I went back into the insomnia mode last night. I suffered from that for years when I worked, always planning ahead for the next day and thinking back over what I had accomplished and had failed to accomplish on any given day. If I got four hours sleep on any night it was amazing. Usually I was operating off three hours. I guess the rest in bed trying to get to sleep and then trying not to get up before the alarm went off allowed me to get enough rest to continue to function. Perhaps my return to the land of the walking dead is the result of an agreement to return to work for an attorney for whom I once worked before retirement, who has asked me to return to assist him with a few major files. We'll see how that goes.
Anyway, I got out of the bed about midnight and came out to my office to make some notes in preparation for returning to at leasta weekly Form post of racing history. As I reviewed my selection of books on racing history, which is extensive but I'm sure not equal to some of our other members, I recalled reading each one at some point in time. It was then that I recalled different books writing on the exact same subject with such different "stories" or perhaps we should call them "personal takeaways" from events. Just think of the different stories on the start of NASCAR and the infamous meetings in the Streamline Hotel in Daytona. Which do you believe? Some of the "records of actual events" could not possibly be true unless you consider the fact that people can see the same things but from their personal perspective it is not seen the same way as someone else. Take today's political scene and you'll understand that statement.
Some of the books in my collection were purchased by me believing I would have a good record of actual events. I have at least six books in my collection which record events that happened at which I was actually present, two in fact, pretty prominent events, and what was recorded in the books, simply stated, is not true. Problem there is I would have to tell what I saw and what I experienced and as I am not a prominent writer or figure in the sport, my comments would be meaningless. There is one particular book which is so full of errors I first thought it was a parody of a great driver but learned it was intended as a true and accurate account of that driver. Simply not true.
I have read some books that make up stories to enhance a particular driver far beyond what he actually accomplished. That sickens me. My reason for that is my belief that every single driver from the first race in 1949 until probably 1985 contributed to the sport and the fact that their names are not enshrined in a Hall of Fame somewhere does not lessen what they contributed. Wasn't if Teddy Kennedy (not that I'm a fan) who said in his eulogy at his brother Bobby's funeral "Let's not enlarge him in death beyond what he was in life".The intentof that statement was that in life the accomplishments were huge and need not be enhanced after death. When it comes to all the drivers down the list who will never make a Hall of Fame and of whom the only memories are from the ardent fans they drew to the races and the families that sacrificed right along with them. The life of even the lesser of the drivers should be made known to the fans of today and to the fans of yesterday who may have forgotten folks like Jabe Thomas, Neil Castles, Earl Brooks, or Elmo Langley, just to name a few. I knew all these guys. Still know Neil Castles and in fact sat with him and his wife at an event at Memory Lane Musuem back in May. We need to get him on "Racing Through History" again really soon because Neil hasn't "retired". He is still so very active, especially in the movie industry. When he told me of the last two movies in which he participated I was flabbergasted.
I have read some books on some very famous drivers which, in my opinion, are far to humble to present the greatness to which they are entitled. But then, knowing these guys personally now, I'm sure that's the way those guys wanted their story presented. There is one book in my collection which would shock most people to know I have it, and I must say if you read his story, he not only invented NASCAR, stock car racing, and enlarged the sport to what it is today, but he also actually had a hand in inventing the first automobile.
We are very fortunate to have Bill Blair, Jr., Rex White, and others involved with RR who have memories equal to that of a computer. Bill goes to great lengths to see that the true history of the sport is presented in ways accessible to fans. His "Our Racing Heroes" tributes bring attention to drivers unlikely to ever be known to today's fans where it not for Bill's efforts. When Rex starts talking racing history it is as if he has a teleprompter before him on which the entire correct history of the sport is set forth. His memory is as amazing as Bill's. Oh, there are others out there as well. Recently encountered Ronnie Russell who has deep connections to the sport and who has a memory worth sharing. I'm going to have to get with him and pick his brain for some good stories.
In my book collection as well as some videos I have collected, we have people who discovered stock car racing history could mean big bucks by writing and selling their books to a racing history hungry public. I bought the books for references and reading enjoyment. I also have a collection of countless videos produced by NASCAR or by companies closely associated with NASCAR which I purchased for the same reason as the books. I have learned, from most of those resources, that before the writer, or the producer in case of the videos, could NOT spell stock car racing" before they discovered money could be make there. Oh, I am not uninformed enough to believe that money doesn't drive the entire sport, but some of the "flash in the pan" writers and these unknown movie producer wannabes" should be jailed for fraud with criminal intent. Some of what I've read and seen would be better used in a "Harry Potter" next chapter or perhaps a new "Star Wars" episode. Seriously folks, some of these books and videos are so bad that I hear they are selling for less than a dollar on Amazon and when put on e-bay there is no bid. A friend told me of one such book of a very famous driver has been on e-bay two weeks and the highest bid thus far is a nickel. I haven't personally checked that out but my friend is usually very truthful and keeps up with e-mail religiously.
My younger brother, Richard, who raced Hobby and Late Model Sportsman in the 70s, has a memory that recalls even minor details in less heralded events. I'm sure I'll but using him as part of the resources I will be using as we move into another chapter of my history writing for the Forum. I do know, from my two hours of hitting the books last night there is much to tell. I will use the reference sources I have and will intermingle my personal memories and observations when appropriate. My only act of importance in racing is that I am a fan and have been since 1952. I often revel in the fact that to me the idea of a Hudson Hornet racing is not a scene from the Disney movie "Cars" but a something I got to witness personally. Most people think a Studebaker is an oven in which you bake "studes" (wonder if that is the plural of "stud"?). The only Grand National race won by a Studebaker was right here at my home track, The Historical Columbia Speedway. Studebaker had a great reputation in the modified races at Daytona back in the day because the Hawk model was as aerodynamic as any car ever raced. They didn't have to worry about dirty air with those.
So, as we venture into the world of racing history again, starting next week, remember the sources will come from many options as well as from my quickly dwindling memory. I love the history of this sport. I love the fact that during the 50s, 60s. and 70s. I met every driver at least once. The men of history from the 50s and the 60s are the guys I aggravated every race I attended. Just ask Richard Petty! He'll tell you. If old Joe Weatherly were still around he would tell you about the time we was going to spank me because he was declared the winner of the 1963 Rebel 300 (the convoluted event to replace convertibles at the historic track). I saw him after the race and my teenage mouth let him know I didn't like the way it was "rigged" (I didn't know how to spell manipulated then). Joe and I had enjoyed many fun times cutting up in the late 50s and the early 60s. I realized later that the way the event was set up at Darlington, Joe earned the win although I, to this day, question the way NASCAR set up that "point system" fiasco to determine the winner.
I look forward to returning to the quest to present racing history from the perspective of many folks, some who actually made it, some who actually recorded it accurately, and some who once wrote fairy tales for Disney. Perhaps, somewhere in that vast parsec of space, we will be entertained, enlightened, and energized to keep the word going. I hope many of you will join in posting your personal comments to each segment. When we did the History Minute, it was you folks who made it the overwhelming success it turned out to be.
Until next week, remember to honor the past, embrace the present and dream for the future.
Thank you.
--
What a change! It's been awhile since I've checked in and I'm quite surprised. It may take me awhile to figure it our but first look it's really great.
updated by @tim-leeming: 12/05/16 04:00:58PM
