In an earlier post,
I touched on how frustrating it is to me that NASCAR - when it comes to
records - treats today's races and yesterday's races as though they are
all equals. When NASCAR changed the structure of the Winston Cup
Series in 1972, the schedule looked very similar to today's schedule.
Gone from the calendar were the Twin 125s at Daytona, changed to
non-points qualifying races, and 100-mile races with tiny fields at
short-tracks like Hickory, Columbia, and Asheville. In 1971, Bobby
Allison won five races in a row, officially. No doubt, the first four
were impressive - the World 600, a 500-miler at Dover, a 400-miler at
Michigan, and a 400-miler at Riverside - with forty car fields in each
race. These races, except Riverside, are all on the schedule today
just as they were in 1971.
On his way back from Riverside,
Allison stopped in Houston, where he beat thirteen other cars to win
the Space City 300. Now, after the schedule change the smallest field
in a Cup race was 22 cars. Yet, NASCAR puts Bobby Allison's Houston
win - a glorified exhibition - on the same level as a Daytona 500 or
World 600 victory. In the grand scheme of things, Allison deserves
credit for the win, obviously, but to compare Allison's 85 career Cup
wins with Jeff Gordon's 81 career Cup wins is ludicrous when the
old-timers got to run races that no current NASCAR driver has ever run,
doesn't it?
Another case-in-point involves Dale Earnhardt at
Daytona. The Intimidator won twelve Twin 125s, none of which count
toward his official total of 76 career Cup victories. Another legend
of the sport - Fireball Roberts - won three Twin 125s (although they
were 100-milers back in the day) - and those DO count toward his total
of 33 career wins. How is that fair?
The king of all NASCAR
records belongs, of course, to the King, Richard Petty, who won 200
races in his incredible career. However, the year before the schedule
changed, there were 48 official races, and while the King won 21, those
wins included several shorter events like his win at Hickory, which was
a 100-mile race that took less than ninety minutes to finish.
Inagine
if Babe Ruth had hit 1000 home runs, but those included games on tiny
fields against minor-league competition, and in - pick a random year -
say 1952, baseball decided that from that moment forward, those home
runs weren't counting any more going forward, but they WERE counted
going backward. How would anyone reasonable expect a player from
today's game, competing against only the best competition, to even
approach the Babe's record? That's the approach NASCAR actually takes
with their records, and I think it is time for them to be realistic
about what is a "Cup win" and what isn't.
In my previous post, I
had advocated NASCAR making a bigger distinction between NASCAR's
"good ol' days" and the modern era - making a cut-off in the
statistics, as of 1972. Doing so would create this wins list (here's
the top-ten):
Darrell Waltrip 84 Jeff Gordon 81 Dale Earnhardt 76 Cale Yarborough 69 Richard Petty 60 Bobby Allison 55 Rusty Wallace 55 David Pearson 45 Bill Elliott 44 Mark Martin 35
That
seems reasonable, right? It doesn't seem to short-change the legends
of NASCAR's past, as they are still solidly in the top-ten. It
accounts for the time when the racing conditions were the same -
thirty-odd races a year, bigger fields in EVERY race, the same guys
generally competing week after week. Seemed solid enough to me.
But
then I got to thinking about it. NASCAR didn't start running the
Daytona 500 in 1972 - it has been around since 1959, and it hasn't
really changed. The Southern 500 is even older than the Daytona 500,
and they have been running 500-lap races at Martinsville and Bristol
since well before they changed the schedule. Richard Petty's 1971
Daytona 500 win shouldn't "not count" just because it was before 1972.
In fact, making a cut-off at the beginning of NASCAR's "modern era" WAS
short-changing the legends of the sport.
Coming up:
Is the King still "the king"? How many wins SHOULD the King and other
legends of the sport have, exactly? Can we make an apples-to-apples
comparison going back to NASCAR's beginning? I'll give it a shot.
Also, can you perhaps tackle one thing in your next installment? I was just wondering about your take on the cars/engines they run back then, as regards to now. I mean, they got to run some badazz V12's and so on back in the day.
See - I don't think comparing championships is a problem. Each season started out with its own criteria and the championship winner is the one that did the best. Richard Petty won seven titles based on each of those seasons,, just like Dale Earnhardt. The Chase doesn't make a championship really any different that in any other season to me, even though I don't particularly like it.
OTOH, what defines a "race" has changed greatly over the years, so I think some distinctions need to be made.
JJD- your next blog sounds like a huge undertaking but if anyone can do it, you can! I agree whole heartedly with your assessment here. Race length and number of competitors has changed wildly over the years and should be taken into account when comparing. I do also agree with you comment back to Forensic about the championships. Championships may not be determined the same way across seasons but as long as they were consistent within the sesason, everyone played by the same rules, making the champ legit.
JJD,
The Chase HAS changed the value of a championship compared to ALL the championships before it was implemented. Last year is a perfect example. Jimmie won his second championship because he was the BEST POINTS COMPILER for the final 10 races. He didn't earn the most points for all 36 races. Therefore, I respectfully disagree that championship statistics accurately reflect true championship performance as they did when points from every race counted.
The Chase HAS changed the value of a championship compared to ALL the championships before it was implemented. Last year is a perfect example. Jimmie won his second championship because he was the BEST POINTS COMPILER for the final 10 races.
Here's the thing about that, though. All of the teams know what's it is going to take to win the championship. Who knows how Jimmie and Jeff would have raced if the entire season would have counted instead of the Chase. That's purely hypothetical. We DO know that in a couple of years the guys way out in front would tinker with set-ups and things knowing they were IN the Chase, possibly giving up some points along the way. That eliminates the "he got the most points so he should have won the title"-argument for me.
Ultimately, people can put less value on Chase championships, but that is a purely emotional decision.
JJD,
Well you are entitled to be wrong - lol. It would be hard to convince anyone who watched Jeff and Jimmie last year that they raced any differently for those 36 races because of the Chase format. Jeff was robbed of a championship by a plan designed only to stem the tide of defections from the NASCAR fan base. However, for me it did just the opposite. I used to never miss watching a race, now I'd rather play golf and just watch the highlights or read about the results. The record of 7 championships is a meaningless statistic to me now and I care only about career victories and winning percentage in terms of evaluating greatness. So you can take your self-righteous I am right and you are just being emotional and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. You are even more arrogant than I remembered.
good blog very interesting and for once i agree with hoosierracer13. it should be the points for all 36 races like back in the day (as jr. says) maybe someday nascar will listen to what the fans really want at least we can hope. have a good day.
It would be hard to convince anyone who watched Jeff and Jimmie last year that they raced any differently for those 36 races because of the Chase format.
Well, that's because one thing NASCAR did that helped that situation was the ten bonus points for each win. I know for a fact that in 2004 and 2005 as the 48 got closer to the Chase they were so far out in front that Chad Knaus goofed around a bit prepping for the Chase. We'll never know what would have happened in those seasons.
Richard Petty's seven championships game under five different point-systems. Are you saying THOSE are less valid than Dale Earnhardt's seven titles? Because that is what you're saying.
That's exactly what I am saying. Changes in how a champion is determined change the value of the championship. Richard Petty's 7 championships and all time leading 7 seconds in the championship are not comparable to today's championships. Petty arguably had far superior equipment and fewer teams could run the enitre season when sixty some races were being run. His 200 wins automatically make some neophyte fans think he was the best ever and he wasn't even the best or most talented racer of his era.
By the way, just for the record, I'll state again that Sr.'s win total and number of championships also came against weaker competition than exists today (plus a significant number of his wins were because he was quite willing to wreck cars he couldn't beat any other way).
Anyone who doesn't believe there are more driver/car combinations capable of winning on any given Sunday today than in any previous decade has their head buried in the sand. Nothing emotional about my positions, just based on an in-depth knowledge of the sport that I've gained in more than 40 years of following it. So hey Lori STFU - lol.
Last edited by HoosierRacer13 on March 14th at 12:47 PM.
OK - I agree with you on some points but not on others. Let me break down what I'm trying to say vis-a-vis comparing championships versus comparing race wins.
Other sports have under gone similar changes to NASCAR. Major League Baseball has expanded their membership (with repeated expansions) and with international players, the quality of the game. However, when you look at history, whether it is the '20s Yankees or the '50s Yankees or the Big Red Machine or whichever champions you want to pick, their championship is viewed as a legitimate title, just as today's are. I feel the same way about NASCAR - your points about depth-of-field and all that are legit - but the King won by the rules as they were, seven times. Jeff Gordon's won four titles, and while I feel comfortable debating that as a group they are more impressive accomplishments than those of the King or the Intimidator, THOSE guys hold THE record and Gordon still has a chance to reach it because the conditions are basically the same - one year, one champ.
However, for RACE WINS, today's racers are most definitely not on the same playing field. It would like if NASCAR had annually honored a dirt-racing champion and a pavement-racing champion for twenty years, treating them as separate titles, then changed to the one champ per year-format while counting all of those championships as "championships." You would have a hard time winning one title as it is, but trying to chase a record of drivers who could win multiple titles in a year would prove to make the mark harder than it should, like the King's 200
HR13 ~ your comments just further validate JJD's points, the wins should be put in some context.
I don't share your opinion, but surely someone with your self-professed intelligence can come up with a better response than something so juvenile as shut up.
Lori,
My bad, I forgot for a second you are a Tony fan and thus have no sense of humor. By the way STFU-lol means if was said tongue in cheek. Sorry it went so far over your head. :-)
JJD,
I am a Gordon fan BUT I'd feel the same about last year even if the biggest jerk in racing, Tony Stewart, had finished second to JJ after building such a huge lead through the first 26 races. The Chase has ruined the integrity of the Cup championship.
I am a Gordon fan BUT I'd feel the same about last year even if the biggest jerk in racing, Tony Stewart, had finished second to JJ after building such a huge lead through the first 26 races. The Chase has ruined the integrity of the Cup championship.
Again, that's just your opinion. I'm not saying it is invalid, and I'm not saying plenty of people share your opinion, but it's still just your opinion. There's one Cup champion per year, just like there is one Daytona 500 or Indy 500 champ per year, so measuring those accomplishments against each other (who won more) isn't as futile as comparing NASCAR's all-time wins list, just to be able to take it at face value.
I love this blog, and I like that you're trying to kind of make a distinction between the "good 'ol days" and the modern era. I can't wait until the next blog, I hope you make a list of the top-10 all time meaningful wins.
Lori,
Gosh my bad again. I keep forgetting the average adult in this country reads and comprehends at about a 7th grade level. So I'll try again. STFU means something different than STFU-lol. Now you can keep beating a dead horse but you are just re-inforcing my view that 20 fans have no sense of humor (and apparently the same intellectual deficiency that plagues him). Next question please.
Last edited by HoosierRacer13 on March 14th at 1:25 PM.
A lot of work here JJD... Very interesting. I like playing with the numbers and the what ifs when it comes to football and baseball. Keep up the good work. I'll keep reading! Thank you.
BTW HR3... I think Lori is right too... STFU comes through loud and clear. Then you add insults on top of that... Not too cool.
YeeMum,
Of course Lori's accusation that I had some kind of #### s. e. x. u. a. l. attraction to Jeff Gordon didn't cause you to be taken back at all. You guys are hilarious when you all group together to try to defend each other. Hilarious and pathetic. My comment was posted to be humorous but, as I said, I should know most 20 fans never take anything I write in a humorous way.
P.S. Just for the record, those small-minded humorless 20 fans should know I could not possibly care less what they think.
Last edited by HoosierRacer13 on March 14th at 1:58 PM.
Dwindy,
If I wanted your opinion I would have written you a Foxmail message and asked for it. It was a joke that she over-reacted to just like her boy Tony over reacts to everything.
Dwindy,
Sorry gramps but I do encourage opinions from others as you would know if you read any of my blogs. Yours I don't respect because you don't appear to know anything about my area of expertise which is racing. I don't comment on your blogs about baseball because I know so little about that sport even though I once coached high school baseball. BUT you are still missing the point. Lori and I have commented to each other many times before and I thought we were on a friendly enough basis to joke with each other. Lesson learned. No more attempts to be humorous with her even though I was reacting to her comment about me and Jeff which I assumed was also humorous in intent.
to begin with-
man-love or man-crush has never been a ####-s in my mind.
It us often used when refering to certain fans that really believe their fav QB or Driver or Pitcher, etc are the coolest.
You are digging quite a hole tossing your insults about. I know you really enjoy baiting Tony's fans but it has gotten very old.
Could you bash some other group once in a while just to clear the air?
I came to read a blog and found Middle School students. I feel that JJD is very capable of defending his view and doesn't need help. HR13 is blunt, so what? Blogs were intended for everyone to be able to express opinions and agree or disagree. If you dish it out, then be willing to receive it back.
JJD, this is a very interesting viewpoint and I hadn't thought about looking at the comparisons this way. I enjoyed the blog you wrote. So, will I also be curicified if I respectfully disagree with your opinion? I'm not saying I do disagree, I'm just wondering if it is allowed.
So, will I also be curicified if I respectfully disagree with your opinion? I'm not saying I do disagree, I'm just wondering if it is allowed.
Disagreement is ALWAYS allowed. I don't really recall crucifying anyone - HR13 were actually having a pretty civil discussion before fifth-grade broke out.
JJD, you have my utmost respect. Thank you for being such a good guy. I also like HR13. He has a sharp wit like Dave in Indy. Dave is a good guy too, as you know. Have a good day and enjoy the race this weekend. I'll miss it, but Gunny is going to tell me about it Monday.
BTW, I do agree with you. STICKS TONGUE OUT AT HR13. LOL
volfan,
You better not be mean to me. You know I'm a sharp-tongued (AND BLUNT) blogger and I'm sure I could write a hilarious blog about a lovable arsonist from Tennessee affectionately known as "The Torch" - lol.
JJ: never really had to many chances to catch your post but glad I stumbled upon this one great write and informative read i'll be adding you to my list of favs - I can remember when they drove cars you could buy from a showfloor and add a roll bar to them the sport has evolved into a sponsership endorsed monster I still love to watch the races but it misses the authentic feel it once had...JW
Last edited by JOKERSWILD on March 14th at 7:00 PM.
i actually liked the comparisons you did better the first time around. this is just a modern era list and the one driver who benefits the most from it is DW, because his career basically started at the beginning of the era, and ran full course though a long drawn out farewell. i feel the rest of the drivers that are on the list are either not finished yet(except for mark martin, stick a fork in 'em), finished prematurely, or have the beginning of their career negated because of when it happened. so what becomes the criteria for "real" race status? number of laps? number of participants? length of time it took to complete a race?
also, fitting for a place like bristol, is it fair to have one guy who has mastered a track, compared to a driver who can win anywhere. for instance DW again has almost 15% of his wins at bristol, or a guy like rusty wallace has or 12% of his wins at martinsville. these events only make up 5.5% of the entire schedule.
actually liked the comparisons you did better the first time around. this is just a modern era list and the one driver who benefits the most from it is DW, because his career basically started at the beginning of the era, and ran full course though a long drawn out farewell.
That was my point. The next post will FIX that list. I just didn't want to make one like 10,000-word post with a list on top of it, so I left the teaser at the end. :)
This comparison is just the same as comparing the days of old in NFL or MLB. Look at the equipment that Ruth had to play with compared to today. Were his bats custom made just for him as they are today, was his glove as good as todays, did he have the shoes they use today, was the ball the same, were the fields as well groomed, did he get to fly to the games or endure a grueling bus ride???? The point is you can not compare the past in any sport to today. It is ridiculous to try. Look at the equipment of todays nascar compared to the 50's,60's,70's,80's.... They played by the rules of the day and did what they did. To try to take away their records, no matter the conditions or changes in the sport is wrong. Compare how many of these little boys today could even drive one of those cars from "old days". THERE IS NO COMPARISON. To try to compare it is absurd. Could Gordon, Stewart, or Jr run with Pearson, Petty, or Cale in THEIR equipment??? Doubtful!!!!!!
its not like richard petty is going to take his old 72 dodge up against jimmie johnson's chevy of last year. look at the pit stops too. they used to take eternity compared to today. they raced against other cars and teams of the same era, just like the babe played against other teams with the same equipment he played with.
No you did not mention equipment. That is exactly why your theory is ludicrous. Look at today's points and wins. Should Bristol count as much as the Daytona 500 or the 600? It's only 250 miles so why score it as a win? Why not say a half of a win? What about the road courses today, the 400 mile races? You do know What thw H e l l who cares. This is ridiculous. Quit whining.
Well, I read the article and everything on this page from top to bottom. I have to say that I understood the Gordon man crush comment and the STFU lol. It appeared to me, at the time, that you both were just ribbing each other. Apparently there are underlying issues that I havn't read before. JMO.
Apparently my posting was too long winded and only some of it was posted. I deleted it and will have to reply to each subject. The chase, Record wins and Championships.
Great article JJ. This delicious subject has peaked my interest. Have you ever posed your theory to any of the NASCAR expert articles or postings? You know, like DW or Hammond or the other NASCAR reporters blogs? I'd be interested in hearing how they responded to your suggestions.
Last edited by Blake327 on March 16th at 11:23 PM.
Should Bristol count as much as the Daytona 500 or the 600? It's only 250 miles so why score it as a win? Why not say a half of a win? What about the road courses today, the 400 mile races?
You miss the point. Let me spell it out for you.
The race at Bristol has essentially been the same race since 1961. Of course it should count.
50-mile sprint races with tiny fields shouldn't count - in the SAME context as the Bristol race or the Daytona 500. I'm not saying they shouldn't count at ALL, but Jeff Gordon (or Jimmie Johnson, Tony Stewart, or your favorite driver) shouldn't be trying to reach some unattainable record inflated by races they won't ever get to run, including some they STILL run but DON'T count any more - i.e. the Gatorade Duels.
I don't think the changes in equipment in time are particularly relevant to the topic, because the guys ran they equipment they had at the time.
I'd rather the Nextel Cup champion be decided over the entire season, but I think if you are going to have a Chase for the Nextel Cup, you should break out the twelve guys and have them scored separately, so I'm tracking the points both ways.
I also strongly advocate a NCAA football playoff, so there will be some posts about that showing up here, although I have written this blog for over a year and haven't gone there yet.
I can be reached via e-mail or AIM at jayjaydean at gmail dot com.
