Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

Wow. You are severely underestimating Johnson.

It was Waltrip who acted that way and he as well as Rusty Wallace who said that he should not be running on dirt anymore because of the "risk" associated with it. I will never forget prior to the Daytona 500 his rookie year, Waltrip interviewed Larson and would not shut up about Austin Dillion. Dillion had won the pole for the 500 and was saying that Larson had a tall task if he wanted to win Rookie of the year because Austin Dillion was coming off of an Xfinity title blah blah blah. 

Nascar although may have tried to image itself to not looking down on anyone but in all reality going back to the Bill France Sr days they have always frowned on drivers running other series. Or when other drivers would come from other disciplines they would always be quick to point out if they were struggling. Its one of the reasons the old point system was the way it was, to insure that Bill's drivers ran all of the races and none for AAA (open wheel cars back then) and if they were to run against a "rival" stock car sanctioning body who was paying a higher purse to win vs a Nascar race, he would suspend them. 

In a way that philosophy did workout for them because around the late 80's-mid 2000's they were one of the most popular growing sports. They just let their ego get in the way and I think that philosophy has actually hurt them now. To me I think all motorsports need to somewhat band together a little bit from dirt tracks, short tracks, Nascar, Indycar, etc and help promote each other as much as possible. I think the race fans are still there, i just think they have gone to other forms of racing. One of my buddies goes to asphalt late model races all of the country and he use to be obsessed with Nascar, now he doesn't even know who's racing unless they ran the CARS or CRA or some other tour. You can go to more races, get a better experience, competition is better, drivers a approachable, and cost effective going to what Nascar would deem "lower" levels (which is B.S) vs going to 1 Nascar race.

Good stuff Nick.  I would also add to Nascar's demise besides their egos was the introduction of the COT version of the Cup car.  Not only did they try to get cute when their heads were too big, but they tried to make it cheaper for the owners to compete.  In doing so, they completely ruined the competitive racing by putting bulldozers on the track that couldn't close on a car or pass.  Terrible decisions made when you're on top of the world.  

Ok.  That may have been a little harsh.  Johnson was pretty damned good.  However, I stand by my observation that when comparing the talent level of Gordon and Johnson, Gordon wins that by a landslide.  Johnson may have been Mr. Smooth, but if Knaus didn't nail the car and the strategy, Johnson just settled for 5th thru 10th and pointed his way to the top.  When Evernham, Whitesell, or Loomis missed the setup or strategy, Gordon drove up and stole the win with the right side of the car missing.  (and sometimes, the bumper cover of Rusty's car missing)  He was able to take so many 10th place cars to victory as well as hold off cars with 4 fresh tires while only being on 2.  I liked Jeff in a 20 lap shootout from anywhere in the top 4-6 spots---much like Kyle.  He could just get up on the wheel and find another 5%.  We cannot compare Jimmie to Dale Sr. and Petty if we are trying to compare apples to apples.  Jimmie was not a 7-time champion the same way those guys were.  On that measuring stick, Gordon was the 7-time champion and Jimmie was a respectable 3-time champion.  Harvick also moves way up that board as well.  This new points system has found a way of screwing a lot of great drivers over when comparing to the "old guys" in Nascars past.  It also puts a lot of above-average drivers on a pedestal.  I.E. Joey Logano and so far, Chase Elliot.  (That may change for Chase, but he was the 3rd place car at best in 2020--not the champ)

JMO.  

i'm not far from your buddy.  we went to martinsville and i looked at that as my last nascar trip for a while.  cutting a pocono race was upsetting as a long time supporter and coming off having a great time at the doubleheader this year.  

i'm guilty of whining about williams grove.  we take for granted being able to go into the pits after the big races and get an autograph.  i can get up close and personal to get awesome photos.  nascar keeps you at arm's length and it's only gotten worse by taking away practice and qualifying.  after winning the sunday pocono race...kyle busch sent his wife and son out into the fans but took a different way to avoid everyone.  

larson had one of the greatest seasons ever and still always made an effort with the fans.  he hung around until the last person was in line to meet him.  they're lucky to have him as their champion for so many reasons.

Now I think you're really giving Evernham the short end of the stick. Its been proven time and time again in motorsports that you need a good chew chief/setup guy, just as much as you need a good driver. I dont think its fair to give Knaus so much credit for Johnson's success and then discount Evernham. I'm leaving Whitesell and Loomis out because, while good, I don't think they were on Evernham's level.

I've always thought that if Evernham didn't leave to go after the Dodge deal, that Gordon would have had the at least 2-3 more championships, but we'll never know.

Again for as many wins as he has, Johnson is usually underrated by most fans as a driver. I think a few things go into that. One, he was always humble and gave credit to his crew. Two, he didnt have a bombastic personality. In fact, many would call him boring. Three, his championships came in the Chase era. I don't really look at his seven championships, as much as his 83 wins. You don't get to 83 wins in the Cup Series by being a bum.

I say all of this as a guy who was never a fan of Hendrick Motorsports. 

Johnny, you are one of my favorite Hosers.  I love your posts.  I disagree with you though.  Gordon did win a title after Evernham left.  Evernham had almost zero success after leaving Gordon.  And, if you follow the earlier link that shows how many more titles Gordon would have won if the old system stayed in place, Gordon would have actually won more titles WITHOUT Evernham than he won with him.  My point is that Johnson/Knaus benefited from a new, ridiculous point's system.  The old way, the way that determined the measuring stick of 7 titles from Earnhardt and Petty, and has crowned most of the true champions in Nascar's history (save a few outliers like Kenseth and Kulwicki) was matched by Gordon.  JMO though.  Evernham was a genie.  Gordon was the x-factor on that 24 team.  

Its fine to disagree and the conversation is a fun one to have, but I've never liked those "Points Under the Old System" charts. You can take those with a gtain of salt. Its a good starting point, but it can never measure how differently people would have managed race strategy had they had the old system in place.

There's no way to tell when guys were experimenting once they locked into the chase. What about the guy who gambled on fuel mileage and the win because he wanted to gain the bonus points for the Chase? If the old system was in place maybe they'd have pitted and finished 7th instead of running out and finishing 24th. Who knows, there are so many variables. As I said, its a good starting point for discussion, but after that, opinions will vary.

I would also say, regarding Evernham and Gordon, its tougher to get a new two car team with a new manufacturer off the ground than it is for another crew chief to come into Hendrick's infrastructure that is already in place.

Very good points.  I want to make clear I believe Evernham was a huge part of Gordon's success---especially his development in a stock car.  All great crew chiefs are.  But I do feel strongly that Gordon was the bigger factor in that equation and in the Jimmie/Chad equation, Chad was the bigger factor.  Just from my observations though.  

I definately think that Gordon was better than Johnson. For me the top 3 Nascar drivers would be Petty, Earnhardt, Gordon even though Johnson matches the first two in championships. However due to the point system and the way that Johnson won, I still do not see him as a 7time champion. There were a few times that no matter how well they did the first 26races, they would not have won the title no matter what happened the last 10 in any format. The whole reset, the tracks being what they were (a lot more 1.5mile tracks then), and just the structure just waters down the accomplishment to me. Johnso was good/great, but not Petty, Earnhardt, Gordon great in my opinion. To me he is on the Waltrip, Yarborough level which is just below the very top level. Hall of Fame worthy. 

Gordon was definately at a different level along with the competition. Plus Hendrick was not the organization that it currently is back in the 90's. Gordon and Evernham built that. While you cannot really compare points systems completely together to say that Gordon would have potentially won 7 titles had the whole chase not happened, if you look at where everything was after the 26races going into the chase, it really is not out of the question. And if it did happen Nascar again missed out on a huge opportunitiy in Gordon's last year as I believe he either would have been going for #7 or even #8 with a legit chance of winning it. He was a generational talent and I cheered against him all the time but still was the greatest of his time. I think now that Larson has the equipment he has, he has the potential of being that level but will he have the titles to go with it? 

And yes the COT was completely stupid too. Supposed to save money and make it safer. Will it might have made it safer but it ended up costing everyone a ton of money in lost revenue and drove up cost with all of the changes.

Agree on your top-3.  Putting them in order for me is very tough.  I feel what Dale Sr. did was more impressive than Petty.  I feel what Gordon did was more impressive than Dale Sr.  Hard to really compare as eras change the competition so much.   Also, was Petty definitely better than Pearson?  Not so sure of that either as Pearson ran a lot of 50-60% seasons which makes his win totals very impressive.  Some argue that when Pearson was at the track, he was the guy to beat just as much as Petty.  

Johnson?  No doubt Hall of Famer.  Mt. Rushmore of Nascar talent?  No way.  Right now it's the 4 guys we've spoken about.  Petty, Gordon, Dale, and Pearson.  I don't know who could argue that one.   Tim Richmond may have gotten to that level someday, but his career was just too short.   Depending on how long Kyle wants to do this, he could boot someone off the mountain.  

Petty is the King.... Dale Sr was the intimidator.  Petty won 200 races and seven championship. Dale Sr won 76 races and seven championships.  I would rather be known as the Kind than the intimidator.  Petty had the better career by far!

The mt Rushmore in the history of nascar Petty has to be at the top and let the others there but below the King!!

Also petty won the Daytona 500 7 times Dale won it once.  Not even close if you ask me.

Let's go Sprint Car Racing!

Knoxville - Best Track In the USA!
Eldora - 2nd Best Track in the USA!

You can have that opinion.  200 wins is incredible.  Only one problem though when using that number-----------------Petty raced back when there were up to close to 70 races per year.  Dale Sr. and Gordon raced when there were 32-36 races per year.  Big difference.  You're comparing apples to oranges.  Also, Dale is the winningest driver in the history of Daytona.  The fact that it was the Daytona 500 doesn't make it any more difficult to win vs. the summer version.  Also, Petty got all of his 500 wins before they changed it to the restrictor plate garbage.  That is why I have a hard time just annointing Petty the greatest ever.  Too many differences between the eras for me to say it without any doubt.  To me, what Gordon did was more impressive than both............but that is just from my vantage point.  You are entitled to think different.  

Great conversations and points by all

200 is still 200 and 7 Daytona 500 wins is still 7.   76 wins is still 76 wins and 1 Daytona 500 win is still 1.  Petty is the King and until someone wins 200  and 7 Daytona 500's then we can say they're the best until then it is not even close!

Let's go Sprint Car Racing!

Knoxville - Best Track In the USA!
Eldora - 2nd Best Track in the USA!

It's impossible to legitimately say 1 was better than the other for the 3. While yes Dale did race against Richard for 12+ years, petty was well past his prime. Same with Gordon & Dale, and the cars each drove while having most of their success were much different than when the others came & started showing them up.

The numbers are all skewd too as while Petty did win & earn 200wins and it is impressive, it did come at a time when they ran a lot more races. Also, he did not race against all of the top competitors each race & the engine/mechanical side that he had was far more superior to anyone for about 4-5yrs. But he still did win the big races each year & 7 500s when it took more than luck to win.

Dale was just always different than anyone. He could make the car do things. He had the reputation for being a rough driver but really compared to some of today's drivers who flat out take people out, he was tame. 

Gordon would just out finesse everyone and was so calculated almost like a computer driving and it would tick you off because if it was late in a race it was more of a matter of when not if he was going to pass for the win.

I guess if I had to pick I would want a driver with a personality of Petty, ability like Earnhardt, and style of Gordon. 

You couldn't have watched Nascar in the 80's and nineties with a comment like these guys take one another out. Dale Earnhardt Sr was the master of taking people out.  He wrecked more drivers than I can count on about 10 hands.  When he got taken out he acted like a spoiled brat.  Just watch the replay.  When he took someone out he always sounded remorseful with a smile from ear to ear.  Please get your facts straight!

In today's racing it is not even close to how rough or taking out drivers as it was back then.  I hardly missed a race in the 80's and 90's.

Let's go Sprint Car Racing!

Knoxville - Best Track In the USA!
Eldora - 2nd Best Track in the USA!

I guess my view is 200 wins is 200 wins, but that is not even possible anymore because of the number of races being cut in half, every talented driver being at every race, and equipment being "equalized."  So, it's unfair to say no one can ever beat the King and base it on unattainable wins, and meaningless Daytona 500 wins.  (Yes--I said it.  The Daytona 500 is a joke--see Michael McDowell and Trevor Bayne)   Jeff Gordon had arguably the greatest season in modern Nascar history---some say the greatest ever in 1998 with 13 wins in only 33 races.  It would take someone 16 years in a row, of having arguably the greatest season in Nascar history to surpass Petty.  

I won't discount your opinion that Petty was the greatest ever.  You're entitled to that opinion, and I think Nick agrees with you.  However, comparing the 200 wins to the other driver's wins can kinda be thrown out the door since they didn't compete against each other in their primes, and didn't have the same competition and cars.  Earnhardt made the comment one time that because of how equal the cars were, and how competitve the series had gotten, what Gordon was doing was more impressive than what he, and drivers back in his day had done.  

Daytona?  Meh.  Once they slapped that restrictor plate in, and (an average at the time) Sterling Marlin, Ward Burton, then Trevor Bayne and Michael Dowell win it, the luster of winning that race in present day is gone.  When Petty won it, it was a "run what you brung and hope you brung enough" race.  And he consistently brought the best.  Dale ran a few of those, and also won a few times at Daytona--just not the 500.  I still can't figure out to this day why winning the 500 was so much bigger of an accomplishment than winning the 400, but for some reason that 500 is a phony measuring stick.  Both races were 43 guys, lining up according to time, and running laps at Daytona Speedway.....but, whatever.  I put zero weight on winning a race at Talledega or Daytona since the introduction of the restrictor plate.  If we are judging talent, let's compare the wins at Bristol, Martinsville, road courses, Darlington, and even cookie-cutters.   (yes---I am aware Petty was damned good at those tracks)

JMO once again  (I'm long winded this morning----damned daylight savings time has me up early again)

Egras, surely you know we are not on daylight savings time now and that if we didn't change the clocks this is the time we would be on year around.

I do.  I was referring to the change in clocks.  It makes no sense, but I cannot sleep right when we set the clocks ahead, or back.  Just screws with me.  In the fall, I am up way too early and feel like I have to stay up until it's bedtime.  In the spring, I feel like I am getting up at midnight!!

Watched plenty of racing in the 90's as that is what i grew up on and have watched plenty of replays from lap 1 to the end of 80's races thank you. My facts are straight but in thsi topic we are only speaking of opinion which all of us on here pretty much established long ago you do not know the difference in. Which is why I can't believe I am even wasting my time replying to someone like you because you are just that a waste of time. Good for you for not missing a races in both decades. Want a cookie? 

Never said Dale never took anyone out, or that he did not earn his reputation. Just seeing some of the spoiled brats today just body slam into people on the restarts, push someone through the corner and having the end of some races get turned into a demo glorified demo derby which is why I stopped watching it from start to finish a number of years ago. You even have the drivers from the 80's & 90's (Mark Martin, Jeff Burton, Waltrip's, Petty's, Skinner, Jarrett's, etc) talk about how there is no etiquette on the track now like there use to be when they drove and if you raced someone like a donkey was when you got dumped. So I will take the word of the drivers who actually raced and know what it was like since their credentials are a little better over someone on a forum who throws a fit everytime someone does not agree with him. Again, yes rough driver, yes he wrecked people, yes 200 is < 76, but 1959-1979 Nascar racing was different than 1980-2000 Nascar racing for many reasons. You can believe whatever you want to believe on who the better driver was of all time but I'm not really picking one over the other due to them racing in different eras. Believe what you want to believe and I'll do the same and move on