Nascar is back

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by padredurand:
Any person who can drive 500 miles, stop for gas and not use the bathroom is athlete enough in my book.

I'm still in mourning that the 24 got knocked out of the Shootout so early and that the 48 got caught cheating.

[waiting]Will the tears come now?[/waiting] Guess not. Maybe I can go chop up an onion or something....

I agree with everything you just said.

On the Earnhardt thing, I think that although he may have not had the total number of wins of some of the other drivers that he is if not the best overall driver NASCAR has seen, he is atleast in the top 3.

This may get me shot...but I think that Richard Petty is a little over rated. Sure he has all those wins, but look at how many starts it took him to get those. I think if he was in his prime during the same time as Earnhardt that he would not have had that many wins and would not be as highly regarding.

But that is just my opinion, and everyone is welcome to their own view.

I am just glad it is time for racingggggggg!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by PastorSBC1303:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ccrobinson:
Without his illegal modification, hopefully he'll stay in the back.

I agree. Not a #48 fan. </font>[/QUOTE]Kind of hypocritical for a Junior fan to cast stones at anyone else for cheating.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PastorSBC1303:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ccrobinson:
Without his illegal modification, hopefully he'll stay in the back.

I agree. Not a #48 fan. </font>[/QUOTE]Kind of hypocritical for a Junior fan to cast stones at anyone else for cheating. </font>[/QUOTE]I did not throw stones at anyone. I simply agreed with ccr that I hoped Johnson stayed in the back. I don't care for him regardless of the cheating issue.

None of them should cheat, Dale Jr. included. I do not agree with some of the things Jr. does, but I am sure that could probably be said for 99% of the drivers.

I am a Dale Jr. fan because he and I lost our fathers at about the same age and I can relate a little to the struggle he has went through. Obviously my father was not a world wide celebrity, etc. But loosing a father at a younger age is a hard thing and I am thankful I did not have to do it on a national stage.

 

[bobbyd]

i don't mind watching the last few laps of a race on TV, but i can't watch the whole thing.
I did learn who some of the drivers were a few years ago when i was living closer to my father in law because he is a pretty big racing fan.

 

[Scott J]

Petty was a good driver whose equipment was years ahead of everyone else. Being the first to have automaker support was a huge advantage that he held alone or in small company for some time.

The Earnhardt legend will endure... and I couldn't stand the guy when he was racing. I thought he was cheap and dirty. Like Junior, once he gained star status NASCAR gave him a much wider berth than any of the other drivers.

None the less, Earnhardt was a pretty incredible driver. His record speaks for itself... even though the competition even in his era wasn't what it is now. Most importantly, he was a popular star of the sport who died at the wheel. Even people who despised him (like me) were sick on our stomach for awhile afterwards. The sport was changed for the worse by his untimely exit.

He never would have tolerated the non-sense some of these young guys try to pull... and I don't think he would have stood by and watched the older drivers get tossed aside.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by Scott J:
He never would have tolerated the non-sense some of these young guys try to pull... and I don't think he would have stood by and watched the older drivers get tossed aside.

I agree completely! It is a shame we cannot see how things would be with all these young racers and #3 around.

 

[Scott J]

I don't think they would have been at all.

I definitely don't think that the DE ego and Busch brother's egos... and recklessness could have peacefully coexisted.

 

[swaimj]

Oh yeah, Jeff Gordon won his first qualifier at Daytona! How could I have missed that.

BTW, I wonder how Earnhardt's winning percentage stacks up against Gordon? I imagine Gordon's percentage is higher than anyone on the list you gave. Of course, he has not yet reached the twilight of his career and reaching that stage tends to diminish a driver's statistical winning percentage. Both Petty and Waltrip lingered on in their cars long after they had lost their competitive edge. If either had retired at the top of their game their percentage would be much higher.

The aspect of Dale Earnhardt's life that will keep him in memory is his personna. As a character, he dominated his times. That will keep him in memory, but I still think in time that his statistics will be evaluated more objectively and he will not be as highly regarded.

 

[ccrobinson]

Scott J noted:

Kind of hypocritical for a Junior fan to cast stones at anyone else for cheating.

I must have missed it when the #8 car got caught cheating. And, I don't mean the kind where Nascar confiscates unapproved parts. I mean the kind where Tony Eury Jr. modifies the back glass to give his car an aerodynamic advantage. Kindly provide evidence for your allegation.


bobbyd wrote:

i don't mind watching the last few laps of a race on TV, but i can't watch the whole thing.

I fell asleep watching many races in 2005. If any of you are new fans and didn't get to see ESPN telecast a race, you missed out. Those guys did it right. ESPN always looked for a battle on the track, even if it were for 20th. You hardly ever see that anymore. All that Fox and NBC/TNT want to do are promote the stars, at the expense of any good on-track racing.


PastorSBC evidently wanted to get tarred and feathered by Richard Petty fans:

...but I think that Richard Petty is a little over rated. Sure he has all those wins, but look at how many starts it took him to get those.

I visit other message boards that are strictly for racing. By fans who know better, Richard is hardly ever called the greatest driver ever in terms of driving ability, talent, etc. Richard is a great driver because, for years, he WAS Nascar. Richard would spend hours and hours after a race, every race, signing autographs and talking to fans. And this was in the day when there weren't million dollar contracts like there are today, and Nascar was strictly a regional, Southern, sport (though many say it still is). Long-time fans have never forgotten this.

David Pearson, Cale Yarborough and Dale Earnhardt were probably better drivers in sheer ability and talent. If you ever wonder if Richard is overrated, consider this. Without Richard Petty, there would have been no Dale Earnhardt.

Richard wasn't the most talented driver, but he was very talented. You don't win 200 races on great equipment alone.


Scott J and I wholeheartedly agree:

I definitely don't think that the DE ego and Busch brother's egos... and recklessness could have peacefully coexisted.

No doubt about that. In the 2001 Daytona 500, Kurt Busch nearly wrecked Earnhardt and during a caution, Kurt received the message that he was #1.

I thought he was cheap and dirty.

There's an old joke about Earnhardt's aggressiveness.

Q. Why didn't Dale Earnhardt hit the pace car?

A. Because it didn't have a number on it.

swaimj wondered:

I wonder how Earnhardt's winning percentage stacks up against Gordon? I imagine Gordon's percentage is higher than anyone on the list you gave.

I purposely didn't put Gordon there because his career isn't over yet. Currently, he 73 wins in 437 starts for a percentage of 16.7%, a smidge below Petty. Unless he hits a long winless streak, and if he's around long enough, he certainly will, he should wind up with a higher winning percentage than Earnhardt.

Both Petty and Waltrip lingered on in their cars long after they had lost their competitive edge. If either had retired at the top of their game their percentage would be much higher.

I totally agree that they hung on too long. I'm not sure the percentage would have been significantly higher, but it would have been higher nonetheless.

I still think in time that his statistics will be evaluated more objectively and he will not be as highly regarded.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't have time right now, but I should do a modern era winning percentage to get a better feel for what Earnhardt did in winning races. You just can't compare number of wins because Petty and Pearson won most of their races in a time where Nascar ran 46, 47 races a season.

Plus, there's that other statistic that I didn't include. Number of championships won is an objective statistic and Earnhardt won 7 of them. Time will not diminish this fact.

 

[swaimj]

A couple of comments.

I agree that Petty was great in large part on the strength of his personality. When he came along, most drivers were rough-hewn like Earnhardt. Petty, through his demeanor, civilized the sport. As to his percentages, if Petty had retired in 1984 with two hundred wins, his winning percentage would have been better than 21%. So, the years of racing past his prime hurts that percentage drastically.

Earnhardt will be weak statistically in the future because of the records Jeff Gordon is likely to set. Gordon will pass Earnhardt THIS YEAR in wins. It is hard to argue that Gordon has faced weaker competition in his career. He may very well pass Earnhardt in championships, but who knows. In 1994, when Earnhardt won his 7th, I thought he would probably win 10 before his career was over. But, it was Jeff Gordon who won 3 of the next 4 and ended Earnhardt's opportunity to surpass Petty.

Earnhardt really is weak in the races won category. He has fewer wins in the modern error that Darrell Waltrip despite all of the championships. He trails Petty, Pearson, waltrip, Allison, and Yarborough in superspeedway wins despite the fact that, during his heyday, the NASCAR schedule was composed of 2/3rds superspeedway races, while in their heyday is was half superspeedway, or less.

Finally, Earnhardt was a man with great driving talent who developed the ability to WIN races only late in his career. Early on he was far too hard on equipment. If he had that problem in his day, he would have been very unsuccessful in the Petty-Pearson era when the cars were much more unreliable and had to be babied.

In short, a few years from now, the emotions of Earnhardt's death will fade and his career will be evaluated with less emotional baggage. Calling him the best driver ever will be highly debatable.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by ccrobinson:
By fans who know better, Richard is hardly ever called the greatest driver ever in terms of driving ability, talent, etc. Richard is a great driver because, for years, he WAS Nascar. Richard would spend hours and hours after a race, every race, signing autographs and talking to fans. And this was in the day when there weren't million dollar contracts like there are today, and Nascar was strictly a regional, Southern, sport (though many say it still is). Long-time fans have never forgotten this.

David Pearson, Cale Yarborough and Dale Earnhardt were probably better drivers in sheer ability and talent. If you ever wonder if Richard is overrated, consider this. Without Richard Petty, there would have been no Dale Earnhardt.

Richard wasn't the most talented driver, but he was very talented. You don't win 200 races on great equipment alone.

I agree completely. I did not mean to appear that I dislike Petty or think he was a bad driver, etc. I have the utmost respect for Petty and what he has done for the sport and his place in history. Yet I have and still hear people talk about how he is the best driver of all time, and I disagree. I would probably say he is the 4th best driver behind Pearson, Earnhardt and Yarborough. And as much as it pains me to say it, Gordon will more than likely be up there with those guys before it is all said and done.

Question for everyone: Besides Jeff Gordon, is there anyone driving right now that you think can be up there with the greatest drivers of all time when their career is over?

 

[swaimj]

Question for everyone: Besides Jeff Gordon, is there anyone driving right now that you think can be up there with the greatest drivers of all time when their career is over?

First, I would say that drivers today are better overall than they were in the past. Many of the drivers in the filed today started driving when they were very young children. Also, they can race on computer simulators and learn the characteristics of the cars before they get on the track. They have thousands of hours experience on the tracks compared to drivers of the past and that makes them better. Of all the drivers out there now, if I had to pick one to drive my car I would pick Greg Biffle. Last year when they took the big spoilers off the cars, lots of drivers complained that the cars were too loose and out of control. Biffle never complained, but went on a tear and won several races.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

My answer would be Tony Stewart. I think he and Jeff Gordon are the most talented drivers in the series today. I think one of things that makes both so talented is that they are good and win on any kind of track NASCAR has...they can win at the superspeedways, short tracks, road courses and the inbetween tracks.

I think if Stewart stays around, he will be up there in wins and championships.

 

[ccrobinson]

swaimj, you're going to make me break out the statistics, aren't you?

I don't work on Friday and I'll have time to analyze the stats and we will see what they show. I'll look at wins by track, number of track types per season, etc.

Earnhardt will be weak statistically in the future because of the records Jeff Gordon is likely to set.

So, the records that Jeff Gordon sets will diminish the accomplishments of Earnhardt? Huh? If Earnhardt had won 8 championships, would that have lessened Richard Petty's 7? I don't agree with that at all.

Early on he was far too hard on equipment.

Was he that hard on equipment? He did win the 1980 championship with 4 DNF's. I'd have to look at more stats, but that seems to compare favorably with the cars of the era. Great, another stats project.

Calling him the best driver ever will be highly debatable.

Calling anybody, including Jeff Gordon, the best driver ever is highly debateable. There will never be consensus about this among race fans.

Question for everyone: Besides Jeff Gordon, is there anyone driving right now that you think can be up there with the greatest drivers of all time when their career is over?

Possibly Tony Stewart. Tony's won championships in everything he's ever driven. Right now, he and Gordon are the best drivers in the sport.

I don't agree that today's drivers are better. The legends of old had raced all their lives too. I think today's cars are easier to drive, and that's why there are so many young drivers who can drive a car.

Today's cars have significantly more downforce than the cars of old. The cars of old were far more twitchier, and much easier to put into the fence.

You mentioned computer simulations. It's well-known that Dale Earnhardt Jr uses Nascar 2003. I have that game and race it all the time. It's not exactly the same as being in a real race car of course, but I can tell you that if you take away grip, and taking away downforce is one way to do that, the cars are harder to drive.

I don't think today's drivers are any better than yesterday's drivers. I think today's cars have more downforce, which means more grip, and thus, they are easier to drive.

 

[swaimj]

So, the records that Jeff Gordon sets will diminish the accomplishments of Earnhardt? Huh? If Earnhardt had won 8 championships, would that have lessened Richard Petty's 7? I don't agree with that at all. [Smile]

One of the frequent arguments for Earnhardt being the best driver ever is that, though he did not win as many races as Petty or Pearson, he drove in an era that was more competitive. My point is, that Gordon is out-performing Earnhardt in the "win" category and you can't argue that Gordon's era is less competitive than Earnhardt's. This argues against Earnhardt being the all-time best driver. Incidentally, Gordon and Earnhardt finished 1-2 on several occasions, but, to my knowledge, Earnhardt never bested Gordon in a 1-2 finish. Earnhardt's dominance of NASCAR ended very suddenly with the arrival of Gordon.

Was he that hard on equipment? He did win the 1980 championship with 4 DNF's. I'd have to look at more stats, but that seems to compare favorably with the cars of the era. Great, another stats project.

Ask the car owners he had prior to Richard Childress and let them tell you how he destroyed cars. Bud Moore is one who comes to mind.

 

[ccrobinson]

We're just going to disagree about Earnhardt and Gordon. I'm not going to be swayed in my view and neither are you. Gordon had a brilliant crew chief who gave him cars that had a significant technological advantage over the rest of the field in the late 90s (re: 1997). Earnhardt had a particularly nasty wreck in 1996. Childress made an ill-advised move to bring in Larry McReynolds as crew chief in 1997.

Gordon hasn't come anywhere near the kind of dominance without Evernham that he had with him. I don't attribute all of Gordon's success to Ray, but there are many Gordon fans who don't want to attribute any of Gordon's success to Evernham.

Ask the car owners he had prior to Richard Childress and let them tell you how he destroyed cars. Bud Moore is one who comes to mind.

Earnhardt drove for Rod Osterlund, Bud Moore and Richard Childress. We could ask Osterlund, but since Earnhardt won the 1980 championship, I'm not sure how valid the question is. He had many DNFs with Bud Moore, but the DNFs went away with Childress. I think it's just as likely to say that Bud Moore's cars were unreliable. To my knowledge, Bud Moore wasn't considered a championship caliber car owner, but I didn't pay attention to Nascar in the late 70s-early 80s, and I haven't done any research, to know for sure. Bud Moore was quoted as telling Childress that Earnhardt would break him. 6 championships later, I'd say that didn't happen.

 

[swaimj]

How had Evernham done without Gordon? A handful of wins and he has had 4-5 different drivers (although that is with two cars). He has won no championship. The closest he has come is with Jerremy Mayfield who has finished last in the "Chase" the last two years. I think Evernham would be the first to tell you that he would hire Gordon at the drop of a hat if he could.

I'm not even a Gordon fan, but "facts is facts" and in light of Gordon's career, I just don't think that Dale Earnhardt is the best ever.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by swaimj:
How had Evernham done without Gordon?

Evernham has not done much after Gordon. However as Ccr pointed out Gordon has not done nearly as well after Evernham either. So it seems to go both ways. For whatever reason Gordon and Evernham clicked and did great things together.

Gordon is a great driver. But I do not think he can be put in the same category as Earnhardt yet.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I started watching NASCAR back in the 50's and the big differents I see is it use to be 90% or better the driver and to day I would say it is about 15 to 20% driver.
Do you think Rex White could win today with a shop out of his home?
Fireball Roberts won with who ever he drove for, he could just flat win.
It use to take a bigh man to handle a car, now it does not. If you want to have some fun, look at the size of the past winners and how when we move forward to today how much smaller they are as a group in size. I'm not even sure Tiny Lun could get into todays cars.

 

[ccrobinson]

My point about Gordon's win total is that it is skewed by having an enormous technological advantage. In 1997, for example, Chevy won 11 races. Jeff Gordon won 10 of them. It's fairly obvious that he had a tech advantage. At the 97 Winston, Evernham took a car there called T-Rex and it totally dominated the field. It was so far ahead of its time that Nascar advised Evernham to not bring that car back to the track again.

Any driver could have won with the kind of cars that Gordon had in the late 90s. Any driver can win when they have a car that's far and away superior to everybody else. This is what makes Gordon's 2001 championship the more impressive feat because he did it with a car that didn't have a clear tech advantage. He also won it with a different crew chief. Anybody can win when they have a tech advantage. It's the guys who consistently win without a tech advantage that are more impressive to me.

What has also impressed me about Gordon is how he handled success. He didn't become arrogant and insufferable, at least not in public. His fellow drivers didn't think so either it seems. They were certainly envious of his success, but not to the point where they begrudged it of him because they thought he was a jerk. The only driver I can remember who clearly had a problem with Gordon's success was Rusty Wallace, but Rusty's a weasel anyway.

I think Evernham would be the first to tell you that he would hire Gordon at the drop of a hat if he could.

Which car owner wouldn't hire Gordon? I don't hear anybody saying that Gordon isn't a great driver. I dispute the notion that he's the best ever. You may want consensus among race fans, but you're never going to get it.

Fireball Roberts won with who ever he drove for, he could just flat win.

Fireball was my father's favorite driver until Fireball's death. After that, it was Cale. In fact, my father was such a fan of Cale that one of his children bears Cale's name.

look at the size of the past winners and how when we move forward to today how much smaller they are as a group

I take your point and agree with you about how drivers of old had to wrestle the cars around the track more than drivers today do. But, I'll point to Jimmy Spencer and wonder how he proves your point.