always tried to keep a mechanical advantage on their rivals - it's common sense.

And anyone thinking the Poles and Russians were ever at a disadvantage - look at the state funding the Russians recevied in Ice Racing.

Glad you backtracked on that one so I didn't have to point out how ridiculous your earlier statement was that suggested that Muller wouldn't have had top bikes because Germany wasn't a big speedway Nation.
Muller had money and had top equipment...although I'm not sure how I would know that because I am all insular and don't look outside of UK speedway.

Anyone who thinks the Poles and Russian's weren't at a disadvantage in the late 1970s and 1908s really needs to get a reality check!!

By the way, have you seen how much state funding those Olympic cyclist boys get? British speedway riders must be rolling in it!!! ;D

[Genghis]

Dec 31, 2008 18:52:36 GMT @henryw said:

British speedway riders must be rolling in it!!! ;D

Rolling in what exactly?

Anyway, if the Russians were at such a huge disadvantage, please could you explain how they provided the World Ice Champion for most of the 1970s and 1980s?

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2008 18:57:56 GMT Genghis said:

Anyway, if the Russians were at such a huge disadvantage, please could you explain how they provided the World Ice Champion for most of the 1970s and 1980s?

Because the Russians we were talking about were racing on shale rather than ice?

Can't say I pay too much attention to ice-racing, so don't know the real facts, but I could take a stab at it.

I mentioned the Olympic Cycling team for a laugh, but there is probably a reasonable parallel. The cycling team got inflated funding because they actually stood a very realistic chance of winning some gold medals on the world stage, unlike some other sports which didn't have the same chances.

The Soviet Union had probably the biggest ice racing infrastructure around. Couple that with the fact that the bulk of the major players in the shale sport didn't get seriously involved in ice racing, and it becomes a no-brainer which one the Soviet State throws it's limited funds at to try to grab some World glory!

Was it not also the case that the Jawa stayed a much more competitive machine on the ice than it did on the shale?

[admin]

Dec 31, 2008 18:39:41 GMT @grachan said:

I've always been an admirer of Muller personally. Loved him in 1976 and appreciated his 1983 win as a truly brilliant performance.

I've always been an admirer of Muller, but I contend that because he never really took proper speedway seriously it's hard to compare him with other riders.
As you say, he certainly never lacked speed as this little clip shows:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcRlJkEibMM

[admin]

Dec 31, 2008 19:11:00 GMT @henryw said:

Was it not also the case that the Jawa stayed a much more competitive machine on the ice than it did on the shale?

Did anyone other than Jawa take ice speedway seriously?

Dec 31, 2008 18:52:36 GMT @henryw said:

Anyone who thinks the Poles and Russian's weren't at a disadvantage in the late 1970s and 1908s really needs to get a reality check!!

I don't think we can blame the 1908s on communism, young fellow.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2008 19:26:58 GMT admin said:

Did anyone other than Jawa take ice speedway seriously?
I don't think we can blame the 1908s on communism, young fellow.

Not sure, you might be right that it was a purely Jawa dominated sport.

This is a fine time for genghis to leap in and berate me for not paying attention to sports just because they don't race them in this Country!

Thanks for pointing out my inability to type, BTW

Anyways...It's Hogmanay and I am due in a pub to get drunk with the laddie Rico! Y'all have a good one!

[admin]

Dec 31, 2008 18:33:20 GMT Genghis said:

But both your argument and Sub's is based a false premise. Which is that Muller had much more money available to him than the Poles and Russians, because he was based in a top Western speedway nation.

But since when has Germany been a leading speedway nation?

I never stated or implied that Egon Muller was based in a "top Western speedway nation", just a wealthy Western nation, which surely even you would concede West Germany was. If West Germany had been a "top Western speedway nation" Mr Muller would probably have found himself competing the Intercontinental route, like West Germany's neighbours the Danes did.
The Intercontinental-Continental split was to ensure that the major Western speedway nations didn't monopolise world final places.

[Genghis]

Dec 31, 2008 20:29:16 GMT admin said:

Dec 31, 2008 18:33:20 GMT Genghis said:

But both your argument and Sub's is based a false premise. Which is that Muller had much more money available to him than the Poles and Russians, because he was based in a top Western speedway nation.

But since when has Germany been a leading speedway nation?

I never stated or implied that Egon Muller was based in a "top Western speedway nation", just a wealthy Western nation, which surely even you would concede West Germany was. If West Germany had been a "top Western speedway nation" Mr Muller would probably have found himself competing the Intercontinental route, like West Germany's neighbours the Danes did.
The Intercontinental-Continental split was to ensure that the major Western speedway nations didn't monopolise world final places.

I know full well why there was the Intercontinental-Continental split, you are patronising at times

But even given that the Continental Final was the easier of the two semi-finals, surely it was quite an achievement for a rider to win this meeting no fewer than four times. Was it not?

Anyway, the argument seems to be going round in circles, and we both rate Egon Muller in any case.

Therefore, I close in saying that Egon Muller was a deserving World Champion and IMO better than at least four other World Champions (Williams, Szczakiel, Havelock and Loram).

Having said that, Dennis Sigalos would have been an even more deserving 1983 World Champion.