Interesting. I just emailed Godwin Kelly of the Daytona News Journal to see if he can shed any light on whatever became of the photo.
Found Bob Torbol (or Torbal) was indeed a racer himself. Here he is in 1955 in a modified in Duluth.
From: http://www.maynedesign.net/showcarpublishing/PDFs/SCB_1955_SampleChapter_web.pdf
I don't think Papa Lee was terribly concerned about eventually being declared the winner. He seems pretty relaxed as he posed for what was obviously a self-serving photo by the Daytona paper on Tuesday after the 500.
Here is the blog entry I posted about a year ago about Lee's win in that inaugural Daytona 500:
http://bench-racing.blogspot.com/2013/02/february-22-1959-lee-wins-1st-daytona.html
Over the years, I generally heard T. Taylor Warren get the credit for the photo that ultimately caused Bill France to rule in favor of Lee Petty as the winner. But I found this Daytona Beach Morning Journal article interesting in that an amateur photographer apparently had a similar photo. As of February 24th, he had not released the picture for publication - perhaps wanting to sell it to France or others? I'm curious whatever became of Bob Torbal and his mystery pic.
Not sure about the 30 car max you are referencing. But the 2nd part of that 'answer' is the one that confuses me. As I understand it, NASCAR will be implementing a new concussion policy this year - closer in structure to one adopted by the NFL and NHL.
I know Brad Keselowski is against it. And I think it was Denny Hamlin who suggested he could see some drivers missing some races this year because of the new policy. So how about this scenario. A driver wins 5 races before the summer Daytona race. Easily headed for the Chase right? But gets clobbered in the Big One at summer Daytona and misses 3 events. Loses a bit of mojo but doesn't fall out of top 30 in points.
So in this example, does this 5x winner still make the top 16 for the chase even though he didn't attempt to qualify for all the first 26 races?
That's one of the better ideas I've seen tossed around on Twitter. If this First To Finish model that wins the Cup in the final event will indeed be the most hyped race on the schedule 2nd only to Daytona, then NASCAR should likely consider a rotation of venues. But mid-November? Choices are limited right? Homestead, Daytona, Vegas, Phoenix and California. We know the weather history of Atlanta - dry but COLD. Talladega and Texas would likely be the same.
Now that ISC controls the final race - and with common management with NASCAR - I don't see a scenario where SMI gets the final race of the year again. That means Vegas is out.
I'm not opposed to the season ending at Daytona. Matter of fact, I've suggested that a few times in recent years as the traditional July 4th date and Firecracker name disappeared. But Andy, you make a good point about ticket sales. Starting and ending the year at the beach is one thing - selling 100,000 seats in November in the meat of the NFL season is another.
NO CHASE!? After all I've posted to this site Tim? Crushed man, simply crushed. Expected far more from you. LOL
Andy - that analogy made me laugh. I think when it comes to music, that may well fit me to a tee. When it comes to racing, I do often wonder if I've gotten exactly what I wanted. As a kid, I always wanted more TV coverage. As a college guy, I wanted all my buds to share my same enthusiasm for this sport. Ridicule it? Do so at your own peril as I may go Tasmanian Devil on you. As a young, salary-earning, pre-marriage/kids adult, I wanted to sit in better seats - with better view and fewer splinters. As a married man who was now more selective as to what races I would attend or watch, I wanted great sightlines and constant coverage. As technology evolved, I wanted more coverage of off track news - and I wanted it NOW. But as I approach a half century on this earth and 4 decades as a fan, ehh suddenly racing is too over-exposed, too tricked-up, too expensive, too predictable. Ha.
Oh sure. I get it. More often than not, the adage "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" works for me.
Its funny when a group of my buds and I get together for a race - especially if we have newbies around us. I swear EVERY fun time we ever had at the track happened on the same weekend. Its uncanny.
Not only did I catch it, but I cringed when his widow actually had to say it. I'm sure her committed efforts to see Tim inducted and her overall grace and dignity had her take the high road. But it was tough hearing her say those words as she read them from the t-prompter.
The only story I've ever heard is that Fireball's nickname came from his prowess as a baseball pitcher. Until today. Saw this quip in Ed Hinton's column on ESPN here:
http://espn.go.com/racing/nascar/cup/story/_/id/10364820/nascar-hall-fame-class-2014-tim-flock-dale-jarrett-jack-ingram-maurice-petty-fireball-roberts
Edward Glenn Roberts Jr., it was long believed, got his nickname as a fastball pitcher in his youth in Central Florida. NASCAR historians now question the story, with input from Roberts' family and friends. Maybe, just maybe, Fireball got the name purely for his racing career.
As is the case with so much in racing, its awfully tough to know the difference between true history and the tales told so often that they become the gospel truth. Ha.
I know many here have a passion for doing the best that can be done to note the actual vs. the 'popular story'. Its likely we'll never know the true story behind Fireball's catchy nickname. But we are playing a neat role in holding the sanctioning body and its historians' feet to the fire on things such as:
