Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports' started by SaggyWoman, Sep 5, 2006.
Who's to say?
Although I can't stand NASCAR (I love car and motorcycle racing, but think to be watchable they need to turn both left and right and brake and accelerate), it's a sport.
If it can't kill you, it's just a game.
Why not? There's some athletic ability involved, there is strategy involved, all kinds of stuff along those lines. I'm not a nascar fan, btw.
Here we go again.
sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
I don't care whether you like Nascar or not, but your characterization of it isn't entirely true. They do turn left and right at Watkins Glen and Sears Point (Infineon to the newer fans). They do brake and accelerate at Bristol, Martinsville, Richmond, the aforementioned road courses and every other track except Daytona and Talladega where they accelerate and hold it wide open for 3+ hours.
HoG, were you the one who posted a few months ago about having gotten the DVD set of the 2005 F1 season?
Yep. Just finished race 8. With football season here and driving the school bus, doing the radio show, assisting coaches, and preaching on Sundays, I haven't had time to watch many of them. Good year, so far. A lot of exciting finishes!
Yes NASCAR is a sport.
Definitely. Imola was fantastic. Great race. :thumbsup:
I gripe about the sorry state of F1 racing and just when I've about given up hope of it ever being good again, Fred and Mike give us great battles like Imola. Have you seen any of the races this year?
No, cable is very expensive up here. I'm busy and I have better things to spend money on. However, I'm already in line to buy all the races at the end of the season.
The rule requiring no tire changes during the qualifying and race, and the use of an engine for two races, I think, has made the racing more competitive overall. Raikkonen's (sp?) crash was an example of how that can come into play, as well as Alonso losing out at the end due to lack of traction. Tire conservation adds a new aspect to racing, and it's not all about who has the 1000 HP car and who has the 1100 HP car.
I thought the one tire rule was a bad rule, not because it hurt the racing, as I don't think it did, but it presented a safety issue that was highlighted at Nurburgring. I don't know if you know it or not, but the FIA made a rule change after Nurby to allow tire changes for safety concerns. They decided to scrap the no tire change rule for 2006, but they did carry over the 2 engine rule, which has been a good thing.
Now, if they could just find a way to rid the sport of traction control.
I think changing the rule for safety concerns was good, but I think they should have kept the modified rule. No tire changes execept for punctures or legitimate safety concerns, and I didn't mind the time penalty for tire changes, but I think it should have been lower.
I forgot to comment on how cool the Star Wars car and the Stormtrooper pit crew was.
Here are some links to the photos if you want to see them:
Yes, definitely. Those guys don't have it easy. It's not like a Sunday afternoon drive.
But most certainly it is a sponsorship thing.
Factor in heat and g-forces, and it is very difficult to drive the car, let alone race it.
What does this have to do with whether it is a sport or not?
What a debacle! I just finished watching the French GP, after skipping over the US GP.
Jim Rosenthal was quite correct: F1 should be ashamed! It was a Mickey Mouse race. You could tell that Michael Shumacher, Barichello, and Monteiro were not exactly thrilled with their podium finishes!
The US finally got a good showing for some real racing (122,000), and they did that to them?!? I think that Michelin shot themselves in the foot, and F1 basically thumbed their collective noses at the US! (Well, the ruling body, not the racers; the racers wanted to race.)
It can be argued that Ferarri made a valid point (that they pulled Shumacher because of safety concerns, so it was just everyone's collective problem), but that's where the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind!
Only 6 cars on the race grid, and 4 of those weren't competetive!
Yeah, the U.S. GP last year was a sorry excuse for a race. I agree with you about Schumacher and Barrichello being almost embarrassed about it, but what I remember of Monteiro was somebody very happy to be on the podium, even considering the circumstances.
I think the ultimate blame needed to be laid at the feet of Bernie and Michelin, in that order. Michelin had a tire test at Indy, but they used the F1 backmarkers rather than the hotshoes like Alonso, Raikkonen and Montoya. To their credit, Ferrari and Bridgestone were willing to run the event as a non-points race, so that there would be a good race, but Bernie said no. Bernie was completely unwilling to do anything to put on a good show and the fans were the big losers.
If you looked at Monteiro during the celebration and after, I think he was putting on a show for contractual obligations. Shumacher and Barichello are in a situation that they don't have to suck up to the bosses, so can show their displeasure. Monteiro, if you looked at his face, was jumping up and down to put on a show, not out of real excitement.
Whose fault was it that the chicane was not added? Was that Bernie? Whoever it was, I lay the blame more at their feet, because with the added chicane, they could have had a real race.
NACAR is certainly a sport, requiring endurance, quick reflexes, and strategy. It's more than "hicks turning left."
A bit boring for me, except for the crashes, which are almost as good as you can see in movies. But no one actually gets hurt in the movies.
The drivers are brave, athletic people, and they should be respected for that. But more interesting courses would make it worth watching for me.