Wraith's revison of history

[garyshell]

As I suggested others to do, I wanted to take exception with some of Wraith's comments in the "What do I hate" thread, so I started this new one.

I wanted to start with the full text of his message, but the forums limit of 10000 characters prevented that if Iwanted to include my reply. So first here is his message. I'll include my reply in a followup message below.

[quote="Wraith"]2. I hate the glamorization of CART of the mid-1990s.

This might rankle a lot of people here, if not outright ***** them off or worse. I'm somewhat sorry...for causing any riling]

Reply to follow.

Gary

[garyshell]

And now MY reply...

I find it a bit odd that a 24 year old seems to have such a nostalgia for some of the races and drivers who predate him by so many years. Your understanding of the goings on then is very much influenced by the REPORTING of those things. You are at the mercy of others interpretations. As am I for anything predating around 1961, when I was a ten year old kid.

So lets' leave that aside for the moment. I want to focus on a few key points in your dissertation.

Let's start with the most glaring: "Note how Nigel Mansell won in his rookie season in CART, when he wasn't very strong on the ovals..."

Lets look for a moment at his results that year on ovals, shall we.

Phoenix... Not listed as a participant.
Indy... 3rd place
Milwaukee... 1st place
Michigan... 1st Place
New Hampshire...1st place
Nazareth... 1st place

Yep ol' Nige was not very strong on the ovals that year. This distortion of the facts calls the rest of your dissertation into question.

Your bit about the safety factor makes the hair on the back of my neck stand straight up. I wonder what Jackie Stewart might want to say to you in that sort of conversation.

I also just loved the bit about "modern (liberal) shills". What, as opposed to modern reactionary shills who want to see folks back in unsafe races and race cars?

Then we have: "The glamorization of the late years of CART still racing at Indianapolis is a situation that rankles me, enrages me" Well, your glamorization of dead race car drivers enrages me. They didn't die for your edification or enjoyment, trust me.

"After all, how many would've wanted to try to run both Monte Carlo and Indianapolis both...? " Hmmm, it was a grand idea for a lot of guys in the 50's and 60's. You remember the 50's and 60's don't you. Oh, wait, no you don't...

"Yeah, they still ran at Michigan. But did it matter as much as in the old days? Wins at ovals, again, were token, and truly seen as more quaintly provincial, when you look at team and organizational attitudes toward them, than as a viable form of the sport that went all the way back to the board track days of the 1910s and 1920s national championship." Tell us about that "organizational attitude" and how Michigan didn't matter as you implied. And please tell us more about those board track days you remember so well.

"EVERYTHING seemed to be going to hell, back then...and I was younger than 10 at the time!" Oh, please spare us. How much does an under ten year old kid know about things going to hell. At that point you cared about the sights and sounds and nothing else. Anything else you MIGHT have cared about then was because dad or mom seemed worried about it. Don't even pretend that you had that sort of insight as a nine year old. None of us are buying it.

"We had "stupid boring" racing at places like Belle Isle (thanks a pantload, TG, for that one added back on), drivers with names I for one (a young up-and-coming fan) couldn't even pronounce without some French or Portuguese concordance," Yeah in 1993 we had names like: Tracy, Gordon, Rahal, Unser (two of them), Brayton, Vasser, Till, Groff, Ribbs, Greco, Goodyear, Andretti, Sullivan and Wood. And all those pesky foreigners like Luyendyke, Mansell, Fabi, Boesell, Johannson and Fittipaldi. Yep, no one had any idea who those guys were.

"Everyone who wants to call out Tony George for having "a tantrum" needs to take a long hard look at what American open-wheel had become by the mid-1990s, and ask themselves what stake Americans really had in it anymore, other than The Great 500. Maybe the teams were mostly American...but the talent, the guys the fans root for that they can EMPATHIZE WITH...had been replaced. And with it, the basis for what made AOW so...bloody...AWESOME...for 60+ preceding years." Ahhh, yes, now we get to the REAL heart of the matter. Another apologist for "...king George" and his tantrum he threw when the series refused to give him a seat on the board and control of the series that he wanted then and now. We've seen this so many times from folks who want to create their own bit of revisionist history to glorify "...king George" and his shenanigans.

As we are about to embrace this idea of a merger, don't think for a minute we are doing so as a gesture of forgiveness to the crap that your almighty "...king George" has foisted upon us all. And don't think for a minute that the rest of us will forget the history that some of us saw laid out before us first hand. Nice try Wraith. Despite our desire for fence mendin', we ain't buyin'...

Gary

[clydekart]

You are right about Mansell and winning all those ovals in 93. He won more ovals than road or street courses. I think he hurt is back in a preseason practice at phoenix. That is when I didn't mind open wheeled cars on ovals, but after Greg Moore and Zanardi among others, I question the safety of OW cars on ovals.

[McLovin]

http://www.trackforum.com/forums/images/smileys3/kk_smiley.gif Here's living proof KK was always a closest IRL fan. :D

[pvtjoker]

http://www.trackforum.com/forums/images/smileys3/kk_smiley.gif Here's living proof KK was always a closest IRL fan. :D


Oh thats outstanding! Post of the day!

[the bro]

A few more points about Mansell. As I recall in Phoenix he had a bad crash in practice, which put a hole in the wall. Due to the fact he was unconcious for a period of time he was deemed ineligible to compete, despite the fact he got the doctor at the hospital to write a note declaring him fit to race.

At the Michigan race which he won, he was outqualified by his teamate, Mario Andretti, by 1 tenth of a second. That speed (234.275mph) stood as the Close Course World Speed Record for several years! You can say what you want about Mansell, but on the track he was a charger. He came to CART driving ovals like he had driven them all his life.

I may be paraphrasing, but it seems like this guys main beef is that the CART of the 90's had too few American drivers.

"Maybe the teams were mostly American...but the talent, the guys the fans root for that they can EMPATHIZE WITH...had been replaced"

Let me state that as a Canadian my opinion may differ on this matter!

Does anyone get their nose out of joint about all the non Americans playing in Major League Baseball or the NBA?

In any sport I want to see the best athletes compete, bar none!

Imagine if in 1995 TG had come up with a program to help American Drivers develop and find sponsorhsip to get in to Indy type racing. Does anyone remember the Players developement program of the 90's. The program provided sponsorship, coaching and mentoring in all levels of racing. They brought drivers up from the very lowest ranks of racing right into CART. It was no coincidence the number of Canadian drivers that made it into CART racing in the 90's.

Imagine if a similar program had been put in place in 1995, instead of the split, where open wheel racing would be today.

Paul

[Miatanut]

The all ovals all the time contingent is alive and well!

If the "split" (two competing racing series) should ever be over, the split will still be alive and well among the fan base.

For me, late '90's CART was the best the sport ever got. On the other hand, while Indy was my first exposure to American open wheel, I've always been partial to road racing. For the oval folks, it's easy to see the high point of CART as the low point of American open wheel.

I'm just sad they can't enjoy road racing or NASCAR. Particularly since open wheelers are no longer viable on most ovals, unless somebody takes a LOT of grip away from them. If somebody did that, and did it with a mixed schedule, maybe there would be stuff for both us several decades road racing fans, and the open wheel oval fans.

Let's hope.

[Miatanut]

Does anyone remember the Players developement program of the 90's. The program provided sponsorship, coaching and mentoring in all levels of racing. They brought drivers up from the very lowest ranks of racing right into CART. It was no coincidence the number of Canadian drivers that made it into CART racing in the 90's.

Yup! It was older than just the '90's, though. It went back at least to the early '80's. Always rooted for the Players drivers (well, except for PT, who always annoyed me). Still root for Tag out of nostalgia.

That was a great program, and I was very sad to see it go. No doubt I got a bit misty-eyed at the Vancouver race the year they had a kind of wake for the Players program.

[indycool]

Well back into the CART days of the '80s, road racing fans and oval racing fans argued about what they wanted in the PPG Cup Series. I would expect, if some kind of melding between today's two series happens, they'll go back to argue that issue again and that will be all over the boards.

SSDDecade

[Chaparral66]

I always liked the mix of road/streetcourses and ovals. I loved to see a race at Road America, and enjoyed just as much a race at Michigan. If what IC suggests might happen comes true, at least we will be talking about racing instead of politics.

[Phoenixent]

You are right about Mansell and winning all those ovals in 93. He won more ovals than road or street courses. I think he hurt is back in a preseason practice at phoenix. That is when I didn't mind open wheeled cars on ovals, but after Greg Moore and Zanardi among others, I question the safety of OW cars on ovals.

I believe Mansell was hurt on Saturday before the race injuring his back in a big crash. His Lola went backwards into the wall injuring his back and putting a hole in the wall. I would say that open wheel cars are dangerous on any track they drive on just like flying a jet fighter in the sky. All you need is for several things to go wrong at one time.

[fan-veteran]

Actually Mansell hurt very severely his back in an accident in 1987 during practise for Japanese GP.

[Wraith]

And now MY reply...
As you wish...we'll have it out then, hopefully in complete civility; here's hoping the thread doesn't get closed.


I find it a bit odd that a 24 year old seems to have such a nostalgia for some of the races and drivers who predate him by so many years. Your understanding of the goings on then is very much influenced by the REPORTING of those things. You are at the mercy of others interpretations. As am I for anything predating around 1961, when I was a ten year old kid.

Part of me is not comfortable with what I am about to write. Possibly going into such detail, shortly, on my own life calls into question just how much of either myself or anyone at all in general I would be or am willing to bring into open discussion on a public forum. Likewise, part of me wonders whether this is even worth it, whether anyone on here (you obviously most prominent, but perhaps others as well, who knows) will think it more than semantic BS]"revising history."[/I]

I would stake my existence on my bedrock beliefs regarding motorsports. No hestitation. That reality makes it worth it.

I was first introduced to the Indianapolis 500-Mile Race when I was three years old, listening to Paul Page on the network in 1987; my recollection of those events is admittedly extremely hazy, and only with the rebroadcast this last year did any of the moments, brief though they were, come back to crystal clarity. Mario slowing down ("...and THIS might be the QUESTION ANSWERED...!") was one of them. Al Unser crossing the line ("And history is matched...") was another.

But in any case... By 1989, I had been introduced to the SEVEN DAYS of practice (...), followed by quals in 1990 (unbroken since). Early that same May, the night before the track opened for practice, WISH-TV News 8 (CBS affiliate Indianapolis) prepared a brief, 30 minute long rehash of the 1989 race, mostly the conclusion). I was as fully mesmerized then as the day much of the family got back from watching it in person. The next day (opening), my father went to the track and bought a videotape for me entitled The History of the Indianapolis 500 (which has since been, I THINK, renamed...for anyone caring on identification, it had/has a picture of the second and third rows coming across the line for the start of 1985).

Those events, especially the viewing of its live call of the final lap of 1982 quite simply changed my life. Whereas before I had been a kid that liked the fast "zoomzoom" [/Mazda commercial] of the supertech machines they ran at The Track, I quickly became a very young zealot for the history of the event. Quickly getting my hands on my father's programs going back to 1965, I started reading; and reading; and reading; all the while, rewatching that videotape, watching any recorded coverage I could of everything having to do with Indy (especially snippits of the Race For Heroes material also produced in 1990)...and focusing more and more on the History section at the back of the programs. The game I played with myself was by no means unique...I was one of the schoolkids who took pride in being able to remember all the winners...

Only that wasn't enough, and herein is the point of this entire section of reply. I am by no means anything like Donald Davidson, but anything he wrote about in those programs I tried to memorize (50/50 in the final summation, sorry to say...other aspects of growing up annoyingly got in the way...), and then learn more still about the events in question. Trying (successfully) to memorize different race calls, the 1982 example extending the full final eight laps, hopefully gives the idea.

I lived Indy history; that soon led to cannibalizing tens of pages...and then hundreds, and then...of history on motorsports in general, and open-wheel racing in particular. I fully remember being confused, as an 11-year old, when I realized that both A.J. Foyt and Rick Mears were identified as winning the 1979 national championship (took me about four years to fully figure that one out, as regarded the politics of the day), and I remember being fascinated by Jim Clark's obsession choosing Indy over Monte Carlo year after year. The further it went on, the further back it went...and has continued to this day. Yes, the material is seen through the eyes of others, every time; but of late, much of it is by those who are reporting, live, via the old newspapers at the state library and elsewhere; with the rise of Youtube, I try to insure my take on races/events past 1955 (the Vukovich crash coverage really starts it) is influenced most by what I see...the footage of the events, crashes or otherwise...then by what I read of the materials of the day, and only third, the rehashes of the events years or decades after.

Coming to full circle, now...

Why do I have such nostalgia? Because I've seen the raw statistics on what kind of a world those men (inevitably, back then) raced in, and noted how horrifying (sadly enough) it would likely be to the modern viewer/fan. 'Likely', because if I exist, what are the odds that I'm the only one that would prefer drivers who face the prospect of meeting death, while doing what they love, with at least stoic calmness, if not a laugh, or even more supposedly disturbing emotions. Some might call me a barbarian, this way; if I am, then the great Brock Yates (Against Death and Time, a work which has strongly influenced my racing worldview in this area) is at least half one, which puts me in good company. I LOVE watching guys run at breakneck speeds, knowing life is indeed on the line. For about a year now, I've considered trying to form a music video on YouTube, with highlights of legendary motorsports footage (both the Glories AND the Tragedies), put to Bonnie Tyler's song, Holding Out for a Hero. Where HAVE all the good men gone? Where ARE the (demi)gods?? Watch 'em there.

I am nostalgic for the feeling of the days when testing out a new idea meant putting yourself at risk, on the track itself, from it, either physically, or just financially, based on a concept that can only be proven by performance, not by running 10,000 miles of testing at a private location. I am nostalgic for a world that was more accepting of the idea of personal risk, injury, and death. If you don't believe me on that latter part, look at the graphic imagery that newspapers used to show, of, say, Dillinger's body after the FBI gunned him down. These days, they wouldn't print those, with fewer people able to stomach them. I am nostalgic for people accepting that faster and faster and faster meant more and more and more dangerous...and then did it anyway.

And, just as a concluding statement, on this point: I was once a NASCAR fan...before the days of the modern huckstering, etc....back in the days of EARNHARDT. As a fan who -has- gone through such an experience, of breaking down for several hours after A Certain Event, I still hold to my belief, all the more, that drivers (like him) are the greater, or greatest, when they're willing to die doing what they love.

Would that we in other walks of life could be so fortunate.

End of Section 1; continued below.

[Wraith]

So lets' leave that aside for the moment. I want to focus on a few key points in your dissertation.

Let's start with the most glaring: "Note how Nigel Mansell won in his rookie season in CART, when he wasn't very strong on the ovals..."

Lets look for a moment at his results that year on ovals, shall we.

Phoenix... Not listed as a participant.
Indy... 3rd place
Milwaukee... 1st place
Michigan... 1st Place
New Hampshire...1st place
Nazareth... 1st place

Yep ol' Nige was not very strong on the ovals that year. This distortion of the facts calls the rest of your dissertation into question.

From the moment he crashed in practice at Phoenix, I wondered about 'ol Nige on ovals. Getting outfoxed by Fittipaldi and Luyendyk on the lap 185 restart cemented my opinion. It underwent a brief moment of question during his run halfway through the ovals (all whoppin' six of 'em), but by New Hampshire and Nazareth, I had come to realize something: that was one HELL of a car Newman/Haas gave him. Put Mario or Michael in it (yes, I include open-admitted whiny Michael), and I submit it would've won by even, if not much, larger margins. Unless my memory's faulty, Mansell himself DID win (barring car failure) by said wider distances on the road and street courses, i.e. the F1 style. I am not arguing that he was pathetic on them (obviously far from)...but I will openly proclaim that he was weaker than on the alternative style...even with him winning. Far weaker, even. If you don't agree, fine: you don't agree.


Your bit about the safety factor makes the hair on the back of my neck stand straight up. I wonder what Jackie Stewart might want to say to you in that sort of conversation.

He would probably tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about (see above for further elaboration on what-talking-about), and that I don't know what it's like to watch drivers I know and respect die all but right in front of my eyes...

...to which I might respond that I once forced myself to watch, through one night, eight consecutive hours of footage of the most violent and deadly accidents in open-wheel racing history, several of them more than 20 times in detail, trying to hammer out of myself the question of whether or not I could take it, and whether or not I could stomach the dark side of the sport I adore. Toward the end of it (that time, anyway...have done similar, for shorter amounts of time, since), while focusing on incidents that I will only tersely describe, lest it become ghoulishly morbid, as 'involving fire'...please note the present tense at the end of that last sentence: I will always love motor racing]"Children's games played by adults."[/I]


I also just loved the bit about "modern (liberal) shills". What, as opposed to modern reactionary shills who want to see folks back in unsafe races and race cars?

Then we have: "The glamorization of the late years of CART still racing at Indianapolis is a situation that rankles me, enrages me" Well, your glamorization of dead race car drivers enrages me. They didn't die for your edification or enjoyment, trust me.

No, as opposed to people who want to keep the cars from pushing the absolute limits, all the time, and want to solidify the kind of capabilities they have. Track records might be fun to watch, but more important is what they represent. Higher safety should allow the cars to equalize it back out to the level of danger racing has historically represented: improve the breed. Always improve the breed. If higher speeds make them more dangerous, then make them more safe to match, not slow them down to the same speed every three years. In this, it is Tony George that rankles me]willing[/I] to die for it; each and every one who has perished, in any era, deserves the same reverence, in my book (Tony Renna/Bill Vukovich/Frank Lockhart=same). That you could accuse me of gaining enjoyment from their specific deaths...pushes me towards levels of fury that I hardly knew existed. I will not, however, exhibit such here.


"After all, how many would've wanted to try to run both Monte Carlo and Indianapolis both...? " Hmmm, it was a grand idea for a lot of guys in the 50's and 60's. You remember the 50's and 60's don't you. Oh, wait, no you don't...
Apologies for the bad grammar on the double "both." I don't always catch that stuff.

Explain to me how you could run both events in what amounts to the same day, in the modern era. Own a personal Concorde? Maybe the math is possible, but what driver would be able to undertake the attempt? Yes, McLaren won Indy in 1974 and '76, but they had Rutherford driving, as USAC-ranks-climbing as they come. Once upon a time, they were on different weekends...and indeed, that was a glorious thing. As for the 1950s, only Alberto Ascari ever brought over a challenging entry in the 12-cylinder Ferrari of 1952. At a time when The 500 was a World Championship race, only Ascari came]End of Section 2; continued below.[/I]

EDIT: In my comments on "pushing the limits, all the time," my current outlook on what they should be focusing on would be extremely high speeds at much better gas mileage, so as to work on the current energy crisis. Testing with machines that use alternative forms of fuel (look up William Lear's "Vapordyne" concept, circa 1969) should be emphasized via increased (or unlimited) testing allowances for the teams so doing...rather than one form that is currently being fiercely debated by scientists as whether it is truly a superior alternative to gasoline dependency. This is only one example of the civic duty motor racing once exercised that it has, in my opinion, gotten away from.

[Wraith]

"Yeah, they still ran at Michigan. But did it matter as much as in the old days? Wins at ovals, again, were token, and truly seen as more quaintly provincial, when you look at team and organizational attitudes toward them, than as a viable form of the sport that went all the way back to the board track days of the 1910s and 1920s national championship." Tell us about that "organizational attitude" and how Michigan didn't matter as you implied. And please tell us more about those board track days you remember so well.

Organizational attitude: that road and street courses should be increased, and ovals fazed out. That pretty much sums it up. The proof is in what they actually did...for what races of the day were actually broadcast for someone like me, back then, to watch, the vast majority were roads and streets. I remember looking forward to Phoenix before The Race, then Milwaukee and Michigan as races to see outside of it; if New Hampshire and Nazareth were broadcast to see (we didn't have cable), I couldn't watch them. In any case, they, the ovals, were the tracks with the kind of racing I enjoyed...("side-by-side," I thought at the time, little suspecting how petty that could come to seem when Certain Organizations later tried to allow for nothing else at all, other than side-by-side). For this, the satisfaction I had as a youth being predominantly oval and very little road or street, I not only do not apologize, but am proud of; I was raised on it.

That R/S's have grown on me (provided that they are tracks with a racing line that can support more than a single car) for the diversity challenge they pose to any real driver, is something I take as a maturing process in my motorsports worldview...even while still savoring every moment of oval action. As I said at the end of that post, a 50/50 balance is my ideal. 51/49 in favor of R/S's begins to irk me. Ovals are just as challenging in their own ways as the alternative, despite this being a CART board, I frankly don't care if others try to shout me down; it remains true, period.

As for my comment on Michigan, I meant it was still there, but were races like it being newly introduced to balance out the R/S's? California, eventually. Okay. Anything else for superspeedways? No, I guess... How about any new short tracks, then? A little...I think. I confess, here, to having a foggy memory on this, my single nod to the accusation that my then-age meant that I had to be clueless about automobile racing in the broad term; I don't recall much of any ovals at all being added to the pre-1996 CART schedule, only more examples of...etc.

And, just to be sure, I have come to have considerable interest in road racing, since...and maybe I would've liked it more if I'd been able to watch it more than was becoming the more in the last two unified years...but I doubt it. Teaching myself to think of them as something other than "corkscrew tracks" in the late 90s took at least a drop of effort.

Please state the degree of detail you desire for the board track racing articles you've called for.


"EVERYTHING seemed to be going to hell, back then...and I was younger than 10 at the time!" Oh, please spare us. How much does an under ten year old kid know about things going to hell. At that point you cared about the sights and sounds and nothing else. Anything else you MIGHT have cared about then was because dad or mom seemed worried about it. Don't even pretend that you had that sort of insight as a nine year old. None of us are buying it.

Earlier in my first section, I mentioned some of the manner in which I had grown up. By 1995, half my life had been filled with motorsports. In that period, I had seen the coverage of the racing that I was able to watch shift so vastly to road and street courses that I shamefully admit to falling asleep sometimes watching them on television. In earlier years, where one (or at least I) would think that my attention span would've been less, I never did so]Whatever, Looking For The Fun Stuff[/I].

As a "nine-year old" (1993, just after they'd cut part of the groove out of The Track, which after all these years I find dubious, at best)...I found it in the old footage of the racing history videos, where it seemed all the neck-and-neck action was. And, as a pressionable youth? I got angry.


"We had "stupid boring" racing at places like Belle Isle (thanks a pantload, TG, for that one added back on), drivers with names I for one (a young up-and-coming fan) couldn't even pronounce without some French or Portuguese concordance," Yeah in 1993 we had names like: Tracy, Gordon, Rahal, Unser (two of them), Brayton, Vasser, Till, Groff, Ribbs, Greco, Goodyear, Andretti, Sullivan and Wood. And all those pesky foreigners like Luyendyke, Mansell, Fabi, Boesell, Johannson and Fittipaldi. Yep, no one had any idea who those guys were.

The way I knew them, "as a youth." Deride if you want, it will remain a truthful account of my thoughts, back then:

Tracy: "He crashes a heck of a lot, and he's a Penske."
Gordon: "He crashed in practice just before A.J. retired while sitting in car that had the ability to sit on the pole, and then left for Walker."
Rahal: 1986. Him I knew very well...and then imfamously, after he trashed the 500.
The Unsers: Unser family, self-explanatory. Only Jr. (the Junior I still think of) remained by 1994.
Brayton: The Amway car, then the Menard car. Pole 1995, after not having a regular ride. This way of thinking about him changed, very painfully, in 1996. The Scott Brayton Award is one of the most noble things the Speedway's ever created.
Vasser: One of the new guys. After the split, thought of him as the one who crashed with an excellent car in '95, and then the winner of The Other 500, in a backup car, after taking out their front row before the start. Someone better for the ride, possible]Till:[/B] Who?
Groff: Midpacker, right? Revealing how little I paid attention to CART/CCWS after the split, until hearing about Juan Montoya. Someone better for the ride, likely possible.
Ribbs: Political story. Give me racing. Someone better for whatever ride he had DID exist: he lost my respect after that time that John Andretti, never much of a super-dominant driver himself, immediately increased the speed of the Indy entry Ribbs had been practicing in by 2 mph.
Greco: Midpacker. Better choice, again possible.
Goodyear: Knew him very well. Another of those without a regular seat in '95, the Race That Two Men Won. Guess he didn't have the connections to buy a ride.
Andretti's: Andretti family, self-explanatory. I liked Mario and Michael as the nostalgic pic, upon learning the Andretti history at Indy, and because I liked chargers. Revised my approval, the first week of May 1996.
Sullivan: Most overrated driver in modern history. Seriously, Jack Arute also mentions the subject of "in over his head." And this, about a 500 winner.
Wood: This one I've apparently somehow lost, in the conflagration. I don't even know who this is.
"Luyendyke": I hope the misspell was unintended, given the meanings of the latter side of that word. Feel good story of 1990. Always rooted for him after that. He was another of those humorous "on the front row without a series-contract" guys, 1995.
Mansell: F1. Pure and simple.
Fabi: Pole sitter, '83. Hasn't done much after that, until a brief renaissance of sorts in '95. The split, to my permanent regret, cheated viewers out of seeing if there could've been a comeback with Indy still involved. If this, and not Sullivan, had been the driver of #5 in '85 (i.e., if Fabi hadn't gone back to F1), the winning margin could've been by half a lap.
Boesell: Close in '93. Lost respect for his letting the Penske supercars muscle him back on the '94 start...but then, those WERE the torqe-from-hell cars.
Johannson: One of the "foreigners" I had a problem with. I didn't think, and don't think, he was as talented as some of those up-and-coming Americans who either never made it in, went to NASCAR, or never got the shot at all. Might've partly bought his ride; never found out.
Fittipaldi: Christian, not as talented in my eyes, at the time of the split, as some American potentials. His later success and proven development of talent doesn't dampen my view on this, based on what I saw and felt as it was happening (yes, in the years before reaching teens...discussed it constantly with other family members, especially my father, as a complete aside here): Stewart arrived at Indy only one year later. Gordon had (now famously) chosen NASCAR over trying to continue in OW. If you're talking about Emmo, he was a World Champion back in the 1970s, hardly an unproven driver coming in and taking those seats...and would soon retire, at that, due to Michigan.

[Wraith]

Next post, Section 4, I'll have to give some deep thought on. Just how many directions do I attack George from, when I, as stated, do not hate him? To be sure...I am less than enamored with a LOT of things he has done. But go too far, and IRLians could attack...much as garyshell has...on the opposite front.

Which thus means I should attack on ALL fronts, potential burned bridges be damned.

EDIT:

...and maybe I would've liked it more if I'd been able to watch it more than was becoming the more in the last two unified years...but I doubt it.

Didn't catch this sentence in the process of being reworked.

"Maybe I would've liked it more, if I'd been able to WATCH it more, in the last two unified years...but I doubt it."

[Wraith]

...and maybe I would've liked it more if I'd been able to watch it more than was becoming the more in the last two unified years...but I doubt it.

Didn't catch this sentence in the process of being reworked.

"Maybe I would've liked it more, if I'd been able to WATCH it more, in the last two unified years...but I doubt it."

[Miatanut]

Lots of stuff there, and only one small part of it I would like to respond to.

In the bad old days, we didn't have all this TV coverage. We found out about most of the races in the newspaper or in auto mags. On Sunday evening, or Monday morning, for me anyway, the #1 question wasn't "Who won?". That was a long ways down from #1, which was "Is everybody OK?" It was a sport I loved, but was at the same time sickened by. After the debacle known as Indy '73, I sat out '74 & '75 because I just didn't have the stomach for it.

After the improvements Stewart pushed for, I began to notice the disparity in death rates between ovals and road courses. It makes perfect sense. If you are going faster, there is more energy to dissipate and more chance of damage to the driver. That helped move me away from ovals to road/street races. After Tony's flippant attitude toward Jovy Marcelo's death, that was the end of Indy and any superspeedway oval for me (as well as anything to do with Tony).

You can watch the crashes all you want. It's not the same thing as losing driver after driver that you loved to watch and constantly questioning why you even follow this sport. It has an effect on you, and your preferences in venue.

[garyshell]

Sorry guys, I just don't have the stomach for this argument anymore even though I was the one who started it. I just lost a young friend who I have known for the past few years, to a horrific car crash. He and his folks have been key players in the car show I help put on each year. I am just devastated.

Gary

[Chaparral66]

Condolences, Gary.

[pvtjoker]

Sorry guys, I just don't have the stomach for this argument anymore even though I was the one who started it. I just lost a young friend who I have known for the past few years, to a horrific car crash. He and his folks have been key players in the car show I help put on each year. I am just devastated.

Gary


Gary, my most sincere condolences. Life puts things into perspective. This "CC v. IRL thing" is trivial at the end of the day.

[Wraith]

About ready to put up my "dissertation" on the things Tony George has helped save, and the still larger amount of things that he's pushed further in the direction of NAS foolishness...

But here, I have to wonder about a very simple question. Should I even try?

Quite possibly the concensus would be no, especially with how long my explanation attempts tend toward being. That, however, leads to a deeper...philosophical...sort of question: is this situation an example of the outlooks between a (I'll assume) lifer CART fan, and a likewise-IRL, being completely incompatible...?

garyshell accused/accuses me of revising history; that psychologically implies, either knowingly lying outright, or ostrich-image avoidance of larger views of things. My replies thus far, intended to present one thing above all else: I wouldn't say it unless I meant every word. I understand the ovals-are-more-dangerous-and-should-be-abolished mentality; and vehemently disagree on fundamental principle of what I value in racing. That said, I tell myself that he (garyshell) has to feel the exact same way; he loves what he loves about the sport, and believes I'm dead wrong on given things (maybe Everything, period) with just as much honesty. He deserves the respect due an honest speaker.

But is it, in the end, pointless? I didn't like CART in the mid-1990s. I would say hated, but it would indeed be too strong. I watched Indy, all the same...but as time went on, felt less connection to anything else in "premier open-wheel"...NAS I respected (crosses self, despite not being Catholic) as an interesting form of racing...until they started cheating, to stack the deck against Gordon (which is a completely different discussion), and then, loosely mentioned in the Hate Thread, making such crap official policy.

But CART? It was "champaigne and caviar," when my preferred tastes were, as mentioned, quite different. I didn't want to see American open-wheel racing take steps DOWN into being "F1, Jr." And I never will. Ever.

But does it matter? Doesn't seem like it: I'm a King George Apologist by definition, right? After all, I love the world of racing open-wheel on ovals, and was very angry they were being fazed out. I can rationalize his actions, that if he had to make a bid for absolute power in order to keep them in balance with the R/S's, then I was in support.

And maybe that's the real root of it all: seeing his act, or at least something like it, as a necessary evil.

"Shut up, whiner." Yeah yeah, whatever. The George-critique to hopefully follow inside a day or two.

[Wraith]

"Shut up, whiner." Yeah yeah, whatever.

I apologize for the somewhat uncalled for testiness: no one directly said such.

[SarahFan]

Well back into the CART days of the '80s, road racing fans and oval racing fans argued about what they wanted in the PPG Cup Series. I would expect, if some kind of melding between today's two series happens, they'll go back to argue that issue again and that will be all over the boards.

SSDDecade

exactly why a two divsion six race super series scenerio would be awesome...



oh...and anyone who discounts Nigel's performance on Ovals is clueless....that boy simply drove the wheels off that car all year long...

I know there is a video floating around of Nig and PT at NH....someone should post....and someone...ercaughW...should watch it

[gofastandwynn]

I know there is a video floating around of Nig and PT at NH....someone should post....and someone...ercaughW...should watch it

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mm4Z-PuhPuk

[jimispeed]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mm4Z-PuhPuk

After watching this, do we really need the IRL??

I think not!

[gofastandwynn]

After watching this, do we really need the IRL??

I think not!

No, you are right. All you need to do know is get the De Lorean up to eighty-eight miles per hour to activate Flux Capacitor and you should be right at home...

[heelntoe]

No, you are right. All you need to do know is get the De Lorean up to eighty-eight miles per hour to activate Flux Capacitor and you should be right at home...

:) ROLMFAO...Nearly lost my tea on that one!

[jimispeed]

No, you are right. All you need to do know is get the De Lorean up to eighty-eight miles per hour to activate Flux Capacitor and you should be right at home...

Ok, what's so great about the IRL then(besides Indy), that Champcar needs?

If there isn't a merger, then are you going to enjoy this Champcar season, or will you just hang out here to badger them??

I hope for a great outcome from all of this (whatever "this" is), but if there is no change for this season then Champcar is still the series to watch IMO, so I plan to attend the races and support!!

[SoCalPVguy]

sorry duplicate post, apologies.

[SoCalPVguy]

Ok, what's so great about the IRL then(besides Indy), that Champcar needs?

Thanks for the "gimme", jimi, duh... It's all about the Indy 500.

Besides that, there's the TV contract, sponsors, drivers, owners, wel just about everything that CCWS doesn't have...

Have you ever heard to the theory that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts ? (The Beatles for example) That is what a combined AOWR series will be.

Now, click your heels twice and chant there's no place like home(stead).