Please expess YOUR opinion of the one driver who was most influencial in the development and growth of stock car racing during the decade of the 1950s. Give it some thought and rather than just stating a name, give us the insight as to why you selected that person.
Tim
I would have to say Tim Flock even so they or a lot more drivers that could fit right in and i would not disagree but i look at Jocko Flocko pluss Carl Kiekhaefer Team and winning all them racees pluss he was very colorfull pluss i think 2 champon ships allso his family in raceing and allso his wife Frances that we all no on RR i would have to say Tim
Of course, Big Bill did race in the 60s... at the first Talladega race in 1969 when the PDA boycotted over the tire issue and Bill climbed in a GT car to pad the field.
Ernest Sutton said:
Not trying to give a short answer here............but Bill France, Sr. certainly comes to mind & the reasons are pretty well documented. However, I suspect you were talking about a driver who continued to be active throughout the '50s.
Wally my friend....you need to study up on your "Roundy Round" history.....Raymond Parks made it happen. He was the money man behind Nascar. He provided pace cars, purse money, employment, etc.
-Cody
Wally Bell said:
Fireball..The sports 1st Super Star....Tim, Curtis, Lee, Joe, Herb Thomas, others come to mind, but Fireball..my subjective answer
Big Bill sure made it All possible........
I know, that's why I said Fireball or Curtis Turner. I was justreferringto Wally's statement "Big Bill sure made it all possible"
It's been 4 years today since Tim Leeming raised this interesting question. There ought to be plenty more opinions out there now.
Smokey for sure -- they still trying to figure out some of his theories and motives to make a fast car faster. The man had talent beyond what todays mechanics and crewchiefs of today display. Sure they claim Chad to be the modern day Smokey --BUT-- no hat for Chad much less the cigar.
He is my pick because my first meetings with him when my dad would go by his shop were just awesome
I'm going to toss my $0.02 in this very dangerous bucket, but I'm going to be snarky as well and extend it to ALL decades from the 1940s to the present (and oh, how I hate the present NASCAR).
1940s: Raymond Parks- He had the money to make NASCAR what it was. When you read about the old times, you realize that none of Big Bill's ideas were original; rather, he stole them from other people like Raymond Parks, Red Vogt (whose concept of racing was what Bill built NASCAR on), and Joe Littlejohn. It's like Mikey Waltrip's gridwalks before a race: Mikey and FOX stole that from Robin Miller and NBCSN, who have been doing those for years. Raymond would have been a big figure of the NASCAR the drivers, mechanics, and owners wanted. Oh, yeah, Raymond also owned the 1948 Modified and 1949 Strictly Stock championship-winning cars. When drivers had problems, they went to Atlanta to find Raymond Parks and Red Vogt, not Daytona Beach. Not a driver, but no one driver really had that kind of pull back then.
1950s: Curtis Turner- No one driver today could be so entertaining. Nowadays, you watch drivers like Jimmie Johnson and Kevin Harvick pass cars toward the back like nothing. But it's dull. If either of those guys gets a twitch, they're going to wreck and wreck hard. I'm siding with Johnny Allen here.
Curtis was the opposite: if the car wasn't on edge, something was wrong. He could just fling a car like no other; he was the hard charger of hard chargers. And boy what fun it would be if you have taken Curtis and Fireball, give them indestructible cars, and set them loose on a four race tour consisting of a road course, a short track, a speedway, and a dirt track. Even without the crazy adventures of Curtis and Little Joe, the legends of both of them would live on because of the on-track exploits. Curtis established what the sport of racing was all about.
I give honorable mentions to four: Lee Petty, Buck Baker, Tim Flock, and Herb Thomas, who showed what commitment to the sporting body entailed. Without these figures, the championship would have been meaningless. Curtis was a racer, but these men were champions.
1960s: Richard Petty- "The King" established racing as a sport of heroes. He was the same man off the track that he was on the track, and he openly shared that with you the fans. He was honest, and he still is. He was a man built on principle; in Richard's case, those principles are Biblical principles. The fact that he and David Pearson are the two best drivers ever only sweetens the pot. The legendary rivalry those two built, a rivalry built on the showing of the tricks one could produce, enabled NASCAR to built itself as a sport of strategy, talent, and teamwork. They let their on-track exploits do the talking. King Richard was the man the sport built itself around during this time, and NASCAR needs a young driver with the same spirit if it is to ever recapture past glory. Looking at the recent Kyle Busch incident, seeking the next "Earnhardt" is only to result in the first fatality since Earnhardt.
1970s: Bobby Allison- Now many of you may be surprised by my choice of Bobby for the 1970s, but he re-established the passion for winning in the 1970s. Unlike Cale Yarborough, Bobby only raced USAC because Roger Penske wanted him to; it was in the deal if he wanted to race NASCAR's for Roger. Bobby was so determined to compete that he even tried being an owner driver... TWICE... without factory backing. While he didn't lead the sport, he presented the passion needed to continue. And he continued in spite of spending 17 years of always playing second fiddle to Pearson, Isaac, Petty, Yarborough, Parsons, Earnhardt, and Waltrip as champions of the sport. Good things come to those who wait.
1980s: Darrell Waltrip/Dale Earnhardt- It's tough to decide between these two. During the 1980s, both drivers divided the sport in an all-out race to see who could be the biggest piece of human crap (pardon my French). There were no good qualities in either, and to admire either opened oneself up to questions about your own character. You had Darrell with his loud mouth and bad attitude, and you had Dale Earnhardt and his loud mouth and bad attitude and off track exploits. It was a drag race that eventually Earnhardt won in 1989... because DW pulled out. DW took himself out of the race to be the biggest jerk thanks to his wife Stevie, and for the last 12 years of his career he was just another old-timer out there that people cheered for when he had a good run (like 1998 Pocono). Is "Boogity, boogity, boogity" really annoying? Yes, on all levels, but I can respect Ol' DW for other reasons.
1990s: Dale Earnhardt- While Raymond Williams will tell you that the cards were in Earnhardt's favor back in the 1980s, I am avoiding that pot. Dale Earnhardt was the last example of the country boy making it in racing on exploits alone. He was polarizing like DW, but Earnhardt won the race with his rudeness to reporters (shoving cameras and flipping off the media regularly), constant dumping of opponents on the track for no real reason other than that they were there, and his own bad attitude. DW started it, but Earnhardt perfected the "nothing's my fault" attitude. This whininess built the sport however, as NASCAR used the Earnhardt image to promote itself. They promoted him as the man to love or hate (with no gray area) and the man to aspire to be as a racer. It didn't work, however, as fast forward to 2015 where none of the drivers can even imitate Earnhardt because Earnhardt acted as he did to advance himself, whereas these modern drivers act as they do to imitate Earnhardt. Words that I can post on here and maintain the G-rating I have maintained on this diatribe do not describe Earnhardt. And that's a shame, because it was a life of hypocrisy. He was lauded as a hero by the fans only after he died. And so many people, as a result, jumped on his much less-talented son.
2000s and 2010s: Jeff Gordon- I give both to Jeff Gordon. Why? Starting in the 2000s, young drivers came into the sport saying they wanted to be like Jeff Gordon; I know I sure did! Fast forward to 2015, and who do the young guys come in saying they admired? Jeff Gordon. Jeff Gordon is the very last of the drivers I grew up watching: Martin, Earnhardt, Elliott, Rudd (my 2nd favorite), the Labontes (except for plate races), the Waltrips (again except for plate races), the Burtons, the Bodines, the Wallaces, Schrader, and everyone else are all done except for Jeff. He is the last of a passing breed. Those drivers were the last generation where someone had to produce results in the Busch Series to get to the Cup. The cars were different, and there was a learning curve. Now if someone doesn't produce pretty quick, you know it's curtains because they aren't likely to start winning ever. It's a rough spot to be in when now everybody either is somebody's son (Chase Elliott, Ryan Blaney, the Dillons) or has daddy's money (Paul Menard, Brian Scott) to get into the sport.
We are producing a generation of drivers like Earnhardt, whiny, unwilling to take blame, immature, unable to interact with the fans, and downright effeminate. The ability to interact with fans is the one thing separating these guys from Jeff. There is nothing admirable in a crowd of paid actors who give themselves no free will. The one driver who does seem to act against NASCAR, Ryan Newman, has a laundry list of secret fines back there somewhere.
Jeff is also the last vestige of what commitment to the sport meant. He is in his 23rd full-time season, and I have doubts that we will ever see a career that long again. Every one of those years has a Bud Pole won somewhere in it. No one else active can say the same about their careers.
Our only hope at this point is that Chase Elliott becomes the next Richard Petty, and even he is in thanks to his dad's name.
I personally think Chase will do well no matter how he got in. I agree with you Alex on all the well thought out statements you make ref: each decade of drivers. I was never a Gordon fan but think he is one of the best drivers of all time and has been a champion at each level he has driven in going back to his childhood...
Well, Alex, that was actually about a dollar's worth instead of two cents. Your comments were well thought out and well presented. Seems you and I think very much alike. I could go on and on about my Earnhardt observations but I learned long ago that it pointless to try to prove what you have said although it is totally true. Some folks you just can't enlighten no matter the evidence you present. Great job, but don't expect my check anytime soon. I'm broke.
Lots of provoking statements here. Having worked directly with Dale Earnhardt from 1980-1983 as his sponsor, I can certainly attest to his attitude, something I battled constantly. HOWEVER, I guess I am in the dark regarding his 1980s "Off-track exploits." Did these occur post-1983? I'm curious about what they were. Based on Alex's statement above, I guess my character is suspect. I've often been called a character, but never accused of lacking it.
And where in the world did you come up with the idea that Dale was lauded as a hero only after his death? Nothing could be farther from the truth, as evidenced by souvenir sales alone. There was a reason both Jeff Gordon and Richard Petty (7&7) joined forces with Dale in the souvenir business. As Dale would have said, "I'm gonna have to send you back to school, boy."
I remember vividly how much the Earnhardt haters hated him. French words flew to describe him from their mouths. Suddenly, after his death, the French words stopped flying from those mouths.
Off-track exploits? I think Kerry, Junior, and Taylor can all attest to the effects of those exploits considering the very nicely cut family tree.
Anyone can smile for the camera. All the villains of the 20th century, political and athletic alike, know how to make a smile for a camera. Acting is an art that some of these current guys, like "Bad Brad" do much much worse than Big E did.
All of them---
Harlow Reynolds---Lynchburg,Va...
Kid, you've got a lot to learn. And by the way, as much as I've dissed DW, he has been very helpful to many.
Dave,
We can never agree on this manner. We're all always learning. One can never learn enough. I am hear to learn, and I will always be learning more. But I want to go on the record for one particular reason: that I look at the heart of the person involved. It's the person himself that matters. Who is he? What does his behavior say. You can disagree that I apply my personal ethics, the morals I live by, and what I have learned in my lifetime, to my evaluation of the people involved in the sport, but I must do that. To do so is to violate the purpose of learning.
Alex,
It is admirable that you are a student of the history of the sport so many of us love.
I think, though, that you should look at Section 2 of this site's Rules of Engagement before making any more of the sorts of statements I've read above. Here's a link:
http://stockcar.racersreunion.com/page/rules-of-engagement
We've all got opinions and that's what we enjoy when we banter back and forth, but if multiple marriages are your criteria for determining character, then I'm afraid our Goat Rodeo broadcast will go completely silent. I, myself, have been married twice, but in my case both times to the same wonderful woman.
By the way, you left out Kelley. Dale had 4 children.
One of the drivers (a non-winner) you cite in your opening statement was/is a woman beater. I know this personally because he once beat my former female business partner. You might want to drop him as a source. His character is certainly questionable.
Another multiple-time Cup winner is a known wife beater. I hope he isn't on your list of drivers you admire. I once had to write press releases for him and was witness to a shameful thing he did.
There is another Cup winner who beat his son in his race shop, damaging the boy's brain. I hope he isn't on your list of admirable drivers.... though he is on the list of many folk, including a lot on this site.
If we throw out every driver who didn't resist temptation, the NASCAR Hall of Fame would be near empty.
I'm not naming any names, but if I told every thing I know, you might not have any driver left to admire. I think you need to be very careful with your personal statements.
Mr. Fulton,
I believe the viewpoint I am taking is a bit blurry. I am trying to illustrate the factor is not the act, but the reason for the act. Things happen in life that we cannot control. It's the world we live in.
I will conclude this discussion by saying this: that I look at things in the light of my religious convictions. I am sure you look at things in the light of your own personal convictions. Part of the purpose of discussion is to find unison amongst the differences in those convictions and arrive at a conclusion that can be agreed upon, or, if agreement is unable to be reached, discover an appreciation for the other person's approach to a problem.
I do not need to know the tales of drivers or the evils done. Most all of the drivers I named could be tossed. Does that mean I do not love the sport? No! It's part of it! You pull for the guys you like and boo the ones you don't. It's the beauty of the sport: people coming together to root on their favorites in a test of skill, bravery, and teamwork.
Do I know things I don't like about most everyone I've ever met here and in my school life? Yes, of course! Do I let it prevent me from having incredible friendships with them? No! I know many people where the key to getting along is to simply avoid those topics on which we disagree!
So let's just leave this behind because there are things out there that are worth discussing.
well Tim you started this lil debate here and it has raised a couple of hairs on several folks. You got any input on this? I surely do but Im dare-some to start.
But I did grow up on the short tracks of the southeast and made a couple of friends along the way. It looks like two of them are in this debate.
One is DW and you remember how he was when you and I were racing, no Boogity back then but his mouth ran and he would "meet the press" so to say after every race it seems.
His fans and haters were always met with that can you see me now smile.
Now Dale on the other hand was still going to school during this time bouncing off fences and cars including mine more than once. But he would talk to you after ,at least to me anyway.
As the price of racing grew and we stopped racing in the Carolinas I would only see him on occasion but he always had that smile for me,and that dang strong arm around your neck.
I kept up with him throughout his super speedway and to me dedicated to the sport and to be the best he could be. Now if you happen to be there at the wrong time well he may blow his horn at ya. He said on one of those documentary's when asked wasnt there anything else he wanted to do -- his reply was I never wanted to do anything else but race. And race he could in the later years. Haters? yes but loyal fans heck yes. Tim had haters and followers as I found out in Columbia, and I had mine too.
But as Dave pointed out Dale was a man of his own, if you asked a stupid question he just may move the lenses from being pointed at him. Bad attitude? really Alex? I never seen him go hunt someone down to just to make a scene .
What you have wrote about Dale in a sense is is more than "hypocrisy";it is sheer nonsense.
Also true is the fact he has more fans after his death than before, but the haters came over because now they believe...
And your diatribe of words you try to put meaning behind is nothing but a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing.
I truly love a debate as many here will attest to so if you want we can continue OR shake hands and go watch the race, your call ....
If such is how people shall approach others beliefs, then I respectfully am asking Mr. Jeff Gilder to delete my account because I do not want to associate with people who will attack another poster for applying his religion to his life.
No Alex you are wrong,no one brought up religion on here and I did not attack you. Backing out and running admits defeat. Stand your ground on what you think is right even if I show it another way.
Dave and myself knew Dale as you never will,not for no reason other than you were not there. What I posted is how Dale was to me personally. Dave also was there in a position to also enjoy the great times with Dale. So if you REALLY want to leave our site I am truly sorry you have that desire.
Johnny, my opinion is just that: an opinion. There's no changing it. It's an opinion, so it's neither right nor wrong. It's neither nonsense nor brilliance. It's just a raw expression. I thank you for being able to appreciate that.
"Dave and myself knew Dale as you never will,not for no reason other than you were not there. What I posted is how Dale was to me personally. Dave also was there in a position to also enjoy the great times with Dale. So if you REALLY want to leave our site I am truly sorry you have that desire. "
My opinion of people can be strange for reasons that go beyond personal beliefs. My experiences are different from yours, and I can see that those differences go into making RR what it is. I see no reason to leave after reading this paragraph and really thinking about it for a couple of hours. I tip my hat to you.
Gentlemen, I came on here prepared to close this discussion as it was degenerating into a personality bashing fest. As you know, I never accept nor tolerate that between our members here. Jeff stated, just last week, that he is proud of how we all get along now that the few bad apples have moved on. I, too, have always been proud of that fact.
When I posted the original comments over four years ago, comments were slow in coming but recently blew up into what appear to be personal attacks. I will not publicly take sides in these issues as I feel it will defeat the purpose of the comment I'm making here. The opinions expressed here are about the competitors as mentioned, all of whom are held in high regard, or total distain, by some of us, depending upon our outlook. It has always been that way with race fans due to the passions we all feel for the sport, the drivers, and the cars.Name calling and insinuations about one another will not be accepted by me and if it continues, I will close this discussion, for whatever that may be worth.
I do find it odd that we all have expressed, over and over, how important it is to get young people into our fold to keep the history of this sport we so treasure alive. Yet, when we disagree with the opinions expressed by a young person, we take it to a personal level which I feel is totally uncalled for. I would ask that this be considered in any future comments.
That's it for now. I do apologize for this post going down hill in the manner it did. I appreciate and respect you all and would ask that you give your respect to all parties in our website.
Thank you.
Tim---Well if you will read the last post that Alex presented I think you will find that indeed things have corrected itself in a way that is acceptable . I commend Alex in the way he responded and to the fact that no one went home with their feeling hurt
