The 33 Greatest

[Chris R]

Ok, so the 33 Greatest Drivers website is open. They are giving you 100 drivers to choose from. They left off 10 winners and have the likes of Danica Patrick, Marco Andretti,Tony Stewart, Robby Gordon, and Janet Guthrie on there... Now, at least Tony and Robby are great drivers and Janet made history - but Danica and Marco - - you gotta be kidding me....... So far I have only come up with a field of 30 from their 100 list......

[DavePI2]

I can see janet and maybe robbie, certainly none of the others that you mentioned. Danica and Marco have no place at all in this.

[SarahFan]

What could have been something intriguing is really just silly

[Chris R]

I think there is still plenty of meat/intrigue - it just takes a huge credibility hit by putting Danica, Marco, and a couple of NASCAR stars on the list while leaving off 10 winners (even if most don't know who those winners are...). Gordon and Stewart just don't belong there plain period - they never did enough at the Indy 500 to justify anything.... Danica and Marco had a good run or two but there is nothing in the entire career to justify being on this list and it will be a true mis-carriage of justice if either makes the final 33... I will add, both MAY, ONE DAY, deserve to be on the list - but NOT YET.....

[mike15]

There should be a list of the 33 worst drivers to be in the 500. Dunno would be at the top.

[gm99]

Here's how I voted:

1) Rick Mears
2) Vukovich
3) Mario Andretti
4) Foyt
5) Al Unser
6) Castroneves
7) Bobby Unser
8) Emerson Fittipaldi
9) Meyer
10) Graham Hill
11) Franchitti
12) Rutherford
13) Al Unser Jr.
14) Rose
15) Clark
16) Montoya
17) Jacques Villeneuve
18) Luyendyk
19) Donohue
20) Ruttman
21) Johncock
22) Rahal
23) Parnelli Jones
24) Parsons
25) Rathman
26) De Ferran
27) Sullivan
28) Ward
29) Hornish Jr.
30) Dixon
31) Tom Sneva
32) Tracy
33) Lloyd Ruby

[chuck34]

Here's how I voted:

1) Rick Mears
2) Vukovich
3) Mario Andretti
4) Foyt
5) Al Unser
6) Castroneves
7) Bobby Unser
8) Emerson Fittipaldi
9) Meyer
10) Graham Hill
11) Franchitti
12) Rutherford
13) Al Unser Jr.
14) Rose
15) Clark
16) Montoya
17) Jacques Villeneuve
18) Luyendyk
19) Donohue
20) Ruttman
21) Johncock
22) Rahal
23) Parnelli Jones
24) Parsons
25) Rathman
26) De Ferran
27) Sullivan
28) Ward
29) Hornish Jr.
30) Dixon
31) Tom Sneva
32) Tracy
33) Lloyd Ruby

Not sure I would have placed Castorneves quite so high, and I would probably bump up Meyer and Rose a bit. But honestly I can't really argue with your list much.

[SarahFan]

While I love PT and root for him everytime he takes the grid.....

What qualifies Him to make your list? Just curios?

He has no wins no laps led no front row starts and failed to qualify twice

[gm99]

@SarahFan:

Mainly, I put Tracy in the list because of his performance in 2002, when he really should have won the race (and maybe even did win the race, in fact). And I have tons of sympathy for the guy ;)
I have to admit though that I wasn't aware PT never led a lap at the Brickyard.

I just realized I left out Wilbur Shaw on my list, he probably would have been a more deserving choice.

[SarahFan]

I love the guy.... If it's my all time AOWR list he's on the sharp end..

But there are couple posters on another board who were on the panel and they stated without question the criteria was strictly performance in the indy500..

Based on that pt doesn't make the final 33....

[chuck34]

@SarahFan:

Mainly, I put Tracy in the list because of his performance in 2002, when he really should have won the race (and maybe even did win the race, in fact). And I have tons of sympathy for the guy ;)
I have to admit though that I wasn't aware PT never led a lap at the Brickyard.

I just realized I left out Wilbur Shaw on my list, he probably would have been a more deserving choice.

Missed that too. And I skipped where you had Tracy. If this is a list of Indy greats, PT doesn't really belong. Put Shaw in place of PT and move him up to somewhere around 12-15. But heck it's all subjective. That is after you put Rick Mears 1st, there is no argument against that! :D

[uncommonsense52]

He has no wins

:dozey:

[DanicaFan]

I had..

Danica Patrick
Helio Castroneves
Tony Kanaan
Scott Dixon
Michael Andretti
Dario Franchitti
Al Unser Jr
AJ Foyt
Mario Andretti
Johnny Rutherford
Rick Mears
Marco Andretti
Arie Luyendyk
Al Unser
Sam Hornish Jr.
Tom Sneva
Bobby Rahal
Danny Sullivan
Dan Wheldon
Paul Tracy
Emerson Fittipaldi
Bobby Unser
Gil De Ferran
Scott Goodyear
Gordon Johncock
Juan Pablo Montoya
Danny Ongais
Eddie Cheever Jr
Buddy Lazier
Tony Stewart
Nigel Mansell
Jim Clark
Roberto Guerrero

[chuck34]

I had..

Danica Patrick
Helio Castroneves
Tony Kanaan
Scott Dixon
Michael Andretti
Dario Franchitti
Al Unser Jr
AJ Foyt
Mario Andretti
Johnny Rutherford
Rick Mears
Marco Andretti
Arie Luyendyk
Al Unser
Sam Hornish Jr.
Tom Sneva
Bobby Rahal
Danny Sullivan
Dan Wheldon
Paul Tracy
Emerson Fittipaldi
Bobby Unser
Gil De Ferran
Scott Goodyear
Gordon Johncock
Juan Pablo Montoya
Danny Ongais
Eddie Cheever Jr
Buddy Lazier
Tony Stewart
Nigel Mansell
Jim Clark
Roberto Guerrero

I hope you didn't have them in that order, did you? If so it looks like you started watching racing about 2 years ago, put all those peole down, and then just randomly filled out the other 25 or so spots.

[Chris R]

1. A.J. Foyt (if 4 wins doesn’t convince you, than leading after the restart in a car he just fixed himself should̷)
2. Rick Mears
3. Al Unser Sr.
4. Wilbur Shaw (darn near won 5 in a row!!)
5. Louis Meyer
6. Bobby Unser
7. Johnny Rutherford
8. Mauri Rose
9. Helio Castroneves
10. Bill Vukovich
11. Gordon Johncock
12. Tommy Milton
13. Rodger Ward
14. Emerson Fittapaldi
15. Al Unser Jr.
16. Ray Harroun (the guy did it alone and invented the rear view mirror in the process!!)
17. Mario Andretti
18. Ralph DePalma (the guy tried to PUSH his car to the win in 1912!)
19. Arie Luyendyk
20. Dario Franchitti
21. Parnelli Jones
22. Jim Clark
23. Jules Goux (ok, so not a poster child for no drinking and driving – he drank champagne on his pit stops!!)
24. Juan Pablo Montoya (he came, he saw, he conquered)
25. Frank Lockhart
26. Tom Sneva (first to 200)
27. Peter DePaolo (first to win at over 100 mph)
28. Danny Sullivan (spin and win was a singularly spectacular event)
29. Michael Andretti
30. Rex Mays
31. Ted Horn
32. Duke Nalon (one word – “Novi&#8221 ;)
33. Gary Bettenhausen

[SarahFan]

Care to share with the class why you put a racer who hasn't won, led started on the front row and failed to qualify 25% he entered above 33 racers who actually took the checkered?

Not to mention the other 8 non winners...


I had..

Danica Patrick
Helio Castroneves
Tony Kanaan
Scott Dixon
Michael Andretti
Dario Franchitti
Al Unser Jr
AJ Foyt
Mario Andretti
Johnny Rutherford
Rick Mears
Marco Andretti
Arie Luyendyk
Al Unser
Sam Hornish Jr.
Tom Sneva
Bobby Rahal
Danny Sullivan
Dan Wheldon
Paul Tracy
Emerson Fittipaldi
Bobby Unser
Gil De Ferran
Scott Goodyear
Gordon Johncock
Juan Pablo Montoya
Danny Ongais
Eddie Cheever Jr
Buddy Lazier
Tony Stewart
Nigel Mansell
Jim Clark
Roberto Guerrero

[chuck34]

Here's my list. Finally broke down and did it. The system they have stinks. Anyway, I didn't put a ton of thought into it, so some guys could move around a bit. I know I left more guys off than I wanted to (they didn't have Louis Chevrolet?). And some guys aren't as high as maybe they should be because it was evaluated on Indy only. But I think everyone on this list deserves to be there.

1. Rick Mears
2. Al Unser
3. A.J. Foyt
4. Mario Andretti
5. Parnelli Jones
6. Mauri Rose
7. Jim Hurtubise
8. Bill Vukovich
9. Louis Meyer
10. Wilbur Shaw (probably too low, I don't know)
11. Bobby Unser
12. Lloyd Ruby
13. Al Unser Jr.
14. Jim Rathmann
15. Sam Hanks
16. Mark Donohue
17. Arie Luyendyk
18. Gordon Johncock
19. Tom Sneva
20. Peter DePaolo
21. Eddie Sachs
22. Rodger Ward
23. Dan Gurney (really put him on here more for his designs/ownership than anything violating my own rules I know)
24. Bill Cummings
25. Ralph DePalma
26. Troy Ruttman
27. Pat Flaherty
28. Graham Hill
29. Scott Dixon
30. Tony Bettenhausen
31. Harry Hartz
32. Juan Pablo Montoya
33. Janet Guthrie (I know, she's not that great a driver. But man it took guts for her to just be there. Were women even allowed in the pits yet?)

Ok that's my list. Probably not the best I could come up with if I really put a lot of thought into it. And it's probably biased a bit too much to guys from the 50's and 60's, but for some reason I just feel those guys "had it". Whatever that means. :D

[chuck34]

Care to share with the class why you put a racer who hasn't won, led started on the front row and failed to qualify 25% he entered above 33 racers who actually took the checkered?

Not to mention the other 8 non winners...

To follow on to your post and mine a bit. I was sort of half joking earlier. But the more I look at his list the more I think I'm right ... He really just started watching racing. Sure he's got AJ and Mario on the list. But any "Joe Sixpack" on the street knows those guys. Who else is on his list from more than 20 years ago? Jim Clark. I'm willing to bet the only reason he picked Clark was because he heard that Clark is Dario's all time hero. Seriously.

Scott Goodyear, but no Parnelli Jones?
Paul Tracy, but no Mauri Rose?
Roberto Guerrero, but no Wilbur Shaw?
Michael Andretti, but no Louis Meyer?

This guy doesn't need any more of our scorn and ridicule(sp?). He is in serious need of some history, background information, hell a trip to the museum. I'll pay. DF, do you have a free weekend? We'll go see some cars at the museum, take a ride around in the bus, and learn something about why we have so little respect for you and your all Danica all the time ways.

[SarahFan]

My problem isn't the history or the all Danica all the time ridiculousness...

It's that this Is a discussion forum and he is t here to discuss..... Look no further than my questions posed .... It was clear and respectful .... Yet he chose to ignore it and post a pic of Danica on another instead

We don't all always agree .... Heck some of us rarely do...

But that's the point ..... If your going to post then hide behind pics of sexual
Fantasies than you should be banned imo

[Rollo]

1. A.J. Foyt (if 4 wins doesn’t convince you, than leading after the restart in a car he just fixed himself should…)

AJ Foyt won 4 Indy 500s a Daytona 500, and a Le Mans 24 Hour Race. I'm sorry but that pretty well much makes him the best American driver of all time, let alone merely the greatest driver in Indy.

Jim Clark's win in 1965 changed the look of cars at Indianapolis forever. It was was the first win for a rear-engined car at the Indianapolis 500, and no front-engine car ever won the race subsequently. That however says more for the genius of Colin Chapman rather than Clark as a driver though. If it was a list of builders and constructors, Roger Penske, Colin Chapman and Parnelli Jones would be up there.

This then I think is my list:

1. AJ Foyt
2. Al Unser, Sr.
3. Rick Mears - This is Penske's work rather than Mears
4. Frank Lockhart - "The Speed Kid Demon" - killed while going for the land speed record
5. Bill Vukovich - terrible terrible story
6. Wilbur Shaw
7. Mauri Rose
8. Tommy Milton - I so hard core, I only need one eye!
9. Rodger Ward
10. Louis Meyer
11. Bobby Unser
12. Billy Arnold - Almost total domination in 1930
13. René Thomas
14. Gordon Johncock
15. Emerson Fittipaldi
16. Johnny Rutherford
17. Al Unser, Jr
18. Arie Luyendyk
19. Hélio Castroneves
20. Sam Hanks - I think I can, I think I can... done it! I'm going home now.
21. Dario Resta
22. Parnelli Jones - A 10c fail-safe bearing cost him another win
23. Graham Hill - drove in an incorrectly weighted car, spun twice and still won.
24. Mario Andretti
25. Bobby Rahal
26. Jim Clark
27. George Souders
28. Gaston Chevrolet - look ma, no tyre changes!
29. Ray Keech
30. Eddie Cheever
31. Danny Sullivan
32. Jacques Villeneuve
33. Gil de Ferran

[chuck34]

AJ Foyt won 4 Indy 500s a Daytona 500, and a Le Mans 24 Hour Race. I'm sorry but that pretty well much makes him the best American driver of all time, let alone merely the greatest driver in Indy.

Greatest all time, yes for sure. But greatest at Indy??? I don't know.

Rick Mears does it for me. 15 starts, 4 wins (26.6%), 6 poles (40%), 1 2nd (6.66%), and 4 3rd (26.6%), only 1 time outside the top 10 so that's 93.333% top 10s. Come on, only 1 finish outside the top 10! No one can touch that (at least not with 10+ starts).

A.J. Foyt. 35 starts (very impressive to be sure and it does tend to mess with the percentages), 4 wins (11%), 4 poles (11%), 2 2nd (5.7%), 3 3rd (8.6%), and 17 top 10 (48.5%).

All very impressive by both, but there was never a time when you could count Rick out of a race. With AJ, there were years where you knew he wouldn't win.


Jim Clark's win in 1965 changed the look of cars at Indianapolis forever. It was was the first win for a rear-engined car at the Indianapolis 500, and no front-engine car ever won the race subsequently. That however says more for the genius of Colin Chapman rather than Clark as a driver though. If it was a list of builders and constructors, Roger Penske, Colin Chapman and Parnelli Jones would be up there.

Don't forget to add Gurney to that list. His designs were quite influential. We have a Gurney flap afterall, who else has a part/device named after them?


3. Rick Mears - This is Penske's work rather than Mears

How many other guys drove for Penske, but didn't have the same results? How many more wins would he have had had he kept driving? 1994 is basically a given.

But overall I like your list.

[SarahFan]

1. Mears

[Chris R]

Mears vs. Foyt is a pretty interesting question. No question, Mears record is better at Indy. However, Foyt really overstayed his expiration date by 10+ years (thus really skewing his averages) while Mears left close to his prime.... How many people could have even qualified at Foyt's age and physical condition toward the end?? Foyt was much more of an Indy institution which I think counts for something. Mears was with the best team for all but his first race. Foyt ran his own team for most of his races and rarely was his team the best... Foyt won twice in a car over which he had significant input as to its design, building, and preparation. Overall, there can be little doubt Mears had the stronger record and was likely the superior driver at Indy (mostly because he was more focused on being a DRIVER) - but when you factor in everything else in, I think it gives Foyt the overall edge because he threw his heart and soul (and wallet) into Indy like few others - he was more than a driver....

[chuck34]

Mears vs. Foyt is a pretty interesting question. No question, Mears record is better at Indy. However, Foyt really overstayed his expiration date by 10+ years (thus really skewing his averages) while Mears left close to his prime.... How many people could have even qualified at Foyt's age and physical condition toward the end?? Foyt was much more of an Indy institution which I think counts for something. Mears was with the best team for all but his first race. Foyt ran his own team for most of his races and rarely was his team the best... Foyt won twice in a car over which he had significant input as to its design, building, and preparation. Overall, there can be little doubt Mears had the stronger record and was likely the superior driver at Indy (mostly because he was more focused on being a DRIVER) - but when you factor in everything else in, I think it gives Foyt the overall edge because he threw his heart and soul (and wallet) into Indy like few others - he was more than a driver....

Chris, I don't want to disagree with you too hard because you do make excellent points. But I do want to quibble with your point about Foyt having "significant input to the design, building, and preparation" over his cars. Do you not think that Mears was simmilarly involved? Afterall all but 1 of his wins came in a Penske chassis. Other than his first win in '79, I'm willing to bet he had significant input in the design building and preparation of those cars.

[chuck34]

Greatest all time, yes for sure. But greatest at Indy??? I don't know.

Rick Mears does it for me. 15 starts, 4 wins (26.6%), 6 poles (40%), 1 2nd (6.66%), and 4 3rd (26.6%), only 1 time outside the top 10 so that's 93.333% top 10s. Come on, only 1 finish outside the top 10! No one can touch that (at least not with 10+ starts).

A.J. Foyt. 35 starts (very impressive to be sure and it does tend to mess with the percentages), 4 wins (11%), 4 poles (11%), 2 2nd (5.7%), 3 3rd (8.6%), and 17 top 10 (48.5%).

All very impressive by both, but there was never a time when you could count Rick out of a race. With AJ, there were years where you knew he wouldn't win.



Don't forget to add Gurney to that list. His designs were quite influential. We have a Gurney flap afterall, who else has a part/device named after them?



How many other guys drove for Penske, but didn't have the same results? How many more wins would he have had had he kept driving? 1994 is basically a given.

But overall I like your list.

I need to ammend my stats a bit. Somehow when I was looking at 3rds and top 10's I mixed up the start and finish colums in the list I was looking at. So he "only" had 2 3rds (13.3%), and his top 10's weren't nearly as good 9 top 10's (60%). I still doubt there are too many that can touch that stat. But that does make his qualifying look that much more impressive to me now.

[Chris R]

Chris, I don't want to disagree with you too hard because you do make excellent points. But I do want to quibble with your point about Foyt having "significant input to the design, building, and preparation" over his cars. Do you not think that Mears was simmilarly involved? Afterall all but 1 of his wins came in a Penske chassis. Other than his first win in '79, I'm willing to bet he had significant input in the design building and preparation of those cars.

I don't know for sure about Mears - he might have had significant development input - but I doubt he had the conceptual input Foyt would have had as the owner of the team and the guy writing the checks... That and Penske has always been smart enough to let the right people do their (specific) work - AJ seems a bit more thickheaded that way and I am pretty sure he would be hands on from start to finish whether to good or bad results.... notice his team did well in the IRL during the era where "seat of the pants" engineering was more important but as soon as it got kicked up a notch his team started to fall backwards.... That being said - I am hard pressed to argue the point too much because I really don't know for sure and you make some really good points too!! :) I don't think anyone can take too much exception to calling either one of these guys the best ever at Indy (and I think you might be able to throw in a couple of others as well).....

[chuck34]

I don't know for sure about Mears - he might have had significant development input - but I doubt he had the conceptual input Foyt would have had as the owner of the team and the guy writing the checks... That and Penske has always been smart enough to let the right people do their (specific) work - AJ seems a bit more thickheaded that way and I am pretty sure he would be hands on from start to finish whether to good or bad results.... notice his team did well in the IRL during the era where "seat of the pants" engineering was more important but as soon as it got kicked up a notch his team started to fall backwards.... That being said - I am hard pressed to argue the point too much because I really don't know for sure and you make some really good points too!! :) I don't think anyone can take too much exception to calling either one of these guys the best ever at Indy (and I think you might be able to throw in a couple of others as well).....

Honestly, I don't know too much about the specific relationship between Penske, Mears, and the design team. I'm going off the fact that Mears was clearly the lead driver at Penske in the 80's. As such he must have had a big influence on how the cars were designed. The engineers designing the cars would have taken loads of input from him on how the current car was working and how it could be improved in the next car. I could be wrong I suppose, but I can't imagine the engineers ignored Mears in this time period.

But you are right, Foyt probably had complete control over his cars. If he didn't, he would have beaten someone with a hammer until he did. :)

You are also right, there are plenty of other guys that could be in this discussion.

[Chris R]

But you are right, Foyt probably had complete control over his cars. If he didn't, he would have beaten someone with a hammer until he did. :)



too funny!!

[markabilly]

AJ Foyt won 4 Indy 500s a Daytona 500, and a Le Mans 24 Hour Race. I'm sorry but that pretty well much makes him the best American driver of all time, let alone merely the greatest driver in Indy.

Jim Clark's win in 1965 changed the look of cars at Indianapolis forever. It was was the first win for a rear-engined car at the Indianapolis 500, and no front-engine car ever won the race subsequently. That however says more for the genius of Colin Chapman rather than Clark as a driver though. If it was a list of builders and constructors, Roger Penske, Colin Chapman and Parnelli Jones would be up there.

This then I think is my list:

1. AJ Foyt
2. Al Unser, Sr.
3. Rick Mears - This is Penske's work rather than Mears
4. Frank Lockhart - "The Speed Kid Demon" - killed while going for the land speed record
5. Bill Vukovich - terrible terrible story
6. Wilbur Shaw
7. Mauri Rose
8. Tommy Milton - I so hard core, I only need one eye!
9. Rodger Ward
10. Louis Meyer
11. Bobby Unser
12. Billy Arnold - Almost total domination in 1930
13. René Thomas
14. Gordon Johncock
15. Emerson Fittipaldi
16. Johnny Rutherford
17. Al Unser, Jr
18. Arie Luyendyk
19. Hélio Castroneves
20. Sam Hanks - I think I can, I think I can... done it! I'm going home now.
21. Dario Resta
22. Parnelli Jones - A 10c fail-safe bearing cost him another win
23. Graham Hill - drove in an incorrectly weighted car, spun twice and still won.
24. Mario Andretti
25. Bobby Rahal
26. Jim Clark
27. George Souders
28. Gaston Chevrolet - look ma, no tyre changes!
29. Ray Keech
30. Eddie Cheever
31. Danny Sullivan
32. Jacques Villeneuve
33. Gil de Ferran


either AJ or Mario for all time best overall, but if we are limiting it to Indy only, then poor mario never did all that well in the races.....and while mears may have well done better, in terms of public image, Foyt stand out above all the rest as to Indy

if we are going to start including non-winners, then Dan Gurney (the man who drug Colin Chapman and Clark to the Indy and bult the Eagles) belongs there above some others who may have won the race


I thoght it was Clark who spun twice and still won a second Indy (except for how the scorers screwed up the scoring) , not graham hill, who I would not include on the list

[Chris R]

the results are out - i didn't notice danica on the list so all is well!!

[Chris R]

I have some photos of the new cars I'll try to post tomorrow..... I just tried to do it now but the files need to be "shrunk"....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I didn't bother with the website, but I will give this a go and they are in no particular order although the top 10 are pretty close to everyone elses:

AJ Foyt
2. Al Unser, Sr.
3. Rick Mears - Best oval driver in the modern era
4. Bobby Unser
5. Wilbur Shaw
6. Bill Holland
7. Mauri Rose
8. Bill Vukovich
9. Rodger Ward
10. Louis Meyer
11. Frank Lockhart
12. Ralph De Palma
13. Juan Pablo Montoya. He came as a rookie, won..and didn't bother coming back...but one wonders...
14. Gordon Johncock
15. Emerson Fittipaldi
16. Johnny Rutherford
17. Al Unser, Jr
18. Arie Luyendyk
19. Hélio Castroneves
20. Sam Hanks
21. Dario Resta
22. Parnelli Jones - Won in a roadster, should have won with the Turbine...
23. Jim Clark - the first foreign driver in the 60's invasion that had the Indy elite floored with his ability and calmness.
24. Mario Andretti
25. Bobby Rahal
26. Graham Hill
27. Tommy Milton
28. Gaston Chevrolet
29. Ray Harroun (the man won it first, and did it using his head)
30. Mark Donahue
31. Danny Sullivan
32. Jacques Villeneuve
33. Gil de Ferran

[anthonyvop]

AJ Foyt won 4 Indy 500s a Daytona 500, and a Le Mans 24 Hour Race. I'm sorry but that pretty well much makes him the best American driver of all time, let alone merely the greatest driver in Indy.

You can argue he was the best at Indy(I rank Mears higher). Mario won the Formula 1 World Driving Championship. That trumps anything A.J. has done.

As for Indy my top five is

1. Rick Mears
2. Al Unser
3. Emerson Fittipaldi (Didn't start racing there until he was 38. 2 wins pretty damn impressive.)
4. A.J. Foyt
5. Tom Sneva

[chuck34]

That trumps anything A.J. has done.

What about that nice Sunday drive through France?

[harvick#1]

You can argue he was the best at Indy(I rank Mears higher). Mario won the Formula 1 World Driving Championship. That trumps anything A.J. has done.


yeah,,, ok. many drivers of todays age would rank a overall win in the 24 Hours of Lemans in about the same feat with a F1 Championship. what AJ has done would almost be never accomplished by any driver again, while every year, there is a F1 World Champion. its also showed AJ was an "all-around" driver. winning in Indy, Sports cars, and Stock cars.

[Chris R]

Not to take anything away from Mario, because he was a darn impressive driver, but his F1 championship was in the car that was vastly superior that year to any other.

I think the superiority of that car is a little overstated - he won many (most??) of his races that year in the old car that was only semi-ground effects... Also, Mario was instrumental in making that car and team what it was that year - so I think it is very fair to give him a ton of credit for that championship (it is not like he had Mansell's car from 1993)...

However, I disagree with Anthony's assertion that the F1 championship trump ANYTHING Foyt ever did - it is a big deal but that pretty much says that Alan Jones or Keke Rosberg, or Damon Hill did more than Foyt too.... I think comparing the two is very fair and believing Mario was better is a very valid belief - but to say his world championship in and of itself make him better than Foyt is a little overkill.....

[anthonyvop]

What about that nice Sunday drive through France?

An impressive victory but Gurney outperformed Foyt and drove the vast majority of the hours.

[anthonyvop]

However, I disagree with Anthony's assertion that the F1 championship trump ANYTHING Foyt ever did - it is a big deal but that pretty much says that Alan Jones or Keke Rosberg, or Damon Hill did more than Foyt too.... I think comparing the two is very fair and believing Mario was better is a very valid belief - but to say his world championship in and of itself make him better than Foyt is a little overkill.....

Remember when Mario won the WDC the grid consisted of names like Lauda, Hunt, Scheckter, Peterson, Reutemann, Villeneuve and Lafitte among others. Pretty damn impressive. Combine that with Indy 500 and Daytona 500 wins and you have to rank Mario over Foyt.

Of course neither one beats Phill Hill as America's greatest race car driver.

[Chris R]

Remember when Mario won the WDC the grid consisted of names like Lauda, Hunt, Scheckter, Peterson, Reutemann, Villeneuve and Lafitte among others. Pretty damn impressive. Combine that with Indy 500 and Daytona 500 wins and you have to rank Mario over Foyt.

Of course neither one beats Phill Hill as America's greatest race car driver.

Fair enough assessment of this situation - as long as you mean MARIO's F1 championship and not the F! championship in general....

I assume you are kidding about Phil Hill - a great person, excellent driver and a gentleman - but not in the league of Foyt or Andretti for overall racing skills or accomplishments.... nothing against Phil Hill.....

[Anubis]

the results are out - i didn't notice danica on the list so all is well!!

Did it allow multiple voting? If so, I dread to think how many times a certain person submitted their list.

[Chris R]

Did it allow multiple voting? If so, I dread to think how many times a certain person submitted their list.

It may have - but it would have been very impractical - the process to select your 33 was really cumbersome.... list was pretty consistent with what has been posted here by most of us.....

[gm99]

.... list was pretty consistent with what has been posted here by most of us.....

The only choice on the published list I disagree with is Michael Andretti. Granted, he had his share of bad luck at the Brickyard over the years, but he also gave away victories through his own fault (like in '95). Villeneuve (two starts, one victory, one second place), Ruttman (youngest-ever winner) or de Ferran (three top tens in fours starts, including a win and a second place) would have been more deserving, IMO. Heck, even Tracy ultimately came closer to winning the Indy 500 than Mike ;)

[DanicaFan]

There is no reason why Danica is not on that list. She belongs there.

[Alfa Fan]

Not. Sure. U. Serious.

[Andrewmcm]

If Jacques Villeneuve does not make the list, then I doubt that a certain non-winner should make the list.

Actually I'm surprised Villeneuve didn't make the list - his victory was certainly unique in terms of the distance that he covered.

[anthonyvop]

I assume you are kidding about Phil Hill - a great person, excellent driver and a gentleman - but not in the league of Foyt or Andretti for overall racing skills or accomplishments.... nothing against Phil Hill.....

Are you serious?

F1 Champ
3 time winner of the 24 hours of Le Mans
3 time winner of the 12 hours of Sebring
2 time winner of the 1000 km Nürburgring

No contest.

[TURN3]

There is no reason why Danica is not on that list. She belongs there.

Yes there is. She isn't one of the 33 all-time greatest, and let's just leave it at that.

Now please stop posting stupid crap.

[Chris R]

UMMM. 7 time national champ in USAC. Multiple wins at Sebring and Daytona (24hours), Daytona 500 win, LeMans win, USAC stock car champ, several closed course speed records in his day, 67 wins in Indycar and a legitimately competitive career that spanned 20+ years (I am not counting the last 10-15) and that is just Foyt. Andretti also had multiple championships at various levels including F1, won many sportscar races (including 3 Sebrings and a 24 hours of Daytona), stockcar races, dirt track races etc. and a career that also saw over 20 legitimately competitive years....

Foyt's and Andretti's CV take pages each, I can't even get a grip on how many races and championships each won - you just about listed Phil Hills entire CV in 4 lines - his wiki pages list 13 major wins total - Don't get me wrong, he was a great driver and a great man - I would probably have much rather been friends with Phil Hill than either Foyt or Andretti - but there is no way he is in the same category as Foyt or Andretti as a driver - the numbers just don't stand up...

[chuck34]

An impressive victory but Gurney outperformed Foyt and drove the vast majority of the hours.

I think you missed my point a bit (and I didn't really express it well). The point was that Foyt never even tried F1, so it's hard to compare records that are non-existent. However, they both ran LeMans and only AJ has won overall.

[Chris R]

I also looked up the 1967 24 hours of Lemans and can find no record that Gurney drove more than Foyt or ran consistently faster laps.... The only referenceI can find at all to either indicates that Foyt drove a double stint at sunrise when Gurney intentionally didn't show up to take over (as per Gurney himself) because he didn't want to drive through sunrise.... My understanding has always been (and it may be wrong as I can find no definitive proof) that they split driving pretty equally and that Foyt was much better than anybody expected since he had so little practice at the track or in the car..... The general consensus was that both drivers would try to out do each other and break the car (which is apparently more like what Andretti did) - in the end they drove a very smart race, even winning the "efficiency" award for getting best "gas mileage" as per some formula or another they used at the time... The fact that they pulled it off marks them both a great/smart drivers....

[ShiftingGears]

AJ Foyt won 4 Indy 500s a Daytona 500, and a Le Mans 24 Hour Race. I'm sorry but that pretty well much makes him the best American driver of all time, let alone merely the greatest driver in Indy.

Jim Clark's win in 1965 changed the look of cars at Indianapolis forever. It was was the first win for a rear-engined car at the Indianapolis 500, and no front-engine car ever won the race subsequently. That however says more for the genius of Colin Chapman rather than Clark as a driver though. If it was a list of builders and constructors, Roger Penske, Colin Chapman and Parnelli Jones would be up there.

This then I think is my list:


I think your reasoning for not having Clark at least higher than Graham Hill is rather flawed - he was a complete genius behind the wheel. His talent was completely undeniable, and it could be argued eclipsing all others who have participated in an Indianapolis 500. He also started from pole in 1964, and position 2 in '65 and '66, which, as I am led to believe, is the best streak of starting positions for a driver in the 1960's.

I also cannot find any information on Graham Hill spinning and recovering to win in an Indy race. The only person to have spun twice in an Indy 500 to recover the lead is Jim Clark, in 1966.

I would also be more inclined to rank Helio lower down the order, due to both his performances in other races and the shallow talent pool of open wheel racing in the US in the last 10 years especially.


There is no reason why Danica is not on that list. She belongs there.

LOL

[Chris R]

There is no reason why Danica is not on that list. She belongs there.

Reason #1 - she has not won it
Reason#2 - she has not led a huge percentage of the laps she has run (at least Michael totally dominated a race or two and ran well for over 10 years at the track)
Reason #3 - She is still an active driver who has not finished her career (yes, Helio is also active - but he is also a 3 time winner - very rarefied "club")

[Bob Riebe]

1. AJ Foyt
2. Al Unser, Sr.
3. Rick Mears - This is Penske's work rather than Mears
4. Frank Lockhart - "The Speed Kid Demon" - killed while going for the land speed record
5. Bill Vukovich - terrible terrible story
6. Wilbur Shaw
7. Mauri Rose
8. Tommy Milton - I so hard core, I only need one eye!
9. Rodger Ward
10. Louis Meyer
11. Bobby Unser
12. Billy Arnold - Almost total domination in 1930
13. René Thomas
14. Gordon Johncock
15. Tom Sneva
16. Johnny Rutherford
17. Al Unser, Jr
18. Arie Luyendyk
19. Hélio Castroneves
20. Sam Hanks - I think I can, I think I can... done it! I'm going home now.
21. Dario Resta
22. Parnelli Jones - A 10c fail-safe bearing cost him another win
23. Joe Leonard
24. Jim Clark
25. Bobby Rahal
26. Mario Andretti
27. George Souders
28. Gaston Chevrolet - look ma, no tyre changes!
29. Ray Keech
30. Eddie Cheever
31. Buddy Lazier
32. Dan Gurney
33. Pat Flaherty

[Don Capps]

Some years ago, against my usual inclinations I was finally persuaded by the editor at Motor Sport to particiate as a panel member in one of their seemingly endless "100 Greatest" selections. In my case, it was "100 Greatest Drives," which was as broad and wide-ranging as one could imagine. The key, of course was the panel selected to make, well, the selections. Somewhere on TNF my comments about this experience probably still exist -- even if I have become a Non-Person.

In each case that I can recall regarding one of the Motor Sport "Greatest" selection panels, the members were named. In the case of the "33 Greatest," it seems that there was an "esteemed panel of international motorsports media and historians" assembled to narrow the list to the 100 that the fans could then choose, but none of the members of the selection panel were named in any of the material that I have been made aware. It seems that Donald Davidson was involved, of course, but I am always quite curious when there is mention of "historians" in regards to such exercises. It would probably not be a bad assumption to think that the media types probably out-numbered the historians by a healthy margin, given that is an accurate reflection of reality.

Less there be any doubts, in the highly unlikely case that I had been asked to participate in the effort to pare the list down from some seven hundred to a mere one hundred names, I would have respectfully declined the invitation. I do not "do" lists for a number of reasons, but I have softened my stance over the years from merely detesting them to finding them as a means to create a discussion regarding the elements involved. I still do not "like" them, but I accept that stance as a minority opinion given that they are, like it or not, part and parcel of any discussions related to sports.

Whoever the "esteemed panel of international motorsports media and historians" may have narrowed the options to, the final selection was made by those fans who took the time to access the site and vote. That is clearly reflected in the results, with only about a half dozen pre-WW2 drivers making the "starting field." However, this is entire effort for the fans and not for historians, which is as it should be. Similar polling at other times has produced results that were attuned to the times, so why should this one be any different?

Personally, I have nary a quibble with whatever someone might wish to compose as their list, since, after all, that listing is based upon their personal thoughts regarding the criteria that should be used. If this causes at least a few to wonder about who Ted Horn or Rex Mays or Dario Resta or Howdy Wilcox or Barney Oldfield were -- or even Tommy Milton or Ralph De Palma for that matter, then maybe that curiosity might lead them to looking a bit further into the history of not only the Memorial Day event but racing in the past. After all, even scholarly historians have a motivation other than the pursuit of knowledge that leads them to become historians.

[Marbles]

Some years ago, against my usual inclinations I was finally persuaded by the editor at Motor Sport to particiate as a panel member in one of their seemingly endless "100 Greatest" selections. In my case, it was "100 Greatest Drives," which was as broad and wide-ranging as one could imagine. The key, of course was the panel selected to make, well, the selections. Somewhere on TNF my comments about this experience probably still exist -- even if I have become a Non-Person.

In each case that I can recall regarding one of the Motor Sport "Greatest" selection panels, the members were named. In the case of the "33 Greatest," it seems that there was an "esteemed panel of international motorsports media and historians" assembled to narrow the list to the 100 that the fans could then choose, but none of the members of the selection panel were named in any of the material that I have been made aware. It seems that Donald Davidson was involved, of course, but I am always quite curious when there is mention of "historians" in regards to such exercises. It would probably not be a bad assumption to think that the media types probably out-numbered the historians by a healthy margin, given that is an accurate reflection of reality.

Less there be any doubts, in the highly unlikely case that I had been asked to participate in the effort to pare the list down from some seven hundred to a mere one hundred names, I would have respectfully declined the invitation. I do not "do" lists for a number of reasons, but I have softened my stance over the years from merely detesting them to finding them as a means to create a discussion regarding the elements involved. I still do not "like" them, but I accept that stance as a minority opinion given that they are, like it or not, part and parcel of any discussions related to sports.

Whoever the "esteemed panel of international motorsports media and historians" may have narrowed the options to, the final selection was made by those fans who took the time to access the site and vote. That is clearly reflected in the results, with only about a half dozen pre-WW2 drivers making the "starting field." However, this is entire effort for the fans and not for historians, which is as it should be. Similar polling at other times has produced results that were attuned to the times, so why should this one be any different?

Personally, I have nary a quibble with whatever someone might wish to compose as their list, since, after all, that listing is based upon their personal thoughts regarding the criteria that should be used. If this causes at least a few to wonder about who Ted Horn or Rex Mays or Dario Resta or Howdy Wilcox or Barney Oldfield were -- or even Tommy Milton or Ralph De Palma for that matter, then maybe that curiosity might lead them to looking a bit further into the history of not only the Memorial Day event but racing in the past. After all, even scholarly historians have a motivation other than the pursuit of knowledge that leads them to become historians.

I wish I could write like this. I come here for these nuggets. Thank you.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fair enough assessment of this situation - as long as you mean MARIO's F1 championship and not the F! championship in general....

I assume you are kidding about Phil Hill - a great person, excellent driver and a gentleman - but not in the league of Foyt or Andretti for overall racing skills or accomplishments.... nothing against Phil Hill.....


I am thinking Hill was underrated considering what was required to win that era. Staying alive without a significant crash in that era is something to be proud of. That said, To me, AJ Foyt and Dan Gurney were the two most accomplished drivers of the 60's and I give Mario a nod right there with them. Gurney never ran in top equipment in f1, and he never really sat around Champ Cars long enough to win championships but he WAS good at any series he tried at. He was very good in stock cars too, as he owned the NASCAR visit to Riverside year after year and won in USAC stockers as well.

AJ, well, he was the king wasn't he? Mario is sorta close, but I think in the end, AJ's ability to win at Indy puts him up as the most versatile American race driver ever when you add in his wins in sportscars. For this list, the 33 greatest ever, we can argue about the other 32, but with 4 wins, one of them in a roadster? He is the greatest driver in the history of the Indy 500. No way can anyone else convince me any other driver belongs.

[Bob Riebe]

It is bias, but for me those that have a short-track heritage get a special consideration.

I kind of short changed Rutherford, as he was one of the last multi-winners to quit sprint cars, putting Sneva and Johncock ahead of him, but then I put Andretti as low as he is because his whining, has always annoyed me, and despite his rides always being first class, he only won once.

[Don Capps]

It is bias, but for me those that have a short-track heritage get a special consideration.

I kind of short changed Rutherford, as he was one of the last multi-winners to quit sprint cars, putting Sneva and Johncock ahead of him, but then I put Andretti as low as he is because his whining, has always annoyed me, and despite his rides always being first class, he only won once.

Bob makes a good point regarding bias or subjectivity. Lacking any established (objective) Measures of Performance/ Measures of Evaluation (MOP/MOE) for such matters as the thirty-three "greatest" who have participated in the annual International 500 Mile Sweepstakes race, it becomes an entirely subjective exercise. To pursue Bob's thought for a moment, one can build a good case for those drivers coming from the bullrings and short tracks and then being faced with the Speedway -- and doing well. We often overlook the fact that for many years that the IMS was one of the few paved tracks used and one whose length was often more than double the longest track that the drivers experienced. A very daunting situation and one that was fairly commonplace until the Sixties and even into the Seventies. Rutherford is an excellent example of one of those whose "road to Indy" followed that path.

One thought that occurred me to when all this was announced was that it is possible that there may not be thirty-three who meet the "greatest" standard. Even looking at just the final listing of one hundred, I could see the distinct possibility of there being fewer than thirty-three that one could consider for that accolade -- although I would dislike using that term in the first place. Personally, I would have trouble selecting anywhere near thirty-three, as heretical as that may be.

Over the years, I have somewhat softened my stance regarding the use of the word "great." After considering the approach taken by the film critic Roger Ebert in the selection of his "great" movies for his "Great Movies" series, I accepted that notion as a means to bring people, events, and things to the attention of those who might not otherwise given them much thought. I still dislike ordinal listings and, personally, I have little to no time for them, especially if they seem to be populated with those whose "greatness" is yet to revealed by the test of time.

Another thought that has been expressed here and elsewhere is that it would interesting to see the listings created by the apparently largely still anonymous panel of experts convened by the IMS to cull the pool of about seven hundred plus down to one hundred.

At any rate, Bob makes his personal criteria clear, which is, as they say, a Good Thing. Too rarely do those involved in such enterprises discuss their reasons, the rationale, the approach they took to making their selections. Of course, it is often easier said than done.

But, I digress....

[chuck34]

Ok Don, how many would be on your "greatest" list then. I know previously you had stated that you didn't like lists, but then you go and say that you would have a hard time filling a list of 33 greatests. To me that means that you have given this at least a bit of thought. So throw out some names, who wouldn't be on your list. Just for discussion's sake. BTW I do agree with you a bit that trying to put down an autoratative list as the end-all-be-all is silly. But it is good for discussion. You seem to have a good head on you and I am truly interested in hearing at least a few names and reasons why they would (or wouldn't) be on your list. Just for the sake of an argument. :D

[Don Capps]

Ok Don, how many would be on your "greatest" list then. I know previously you had stated that you didn't like lists, but then you go and say that you would have a hard time filling a list of 33 greatests. To me that means that you have given this at least a bit of thought. So throw out some names, who wouldn't be on your list. Just for discussion's sake. BTW I do agree with you a bit that trying to put down an autoratative list as the end-all-be-all is silly. But it is good for discussion. You seem to have a good head on you and I am truly interested in hearing at least a few names and reasons why they would (or wouldn't) be on your list. Just for the sake of an argument. :D

Certainly, it seems odd to me to include any current drivers or anyone who has competed in the event within the last, say, ten or twelve years, if not twenty years -- which would be my benchmark -- since it does take time to assess "greatness." That would slice the grid down a bit right there I would imagine.

Some of the choices are quite easy (in no particular order since I refuse to play that game): Wilbur Shaw, Louis Meyer, AJ Foyt, Parnelli Jones, Bill Vukovich, Al Unser Senior, Tommy Milton, Ralph De Palma, Mauri Rose, Ted Horn, Rick Mears, Rex Mays, Dario Resta, Mark Donohue, and Mario Andretti, with there being on the cusp, Billy Arnold, Jim Clark, and Lloyd Ruby as personal choices. There might be one or even two or three that might also be on the cusp, but that would mean looking outside their efforts at the IMS for several of them. I simply cannot get to thirty-three.

Having both a day job and being behind on my writing for the next editon of Rear View Mirror (shameless plug), I will not provide anything on my suggestions at the moment, but I will say that I do not think that too many of them are what I would consider to be as anything but Blinding Flashes of the Obvious types of choices. I think that it is obvious that Mays, Horn, and Resta are also choices based upon my personal assessment of their impact.

I will suggest that one could go through the final list -- with some additions and appropriate changes to reflect the suggested criteria regarding the timing, of course -- and consider each one on his/her merits and place them in the "great" category in the sense that each one was a remarkable driver and worthy and deserving of attention.

[chuck34]

Certainly, it seems odd to me to include any current drivers or anyone who has competed in the event within the last, say, ten or twelve years, if not twenty years -- which would be my benchmark -- since it does take time to assess "greatness." That would slice the grid down a bit right there I would imagine.

100% agree. There needs to be some time to assess how much of an impact someone really had. As strange as it may sound, I don't think that Helio will rank very high on many people's lists 20-30 years from now, despite being a 3 time winner. Same probably goes for the two time winner, Dario. I just don't think that this "era" will have much impact in the long run I guess. But I don't know, and that's why I agree that 15-20 years or so should go by before admission to any "great list".


Some of the choices are quite easy (in no particular order since I refuse to play that game): Wilbur Shaw, Louis Meyer, AJ Foyt, Parnelli Jones, Bill Vukovich, Al Unser Senior, Tommy Milton, Ralph De Palma, Mauri Rose, Ted Horn, Rick Mears, Rex Mays, Dario Resta, Mark Donohue, and Mario Andretti, with there being on the cusp, Billy Arnold, Jim Clark, and Lloyd Ruby as personal choices. There might be one or even two or three that might also be on the cusp, but that would mean looking outside their efforts at the IMS for several of them. I simply cannot get to thirty-three.

I like all of these guys. I do somewhat wonder about Clark though. I had him on my list, and I think he's a great driver. But one of the greatest at Indy ....... ?


Having both a day job and being behind on my writing for the next editon of Rear View Mirror (shameless plug), I will not provide anything on my suggestions at the moment, but I will say that I do not think that too many of them are what I would consider to be as anything but Blinding Flashes of the Obvious types of choices. I think that it is obvious that Mays, Horn, and Resta are also choices based upon my personal assessment of their impact.

I will suggest that one could go through the final list -- with some additions and appropriate changes to reflect the suggested criteria regarding the timing, of course -- and consider each one on his/her merits and place them in the "great" category in the sense that each one was a remarkable driver and worthy and deserving of attention.

Do you think that it may be more useful to go through by decades or "eras" and pick 3 or 4? Would that make this any easier/better, or just come back to the same issues?

[Don Capps]

I do somewhat wonder about Clark though. I had him on my list, and I think he's a great driver. But one of the greatest at Indy ....... ?

Do you think that it may be more useful to go through by decades or "eras" and pick 3 or 4? Would that make this any easier/better, or just come back to the same issues?

Clark was a personal choice -- meaning that it is one influenced by a bit more subjectivity than the others, hence, being on the cusp or the point of going either way -- because he took to the track almost instantly and for four years was a major factor in the event, the 1967 outing being a bit of a shambles and the prospects for 1968 looking very good with the Type 56. I think that Clark was completely capable of winning three of the Memorial Day events, 1964 thru 1966. At the least, he is "great" in the sense I use the term.

Decades tend to be artificial lumps of time when it comes to automobile racing and there is always the usual brouhaha regarding how eras determined, so the defense rests on the notion that it does not matter how you do it, there are problems, issues. There are better uses of one's time, at least mine, than fretting over this sort of thing. I have an article or two from Speed Age in the mid-Fifties and the selections that were made for their racing hall of fame, which included E.V. Rickenbacher (nee Rickenbacker). Nothing is new regarding this sort of thing. Just as amateurs study tactics and the professionals study logistics, fans and automotive historians tend to focus their attention on very different aspects of the same thing.

[Chris R]

I vote for Tags!! (just kidding).....

[Will Rogers]

Where Danica Fan is concerned we have to remember that the word "fan" derives from "fanatic", which is defined as "someone with extreme or uncritical zeal or enthusiasm." Danica Fan's zeal is indeed extreme and uncritical, in that he/she has no idea about the real talent or capability of Danica Patrick--in fact would be held back by any connection to reality--so it's up to us to be the bigger, wiser person and not expect anything approaching rational thought.

[Don Capps]

A wise person once stated that lists were for shopping. In another part of the cyber-forum world, an agreement with that statement got this response: "At minimum, it's an index of public opinion--and to some extent--knowledge of the '500' right now. How much this list says about the drivers who participated in the '500' is debatable, but it definitely says something about the fans. And insofar as there is no racing without fan support, this subject is fit for (a certain well-known forum that was brought to life on 13 November 1999 and shall remain nameless). If you are convinced otherwise, then by all means rendezvous with H. Donald Capps and pound sand." Ah, it is wonderful to respected and admired. Any one now question why I tend to think that such lists are a delightful means to have meaningful discussions. At least Joe Yeager, not that I would dare mention his name, of course, spelled my name correctly. At any rate, this is the sort of thing that makes it very easy for automotive historians to give these sorts of place a very wide berth. But, as usual, I digress....

[SarahFan]

I have to disagree with the need for time to Assess greatness


Thats a cop out....

Take usain bolt and the Olympics a few years back..... You knew while it was happening you witnessing greatness ..... Same with micheal phelps

Or montoyas run

If helio wins a fourth and is leading a fifth and coming out of turn 4....and you are in the stands or watching on tv you know damn well your witnessing greatness

Just my opinion of coarse

[Chris R]

I have to disagree with the need for time to Assess greatness


Thats a cop out....

Take usain bolt and the Olympics a few years back..... You knew while it was happening you witnessing greatness ..... Same with micheal phelps

Or montoyas run

If helio wins a fourth and is leading a fifth and coming out of turn 4....and you are in the stands or watching on tv you know damn well your witnessing greatness

Just my opinion of coarse

good thoughts and I agree with you - in some ways time is a foe in assessing "great" events - who is left to say how great Frank Lockhart was?? Was Montoya's drive great? yeah, nothing else he does or does not do takes away from the "veni, vidi, vici" of it all...... sure he only raced once - but he made it count like no one before or since.... if that is not great it is at least cool....

As to some of the other points on this thread (not from SarahFan) I think all of this high mindedness about "the list" and lists in general misses the point.... There is NO WAY to objectively rank greatness. In and of itself, it is a non-emphirical and subjective exercise. Stats can serve as a guide but in the end it is the gut feeling and passion of the fan(S) who decide who is great and who isn't.... If you have great knowledge of the sport and have an opinion about who is the greatest than share it, it is all good and all interesting.... Sure Danica Fan is a bit caught up in Danica mania and sure Don Capps has a boatload greater depth of knowledge than most of us but I bet they both think AJ and Mario belong on "the list".....

So, it is all good. Greatness is in the eyes of the beholders (fans). I am quite certain there is no great list in the sky ranking the greatest drivers at the 500 so anything we come up with is both valid and entertaining - and that is all it is supposed to be......

As far as what the list says about the drivers etc. who participated in the 500, it says there are at least a crowd of us who give a damn - and that is all that matters.... Without people who are into the sport enough to make up a list of 33 and give good reasons for their list, there would be no sport, no future, no next 100 years.... So don't get so hung up on getting it right - there is nothing to get right - it is each of our opinions and there is nothing wrong with that.....

Finally, for those who do want some measure of objectivity, my best guess is that if we compared all of our "lists" there would be a huge amount of overlap - that overlap probably does give you at least a glimpse into "greatness"(that all so wonderfully human and completely subjective measure of things)......

[Bob Riebe]

I have to disagree with the need for time to Assess greatness


Thats a cop out....

Take usain bolt and the Olympics a few years back..... You knew while it was happening you witnessing greatness ..... Same with micheal phelps

Or montoyas run

If helio wins a fourth and is leading a fifth and coming out of turn 4....and you are in the stands or watching on tv you know damn well your witnessing greatness

Just my opinion of coarseTalent is not the same as greatness, and that is part of problem with such lists.

There were drivers who never won, that pushed ****-box cars higher than any "great" would even try, Sheldon Kinser being one example. Extreme talent and a great drive, does that make him great, to some yes and to some no.

[SarahFan]

Micheal had talent

Mears achieved greatness

[Don Capps]

I have to disagree with the need for time to Assess greatness

Thats a cop out....

Take usain bolt and the Olympics a few years back..... You knew while it was happening you witnessing greatness ..... Same with micheal phelps

Or montoyas run

If helio wins a fourth and is leading a fifth and coming out of turn 4....and you are in the stands or watching on tv you know damn well your witnessing greatness

Just my opinion of coarse

And a coarse opinion it is, of course..

As an "arrogant, elitist historan" -- one of many wonderful endearments spat in my direction over the years on these fora -- I do not live in the moment nor do I wield the words "great" and "greatest" with indiscriminate abandon and the resulting debasement of such terms. That is, naturally, a minority opinion here and elsewhere one may be assured. Personally, I could really care who the "33 Greatest" are since that does not interest me, is not a focus or even a concern in the research and work I do in the field of automotive history.

I think "Chris R" reiterates some of the many points that have been raised here and elsewhere regarding this and similar exercises, so no need to really re-plow that furrow. I could point out that modernity has largely diminished the role of the past in the eyes of many here, given that many more can witness events as they happen, so that the Frank Lockhart's of the past tend to continue to fade from since few bother to read about the past as well.

I will refrain from thinking aloud that it is doubtful "SarahFan" was a history major if there is a disagreement regarding the need for time to assess, even in a vague sense, what is considered "greatness."

Bob, on the hand, does raise a point that so often gets lost in the brouhaha and cheerleading that surrounds such lists: "Talent is not the same as greatness, and that is part of problem with such lists." The less one knows, the easier such lists are to create, participate in the voting, and, generally, agree with, an observation based upon what nudged me away from the disease of "list mania" -- as well as my lumping such things in the bin of "Lazy Journalist Tricks and other Assorted Public Relations Gimmacks." As A.J.P. Taylor expressed it: "Knowledge breeds doubt, not certainty, anf the more we know, the more uncertain we become." (*) Then again, Taylor obviously did not deal with race fans, merely other historians.

There are often grand efforts in automobile racing that go unrewarded for no end of reasons. Bob provides the basis for many of those -- a driver managing to wrestle a difficult machine into contention before retiring from the event or a driver bringing home a "twelfth-place" machine home in eleventh or tenth or even eighth place. Many times these sorts of lists are really not concerned with "greatest" or "best" but, rather, with the most "successful," which can be, in some cases, an entirely different proposition, but not necessarily.

We have serious problems agreeing upon the criteria for Measures of Performance and Measures of Evaluation for things that really are important, much something as trivial, unimportant, and picayune as that for the "33 Greatest" for the 500 Mile Race.

We will doubtless continue to flail at this dead horse until each and every gram of flesh that can be converted to glue is extracted.

(*) A.J.P. Taylor, "What Else, Indeed?", The New York Review of Books, 5 August 1965 (Vol. 5 No. 1).

[SarahFan]

So if im in C-stand on sunday and Helio wins his 4th im not witnessing greatness?

that I need to wait 10-20 to properly evaluate what I am witnessing first hand?

I say no to that....you should try living in the moment more....its a helluva a lot of fun!

*had a ribeye steak lat night, char-broiled MR, topped with wild sauteed pacific white shrimp and a garlic parsley butter....I knew it was great from the first smell to the last bite

[Bob Riebe]

So if im in C-stand on sunday and Helio wins his 4th im not witnessing greatness?

that I need to wait 10-20 to properly evaluate what I am witnessing first hand?

I say no to that....you should try living in the moment more....its a helluva a lot of fun!

*had a ribeye steak lat night, char-broiled MR, topped with wild sauteed pacific white shrimp and a garlic parsley butter....I knew it was great from the first smell to the last bite
No you are witnessing a historic moment.,

Greatness if it exists could, would be, most likely, also be judged by what he did in other series, or types of competition.
The level of competition, at team level, NOT driver level, makes his victories a little different from those that preceded.

If he would do as Andretti did, drive a few NASCAR events and win either the Daytona or even the Talledega, or Southern 500 race, his greatness markers would most likely be increased by a fair amount.

If he won the Knoxville Nationals, I would say by Mid-American standards opinions of his greatness would be assured.

[SarahFan]

Sure it's history....

But this is the 33 greatest at Indy.... Has nothing to fo with anything else

And to witness a racer win his fourth is to witness greatness IMO


Ymmv

[Bob Riebe]

But this is the 33 greatest at Indy.... Has nothing to fo with anything else

That I honestly doubt, or the list would be shorter or very different.

[SarahFan]

That I honestly doubt, or the list would be shorter or very different.

There is poster at TF that was asked to be on the panel to compile the 100 to choose from...

And said it was very clear ..... The object was to compile the greatest 33 greatest Indy 500 racers

Had nothing to do with accomplishments in other series or even other aowr races


Strictly Indy 500 performance



Regardless of who wins if I'm their or watching I'm watching history...... But if we witness helio win his fourth to join meats etc.... Then I won't need a minute a year or decade to understNd I am witnessing greatness


Again ymmv

[Don Capps]

Sure it's history....

But this is the 33 greatest at Indy.... Has nothing to fo with anything else

And to witness a racer win his fourth is to witness greatness IMO


Ymmv

I get the very distinct notion that history was not your best subject in school.

[SarahFan]

And that's just weak sauce Don

[SarahFan]

It's universally excepted that the three four time winners a chivied greatness at the speedway

Is that disputable?

To suggest we need to wait a decade to judge a fourth racer do it is simPly rediculous


Again just my opinion

[Don Capps]

And that's just weak sauce Don

Given all that has transpired, especially in light of the comment above, I see no reason to even attempt to continue any further dialogue regarding this matter.

[SarahFan]

typical

[Chris R]

I have been trying to figure out what to say to some of the dialog in this thread. Frankly, I am at a loss for words.... Don, I have no idea who you are other than that you write some article for the Autosport website/message board and seem to have a deep interest in auto racing history. SarahFan you have been here forever and while you sometimes get a little bent out of shape about stuff but you are clearly a true fan and generally respectful of others.

I, for one, think SarahFan has a pretty good understanding of history. He also has a pretty good understanding of "opinion" and what it is to be a fan.... Don, this whole thing is an exercise for fans and a platform from which to discuss history and the various merits of drivers etc. nothing more or less. You have made it perfectly clear that you have no use for "greatest" lists and you have made some good arguments for that from the perspective of a historian. However, you have (at least until your last post) continued to participate (thus showing you do have SOME use for such lists) and you have not exactly been warm and friendly to the fans who have chosen to make these lists and enjoy the conversation in doing so... Surely as a student of history you would understand that racing lives and dies by the fan (and those with money willing to support the sport who are, well, fans). The fact that here are a number of people who want to get together and discuss what they know about the sport and learn from those who may know more than them i a wonderful thing and great for the sport.....

I consider myself to be both a pretty big fan of the sport and reasonably knowledgeable in the history of "indy car racing" (as nebulous as that may be). As such, I see the point being made here on both sides as pretty interesting and informative. However, I also see a general lack of respect that is troubling - there is no need to question whether Sarahfan was strong in history - that is just a personal insult and completely irrelevant to the subject.... If you want people to listen to what you have to say (which clearly you do since you are here in and of your own free will) you need to at least be tolerant and respectful of the other participants in the discussion....

This discussion is supposed to be about a list of the 33 greatest drivers at Indy... It is a subjective judgement based partially on objective facts.... "Greatness" is not objective, it is not really history - it is how we FEEL about history (and since history is everything that has happened before this moment, it CAN be about yesterday). So yes, this list will change from year to year and era to era.. that is fine, it is all good and can be great fun if we check our baggage at the keyboard......

[Bob Riebe]

There is poster at TF that was asked to be on the panel to compile the 100 to choose from...

And said it was very clear ..... The object was to compile the greatest 33 greatest Indy 500 racers

Had nothing to do with accomplishments in other series or even other aowr races


Strictly Indy 500 performance


Again ymmv
Another forum has posts by a person on the panel, and he said as HE understood it, Indy alone, he did NOT say that was an absolute.

If driving performances is the sole criteria, many who never won, should be near the top of the list.
I would say, some who won should not even be on the list.
Simply winning for the best run, and financed teams in Indy racing, does not make one great. ( Mears, as I think, was one of the smoothest drivers ever. He belongs)
Very fortunate-- but not great.


From the other forum, what I read, makes this list mean less and it did not mean much in the first place.

[SarahFan]

Bob...

Are you suggesting mears wasn't great at the speedway?

[SarahFan]

Would "Indy alone" not be an "absolute" ?

[Bob Riebe]

This discussion is supposed to be about a list of the 33 greatest drivers at Indy... It is a subjective judgement based partially on objective facts.... "Greatness" is not objective, it is not really history - it is how we FEEL about history (and since history is everything that has happened before this moment, it CAN be about yesterday). So yes, this list will change from year to year and era to era.. that is fine, it is all good and can be great fun if we check our baggage at the keyboard......

If "greatness" is strictly subjective, based on "fans" opinions then this list and the term "great" drivers are a farce based on nothing but personal opinions which change with the amount of money writing the history.

Your reason, for the list, is possibly, a reason Don has no love for lists, and if your reasoning is true, I agree with Don.
George Washington was a GREAT leader, and it had not one damn thing to do with anyone's opinion, it was based strictly on his performance as such. If such lists are not held to as least a modicum of standards then they are an exercise in futility to sucker in the ignorant masses.

Either way-- only time will determine if anyone on the list has: GREATNESS:
the property possessed by something or someone of outstanding importance or eminence

[Bob Riebe]

Bob...

Are you suggesting mears wasn't great at the speedway? No, he belongs among the greats of Indy car racing.
He did it with a unique style.

[SarahFan]

So if 2000 years from now we have 33 different 5 time winners history will show that aj mears and Unser weren't great?


I'm going to choose to live in the now

[Bob Riebe]

Would "Indy alone" not be an "absolute" ?
He wrote that is how he understood it, not that anyone actually said that.

[Bob Riebe]

So if 2000 years from now we have 33 different 5 time winners history will show that aj mears and Unser weren't great?


I'm going to choose to live in the nowWho was the greatest of the Roman Empire chariot racers?

[Bob Riebe]

So if 2000 years from now we have 33 different 5 time winners history will show that aj mears and Unser weren't great?


I'm going to choose to live in the nowThen there are NO 33 greatest unless one simply says that anyone who qualified in the past two years is great for simply qualifying.
You are showing, in a most bold manner, why such lists mean little to nothing, and why some find them silly.
By the NOW standards, this list should be 3, not 33.

[SarahFan]

Don't know... I'll check Wikipedia and get back to you

[Chris R]

If "greatness" is strictly subjective, based on "fans" opinions then this list and the term "great" drivers are a farce based on nothing but personal opinions which change with the amount of money writing the history.

Your reason, for the list, is possibly, a reason Don has no love for lists, and if your reasoning is true, I agree with Don.
George Washington was a GREAT leader, and it had not one damn thing to do with anyone's opinion, it was based strictly on his performance as such. If such lists are not held to as least a modicum of standards then they are an exercise in futility to sucker in the ignorant masses.

Either way-- only time will determine if anyone on the list has: GREATNESS:
the property possessed by something or someone of outstanding importance or eminence

George Washington is great not only for his actions but because so many people consider him to be great (myself among them)- it is pretty much greatness by mutual consent.... I doubt you would find that a selection of Chinese communist party member would feel the same way... It is still a subjective assessment - which, in my opinion takes nothing away from the term or honor of being called great... To be considered great by your fellow humans is a wonderful honor.....

I do understand why Don is not so much into the "great" list - and that is a very good reason on his part - but if someone else is into a "great" list that is a perfectly respectable thing.....

anyway, i think we are arguing over definitions of word more than actual substance... yes there is a difference between sustained activities that make one "great" and one shot deals that make on "great" - but they are still both "great".... whewww what a mouthful!! :)

[Marbles]

Who was the greatest of the Roman Empire chariot racers?

Marcus Servius Jr.

[Bob Riebe]

George Washington is great not only for his actions but because so many people consider him to be great
Why do they consider him great?

[Will Rogers]

You would think this thread would be about which of the 3 4-time winners of the Indy 500 is the greatest--but instead we're arguing over how many great chariot racers can dance on the head of a pin...

[DBell]

Marcus Servius Jr.

lol! For me it was Ben Hur.

[Chris R]

You would think this thread would be about which of the 3 4-time winners of the Indy 500 is the greatest--but instead we're arguing over how many great chariot racers can dance on the head of a pin...
rotflmao - you are so right - I'll drop it for my part!!

[chuck34]

This is supposed to be a fun thing to spark conversation. In my opinion, Don, being a historian, just can't seem to let go of some sort of need to be "right" about his list. Therefore he refuses to participate in any way. That is except to give his "expert opinion" that any discussion of a list is futile and should not be attempted. The way I see it, that is just a cop-out because he must be right in all things. The subjective nature of such a list does not allow him to feed this need. Continued attempts to engage this obviously bright and knowlegeable person in this conversation by myself and others has yielded nothing except longer and longer monologs on how flawed lists are.

Don, if you are still reading this. Please lighten up, stop taking yourself so seriously, have some fun, and discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of some that are on the list. This is simply a fun thought provoking exercise.

[Chris R]

This is supposed to be a fun thing to spark conversation. In my opinion, Don, being a historian, just can't seem to let go of some sort of need to be "right" about his list. Therefore he refuses to participate in any way. That is except to give his "expert opinion" that any discussion of a list is futile and should not be attempted. The way I see it, that is just a cop-out because he must be right in all things. The subjective nature of such a list does not allow him to feed this need. Continued attempts to engage this obviously bright and knowlegeable person in this conversation by myself and others has yielded nothing except longer and longer monologs on how flawed lists are.

Don, if you are still reading this. Please lighten up, stop taking yourself so seriously, have some fun, and discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of some that are on the list. This is simply a fun thought provoking exercise.

excellent!!

[SarahFan]

don't know about the rest of you......but after watching all the small teams be as competive as they have been all week.....mixed with the jumbled up field.....I made the decision to go the race this weekend.....

in hopes of witnessing something great!


from the moment I wake up sunday until I leave the gates I'll be firmly living in the moment

[Chris R]

don't know about the rest of you......but after watching all the small teams be as competive as they have been all week.....mixed with the jumbled up field.....I made the decision to go the race this weekend.....

in hopes of witnessing something great!


from the moment I wake up sunday until I leave the gates I'll be firmly living in the moment

Enjoy!! I hope you see some greatness - I think you may if the events of the month continue to play out as they have..... after going to opening day this year (first time ever at Indy) , I decided to go back for Pole Day next year - the crowd will probably always keep me away from the race - but the place just pulls you in and you do just want to see that great moment so you can tell your grandkids about it later......

[garyshell]

don't know about the rest of you......but after watching all the small teams be as competive as they have been all week.....mixed with the jumbled up field.....I made the decision to go the race this weekend.....

in hopes of witnessing something great!


from the moment I wake up sunday until I leave the gates I'll be firmly living in the moment

AMEN! Wish I could join you. I have a feeling we'd find a lot more in common over a brew or two!

Gary

[chuck34]

AMEN! Wish I could join you. I have a feeling we'd find a lot more in common over a brew or two!

Gary

Me too. Wish I could be there. If it happens to rain Sunday and gets run on Monday, then maybe I'll get my chance. Stupid cousin decides to get married on race day, and he's a fan! I'd dump that chick, but that's just me. :D

[Bob Riebe]

Me too. Wish I could be there. If it happens to rain Sunday and gets run on Monday, then maybe I'll get my chance. Stupid cousin decides to get married on race day, and he's a fan! I'd dump that chick, but that's just me. :D I do hope you have a portable radio with an ear-phone.

For the past few years, for various reasons, I have gone back to listening on the radio and that somehow, to me, makes it more exciting than it does watching it on TV.
Perhaps it is the announcers or perhaps it is because that was the only way I could catch the race for years as a yout.

[Chris R]

I do hope you have a portable radio with an ear-phone.

For the past few years, for various reasons, I have gone back to listening on the radio and that somehow, to me, makes it more exciting than it does watching it on TV.
Perhaps it is the announcers or perhaps it is because that was the only way I could catch the race for years as a yout.

I used to love to listen to the 500 on the radio when I was a kid in the early 1980's (my parents wouldn't let me stay up to watch the tape delay race)... The announcers tend to do a great job of making the race more exciting......

[chuck34]

I do hope you have a portable radio with an ear-phone.

For the past few years, for various reasons, I have gone back to listening on the radio and that somehow, to me, makes it more exciting than it does watching it on TV.
Perhaps it is the announcers or perhaps it is because that was the only way I could catch the race for years as a yout.

I too enjoy the radio call. Sometimes I turn off the sound on the TV and listen to the radio. They seem to have more excitement somehow. Maybe it's because I grew up in Indy so couldn't watch it on TV, had to listen on the radio. But anyway, I'll catch it one way or the other. Plus DVR is set and ready to go.

[chuck34]

I used to love to listen to the 500 on the radio when I was a kid in the early 1980's (my parents wouldn't let me stay up to watch the tape delay race)... The announcers tend to do a great job of making the race more exciting......

Sounds like we're about the same age. But wasn't it like 2 weeks later back in the 80's? I seem to remember one year ('88?) seeing a Chevy comercial advertising the Indy 500 winner Rick Mears.

[SarahFan]

A few years back I had xm and would catch qualifying on the radio......it was great

[Chris R]

Sounds like we're about the same age. But wasn't it like 2 weeks later back in the 80's? I seem to remember one year ('88?) seeing a Chevy comercial advertising the Indy 500 winner Rick Mears.

I wonder if you had a delay like that in the home market due to blackouts ?? I always remember it being that same night until they went live sometime in the late 80's or early 90's..... I think my parents let me watch the beginning of it in 1979 - I remember Jackie Stewart standing in the dark (live) in front of the Mustang pace car to introduce the (tape delayed) race....

[Chris R]

hey guys - common ground! gotta love it, this thread finally came to something we can all agree on!!

[chuck34]

I wonder if you had a delay like that in the home market due to blackouts ?? I always remember it being that same night until they went live sometime in the late 80's or early 90's..... I think my parents let me watch the beginning of it in 1979 - I remember Jackie Stewart standing in the dark (live) in front of the Mustang pace car to introduce the (tape delayed) race....

Yeah, must have been an Indy deal. I didn't realise that the race was tape delayed elsewhere even up to the 80's.