60 replies to this topic

[RocketChassis#1]

I could never understand why Pearson never wanted to run the whole season. Beside keeping Petty short of his milestones it would have een interesting to see what changes would have been.

Money, Pearson likely made more money just hitting the "bigger" paying races at the time, then chasing around the country for points. Remember there use to be a lot of dirt tracks, short tracks that had Grand National races that really didn't pay much. A lot of quality teams didn't run the entire schedule until the later 1970's - 1980's when, Winston, TV money came in and the schedule was cut down. 

[Walt Wimer]

Money and depending on who Pearson was driving for.  The one time he ran the full circuit was the period he ran the Cotton Owens #6 Dodge during the first half of the 60s. But not for the likes of the Wood Bros. or Hohman-Moody.

 

Walt.  

[jo73]

OK makes a lot more sense. I thought when he got in the 21 car that he was running all the races. I never thought the Holman moody car ran the series back then. As for the cotton Owens car. I never would have thought they did the whole tour.

[cats442]

I'm curious why some of the big name drivers didn't run full seasons back then.  Was it because of funding, tracks they didn't like or that the championship wouldn't pay that much?

[Tommy]

They were racing over 40 races a year at one point, and to some teams it did not make sense to run the whole schedule. When Winston came in 1972, they started the winners circle program where teams got paid to show up to every race and they cut the schedule back.

[714d]

It was a different time. Guys didn't have the funding. They didn't have fleets of cars, and most of the crew guys were volunteers. I couldn't imagine the stress of running all those races back then.

[The Legend]

That's why I don't give petty as much credit for what he did as I give Gordon

[Habs33]

Yeah Gordon winning over a third of the races (13 of 33) and having a 5.7 average finish in '98 is no doubt the most impressive season in NASCAR history in my opinion. Not to mention he won no less than 7 races from '95 to '99

[RocketChassis#1]

There was one race, not sure of the year,  where Petty was 5 laps down and came back to win. So that sort of tells you about the level of competition at times in NASCAR.

[Skull]

Walt, I think David Pearson would have won 3 or 4 championships if he had run full schedules. 105 wins is a helluva lotta wins, and surely would have resulted in multiple championships had he run the whole schedule most of those years.

 

http://bleacherrepor...history/page/16

 

Good article about the most consistant drivers in NASCAR's history. The hot link is the number 1 rated driver, David Pearson. The numbers are astounding.

[The Legend]

I question the same thing about the dirt drivers with 600 wins back in the day

[Skull]

I question the same thing about the dirt drivers with 600 wins back in the day

Painting a great crop of drivers with a pretty broad brush. It's easy to sit there and speculate about what you didn't see. Bob Wearing, Sr. has plenty of big wins sprinkled throughout his 600 plus victories. Same for Blackie Watt and Lou Blaney.

I hear people try to make the similar equivocations that Ovie is a better player than Lemieux or Gretzky because the players today are bigger, faster and more skilled than 20 or 30 years ago, goalies weren't as skilled, their equipment was smaller, blah, blah blah. Yeah, and if my aunt were a man she'd be my uncle.

As far as I'm concerned as David Byrne says, it's the same as it ever was in NASCAR as locally. You have 20 percent or so that are odds on favorites weekly. The next 30 percent plus or minus that could win if the moon and the stars are in alignment. The rest are field fillers.

[jo73]

Most are field fillers. We where. But yet we understood we never had a chance. The money spent was ridiculous. To go nowhere. But, we had fun. There are few that are winners in this game. It's what pissed me off when some jerk gets on here running his mouth about somebody. If you think your so much better identify yourself so we can all give you hi praise. If not shout up and enjoy doing what your doing. Me personally I have no favorite. Why, because the best race may be the guys running 10th to 15th. I buy my ticket to watch a good race. If you watch those guys I bet there having fun too...

[LM RACING]

Most are field fillers. We where. But yet we understood we never had a chance. The money spent was ridiculous. To go nowhere. But, we had fun. There are few that are winners in this game. It's what pissed me off when some jerk gets on here running his mouth about somebody. If you think your so much better identify yourself so we can all give you hi praise. If not shout up and enjoy doing what your doing. Me personally I have no favorite. Why, because the best race may be the guys running 10th to 15th. I buy my ticket to watch a good race. If you watch those guys I bet there having fun too...

I agree 100%. People talk about field fillers or back markers all the time and it is ridiculous. What they dont get is that people start racing because they love it. To a lot of people who race, its not weather you win or lose its about being with your friends and enjoying what you are doing. Do teams want to win yes. But it comes down to weather your family eats or has a home in some cases. These guys with paid crews and unlimited budgets run back of the pack also but thats ok. They go laps down sometimes. But if you dont have an unlimited budget some of the people here dont feel you deserve a chance. If thats the case lets go to a racetrack, run five sets of group qualifying, average the times to determine the winner and go home. if you are a shit talker then you dont know a thing about these drivers, crews, the work involved or even what a race is about. Cause if you have ever been there you would have a different opinion.

[RocketChassis#1]

I question the same thing about the dirt drivers with 600 wins back in the day

Back in the 50's when Herb Scott was the big winner, in the Coupe era, your really could run 5-6-7 times a week. In the 1960's and 70's  you could still run 4 nights a week and in the summer there would be plenty of Wendsday night invites also. Bob Wearing also ran two classes in the 1970's thru the late 80's. The year he won every Late Model Feature at Lernerville in 1979, 12 total, he won 6 Modified races also. Both Lou Blaney, and Blackie Watt ran two classes, and Ralph Quarterson occasionally ran 3. This helps bring the win totals up. Its also doubtful you will see win totals like this ever again. You really can't run as much as you did back then, even if you wanted to around here anymore.

[Skull]

Most are field fillers. We where. But yet we understood we never had a chance. The money spent was ridiculous. To go nowhere. But, we had fun. There are few that are winners in this game. It's what pissed me off when some jerk gets on here running his mouth about somebody. If you think your so much better identify yourself so we can all give you hi praise. If not shout up and enjoy doing what your doing. Me personally I have no favorite. Why, because the best race may be the guys running 10th to 15th. I buy my ticket to watch a good race. If you watch those guys I bet there having fun too...

 

I don't know what you use other than the term " field filler" that's less offensive. It wasn't meant to disparage on my part, but if you and LM racing are offended, that's your problem. Just remember though, that not all of those cars that rarely crack the top ten let alone win are underfunded. I have seen more teams do less with more than the other way around.

[FanJim24]

Back in the 50's when Herb Scott was the big winner, in the Coupe era, your really could run 5-6-7 times a week. In the 1960's and 70's  you could still run 4 nights a week and in the summer there would be plenty of Wendsday night invites also. Bob Wearing also ran two classes in the 1970's thru the late 80's. The year he won every Late Model Feature at Lernerville in 1979, 12 total, he won 6 Modified races also. Both Lou Blaney, and Blackie Watt ran two classes, and Ralph Quarterson occasionally ran 3. This helps bring the win totals up. Its also doubtful you will see win totals like this ever again. You really can't run as much as you did back then, even if you wanted to around here anymore.

Yeah, Wearing usually had good equipment, but he would drive junk and win too.  He just wanted to drive, and he was smart enough to make fewer mistakes than the other guy, and had a few ways of making the other guy make mistakes.  

[Stock Stroker]

Stock Stroker........Seems to me you have your facts backwards!!  Petty almost always ran the full schedule. It was others such a Pearson, Lorenzen and others that didn't and that helped Petty in points!!!

 

Walt

Walt,  These are my backwards facts.  Petty only ran 2 complete seasons of his first 15, of those, he won the title in 1964 with 61 of 62 races run, 1967 with 48 of 49, and 1971 with 46 of 48 races run.  From 1972 on he ran a complete schedule.

 

http://www.racing-re...river/pettyri01

 

JMO

[burghfan]

Walt,  These are my backwards facts.  Petty only ran 2 complete seasons of his first 15, of those, he won the title in 1964 with 61 of 62 races run, 1967 with 48 of 49, and 1971 with 46 of 48 races run.  From 1972 on he ran a complete schedule.

 

http://www.racing-re...river/pettyri01

 

JMO

 

In 64 there was 1 other driver in the top 10 that ran as many races as Petty did.  In 67 Petty ran at least 2 more races than everybody else in the top 10.  In 67 Petty ran 48 races and won the title, Pearson ran 22 and finished 7th.  The 'partial' schedule that Petty ran had a lot more races than the 'partial' schedule other drivers ran.  I think that was the point Walt was making.

[Walt Wimer]

Right on!!!

 

Walt