Racing purists decry "entertaining racing"

[ChicagocrewIRL]

http://pressdog.typepad.com/dogblog/2010/03/purists-decry-entertaining-opening-race.html

HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! Gotta love the PressDog.

[V12]

I love a bit of satirical humour so thumbs up despite being a member of the group being targetted here, I'm not one of those hypocrites that is fine with such humour until they are the butt of such jokes.

HOWEVER (and apologies for the lack of any humour here) I feel I need to clear some stuff up just in case there are a couple of people out there who believe that this article may be closer to the truth than it seems: It's not that we are "against entertaining racing" as such, rather against it being induced by artificial means - by which I mean push to pass buttons, reverse grids, mandatory "option" tyres (an oxymoron if ever there was one), so on.

It just irks me when people get sooo offended whenever there is a "boring race". The F1 season opener being a case in point, yes, whisper it, it was a bit dull. But the level of media outcry since that race is WAYYYY out of proportion with the level of "dullness", for want of a better word. Sometimes sporting events don't live up to their expectation and/or are a bit boring, IT HAPPENS.

And the flip side is, when you don't have any artificial gimmicks and you STILL get a great entertaining race, doesn't that make it so much better? You know you've witnessed something special, rather than something semi-scripted. But if every race is a paint-swapping, high-drama, overtaking-fest of a classic, then paradoxically none of them would be classics in comparison. The 1971 Italian GP would have been "just another slipstreamer", for example, but because that hardly ever happens in F1 the race will probably be talked about for all time. It would be like eating fillet steak (substitute your favourite food here) every day, you only really appreciate it when your normal diet is comprised from goods from the "value" section of the supermarket.

A more relevant example - anyone remember the "close-finish" IRL era of the early 00s? When the record for "closest ever finish" seemed to be broken pretty much every other race? Yes, the first time it happened I was on the edge of my seat, maybe the second time too. But the third, fourth, fifth, sixth (etc) times? "Meh....I know what's coming, no big deal". But Portland '97? OK maybe a biased example since the driver I was actively rooting for won, but that was REAL heart in the mouth stuff.

[POS_Maggott]

Reminds me of The Onion's review for last years "Star Trek" movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM

[Mark in Oshawa]

Close racing is one thing...but a good race has drama, and has a hero often, maybe a villian. I know this much. I don't the IRL to ever emulate f1. F1 I loved in the 70's and 80's....but around 1992 it started to bore the heck out of me.....

NO...entertaining racing means not every race is a nosing out of one car or the other at the line, but races with a story...people coming from behind...people outsmarting others...people hanging the car out...and that is why the foot to the floor 1.5 mile tracks often promote "close" racing that often after a day of it lack drama...

[call_me_andrew]

Reminds me of The Onion's review for last years "Star Trek" movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM

I was thinking that too.

[F1boat]

Great article. I love pressdog too. He has great sense of humour.

[Chris R]

Close racing is one thing...but a good race has drama, and has a hero often, maybe a villian. I know this much. I don't the IRL to ever emulate f1. F1 I loved in the 70's and 80's....but around 1992 it started to bore the heck out of me.....

NO...entertaining racing means not every race is a nosing out of one car or the other at the line, but races with a story...people coming from behind...people outsmarting others...people hanging the car out...and that is why the foot to the floor 1.5 mile tracks often promote "close" racing that often after a day of it lack drama...

Right on the mark - the excitement of racing is just as often the back story - it is one of the reasons the history of racing is fascinating. Somehow I doubt the story of the IRL in the 2000's will ever make as compelling of a read as the story of just about any previous decade of AOWR because the sport had become so lacking in personality..... perhaps I am wrong - if so someone please enlighten me!!

[ChicagocrewIRL]

As for me, I watch the races because I have great interest in the drivers and how they do. On track action is always a bonus but if a boring race comes along once in awhile it's ok. To me, the entertainment value is in how my favorite drivers and "villain" drivers do, and also just the pure spectacle of racing and the celebration of speed and the skill it takes to attain that speed.

The sole reason I am an IndyCar fan is my love for the Speedway, the 500, and the enduring legacy and traditions of that most special of all places.

[Lousada]

Mark Webber is evidently a Racing Purist:

"I think the balance of the last few years was right – you don't want an IRL race where they are passing each other 10 times a lap, you want a move that if it sticks it is very good and it is a quality move with a lot of respect between two drivers."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82311

[V12]

To be honest if you have exciting cars, interesting drivers, high speeds and courses that challenge drivers, overtaking isn't that important at all - otherwise why would anyone watch rallying?

Yes it's frustrating seeing a visibly quicker car bottled up behind a slower one, but two well-remembered F1 drives - Villeneuve at Jarama '81 and Senna at Monaco '92, have gone down in history precisely because they successfully fended off faster cars for a number of laps (in Villeneuve's case much longer)

I guess when you have a spec series, speeds pegged back in the interests of safety, and Danica Patrick, you're more reliant on spectacular non-stop action to keep people interested.