Trading Paint: New school vs. Old school
The season may be over, but in true Thanksgiving tradition, Trading Paint thankfully keeps rolling along.
For the second straight week, readers continue to discuss whether Jimmie Johnson's third consecutive championship is or isn't equal to the original three-peat winner, Cale Yarborough.
Other readers broach subjects including perceived deficiencies in the Chase format, moving the Awards Banquet out of New York, Mark Martin's chances in 2009 and another reflection on the great but far too short career of the late Tim Richmond.
So, let's get started with our annual Thanksgiving edition of Trading Paint, which is never a turkey. But please remember: don't eat too much stuffing and watch where that giblet gravy drops!
JOHNSON & JOHNSON & JOHNSON ("Three with an asterisk" Nov. 16, 2008)
I have a comment about this asterisk thing about Jimmie Johnson. Let it be. Each man, Cale Yarborough and Jimmie, are great drivers in their eras. To try and say Jimmie isn't so great that his three-peat should have an asterisk is just crazy. That's just like saying Tiger Woods' victories should have asterisks around them when compared to Jack Nicklaus. Why must people like you try to take away the good when someone does a good job. Let it be, Jerry. Just let it be, for goodness sakes.
Paul F. Pietrangelo
Amherstburg, Ontario, Canada
One thing that many readers seem to misunderstand is that the asterisk idea came from me. Actually, it came from folks just like you: regular readers. They're the ones that broached the suggestion. I just put their thoughts to words and tried to play devil's advocate. What Jimmie has accomplished is very special, just like what Cale Yarborough accomplished in his day. And there's no one more excited to see Jimmie truly set history with a fourth straight title next year than me. He is to be praised for what he's achieved, because it puts him in a very special class. A fourth straight title would put him in a class of his own.
Do you work with Jim Armstrong of the Denver Post? He also writes editorials about teams that "choke," lose, and just question a champion's success. I refer to your kind of journalism as "question the winners and kick the losers news." It is all subjective BS to get the ratings! I do not think Jim Armstrong knows anything about football, and I say the same about you, sir, when it comes to motor racing. Comparing what Cale did versus what Jimmie Johnson has accomplished is like comparing the 1972 Miami Dolphins to the 2007 New England Patriots! You have to respect them both … period.
Mike Helsper
Tustin, Calif.
I do respect both of them, Mike. But, come on, let's be realistic: the 2007 Pats couldn't carry the '72 Dolphins' jockstraps!
The (season-ending) race was Carl's, the championship is Jimmie's, to bring up Cale Yarborough and why NASCAR didn't bring him to the race is 20/20 hindsight. NASCAR can still pay tribute to him by having him present the check. Getting Cale Yarborough on stage at the Waldorf would be a stronger tribute than just having him watch his record tied. Jimmie didn't break any record, Cale did it first and he is still the one in the record books as having done it first.
Dan Batik
Massapequa, N.Y.
I really like the idea of Cale having a role in next Friday's awards banquet at the Waldorf=Astoria Hotel in New York City. It would be a fitting tribute to two fine men that deserve to be toasted for their career achievements.
Jerry, when it all is said and done, Cale and Jimmie both had competitors (drivers and teams) with similar or equal equipment to contend with. Yes, Jimmie had more races to get it done but on the flip side, more chances not to get it done. That team kept it together for a longer schedule against over 40 drivers a race on average with multi-million dollar teams and it was not a walk in the park. There should be no asterisks, unless maybe you want to include the fact that he won against better-financed teams with way better equipment than Cale did. But then again, dollar for dollar, driver for driver they had the same challenges of sorts. Yes, Cale did not have power steering and such, but neither did his competitors. It's the same with Jimmie's competitors: they had the same chances he did.
Vic Van Winkle
Knoxville, Tenn.
I've watched both the "old school" and "new school" racing, and I firmly believe that NASCAR made a huge mistake changing the rules to make up "the Chase." I think every driver out there every week should have the opportunity to win the championship. NASCAR keeps changing the rules (first to change the number of drivers to 12 from 10 because Tony Stewart didn't make the first "Chase"), then changing the points system when Jeff Gordon was clearly robbed of the championship last year because there were no additional points added based on the number of races won. I'm a huge Hendricks Motorsports fan and I think Jimmie and Chad should be commended for winning the championship. But I think it diminishes all of the winners of pre-"Chase" championships if you don't note the substantial changes that were made under the old rules and the new rules.
B.J. Jamerson
You make some good points, B.J. By the way, Tony Stewart qualified for the first and second Chases (the latter which he won). Stewart missed the 2006 Chase, the third year of its existence. The Chase was designed to prevent runaway championships and promote winning over consistency. But at what cost? All NASCAR officials like Brian France and Mike Helton would have to do is look at the hundreds of emails I receive each week, so many with the same recurring theme – all the fans the Chase has alienated or caused to leave the sport – to realize that maybe the Chase has done more harm than good for the average, Joe Six-pack fan. Two good examples follow:
Jerry, I'm hoping you'll be compiling another "If I ran NASCAR …" type column, so here are my entries. First, the Chase is a loser. For years, fans have been stating the obvious, and NASCAR won't listen, that more emphasis has to be placed on winning. Suggestion: Award X amount of points for the first win in a season. Then increase the points for each successive victory so that the more a driver wins the more points he amasses. No more driving around in circles until the Chase to start winning races, that's bunk. Second, encourage innovation. Currently, whenever teams try anything innovative it's called "cheating" and they're penalized. The brains at NASCAR say they want increased competition but then their actions discourage it. Under Brian France, NASCAR is becoming a version of IROC, with all the cars the same, and its boring. I say turn them loose!
Dave B.
Alexandria, Va.
Jerry, after five years, I think it's time to give up the Chase experiment. The first year in 2004, it produced a tight race with Kurt Busch winning by eight points over Johnson and 16 over Gordon, where pre-Chase Gordon wins his fifth title by 47 points, a somewhat close margin. In 2005, Tony Stewart won by 35 over (Greg) Biffle and (Carl) Edwards, while pre-Chase it would've been 215 points and an inconsequential finale for Stewart. In 2006, Johnson won by 56 over (Matt) Kenseth and four drivers had a shot, while pre-Chase Johnson would've won the closest battle ever with a four-point margin. In 2007, Johnson won by 77 while pre-Chase Gordon could've taken the last two races off with a 353-point cushion. This year, Jimmie won by 69 points and was never in real danger, while pre-Chase Edwards would've won by 16 points. Yes there would've been two laughers, but there would've also been two classic battles that I feel would've been more dramatic and meaningful. Because after 36 races, four and 16 points separating first and second place unbelievable, and is more impressive to me than eight points after an artificially bunched group of select few. No knock on Jimmie and no love for Jeff, but Gordon was by far the best driver last year and deserves six trophies on his mantle. Two of the last three years, the championship would've been closer under the old rules. I think it's time to admit something might be wrong with the format.
Eric Kulaga
Chicago
This could be one of the best letters I've received in months. Thanks for writing – and by the way, I tend to agree with you.
Jerry, it's time for all the old-timer NASCAR fans to just "get over it" and accept that times have changed. Jimmie won, period! It's unfair to him or to the old-timers to try to compare them. It's comparing apples to oranges and I feel enough is enough. Let's just give today's drivers their due for winning and stop trying to diminish what they are accomplishing. I'm cheering for Jimmie to win his fourth consecutive championship. Let the dynasty continue!
Barbara Crawford
Wharton, Texas
Your points are valid. But what about the rest of the story? How many of those that Cale raced against were full-time racers vs. the Kirk Shelmerdine's or Morgan Shepherd's? How many times did he race against 43 cars? Cheating is a lot harder these days too. In years past, "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin' " – cheating was accepted. It was against the rules, but still done. Now? Good luck getting away with anything. Jimmie and (crew chief Chad) Knaus have maximized the rules. Plain and simple. Maximized their car, maximized their schedule, maximized their payoff. No asterisk, no way. Hell, I don't even like him. I'm a Tony fan.
Dane M. Stewart
Houston
The Chase is supposed to be like the playoffs, right? Well, in how many sports does a loser continue 'til the finals? What I think would be interesting would be for the season to progress as it does now up to the "Chase." At that point, the top 12 drivers run against only each other for points. That part's been said before. What I propose, though, is that after the first two weeks of the Chase, the bottom two contenders are eliminated. Start over with the points even for the remaining 10 teams. Two weeks later, get rid of two more. Start over with the points even again. Continue this pattern until you have four teams left. Having four teams run two races from a dead heat (points-wise) would certainly increase the odds of having some drama for the last race. It would also make the Chase a real playoff system of loser-goes-home.
John Trickett
Charleston, Ark.
Hey Jerry, I really have to put my two cents in about moving the Awards Banquet to Las Vegas. Bad, bad idea! With the cost of just coming here for a race, I can only imagine how high the prices would be for the Awards Banquet. This town has run itself into the ground, and in the end only the elite would be able to attend! With the way they jack up the prices now for the races, I can say without a doubt the prices would be ten-fold over that! And as for Jimmie, I don't think he could even carry any of the drivers of old's jock strap!
Jere Johnson
Las Vegas
Sorry, Jere, but I disagree with you. Sure, Vegas can be high-priced, but nowhere near what it costs to spend several days in the Big Apple. Trust me, I speak from experience – and I have the four-figure expense reports from four or five days of lodging, eating, etc., with nothing pretentious or ostentatious, to prove it. We're just talking the basics – very costly basics, though. If the banquet was in Vegas, folks could easily spend half of what they spend in New York, maybe even less.
When is the Sprint Cup Series banquet or did I miss it?
Jon Newcomer
Gainesville, Fla.
Nope, you didn't miss it, Jon. Because of where the Thanksgiving holiday fell on the calendar this year, the banquet was pushed back to next Friday, Dec. 5, once again at the Waldorf=Astoria in New York City.
Mark Martin ran two-thirds of the season (or 24 races) and finished one position higher in the standings than Michael Waltrip, among many others who raced the full 36-race schedule. If one would take Mark's total points (3,022), divide by the 24 races, you'd get an average of 125.917 points per race. Thirteenth-place finisher David Ragan ended the season at 4,299 points, which is an average of 119.4166 points per race (over 36 races). Since I do happen to live close enough to a sports book here in Southern Nevada, and Martin is going to run with a good team in 2009, I am putting my cash on him to win his first Cup championship next year! All my best and see you next year! Thanks!
Frank Bruce
Henderson, Nev.
I agree that Mark is destined for a big season in 2009. My only fear is what happens if he comes up short of the championship for the umpteenth time in his career. Will going back to full-time racing for one last time be worth it if he finishes second for the fifth time in his career and will still not end up with Cup title No. 1?
Thank you for recognizing and mentioning the accomplishments of the late, great Tim Richmond. Without a doubt, he was one of the greatest to ever strap into a stock car. This new generation of NASCAR could surely stand to have another driver equal of his talent and charisma. I doubt it will ever happen, but if it were to, I'd definitely become a fan again.
Richard Hubbard
Melrose, Fla.
Jerry, now that NASCAR as stopped the testing sessions at NASCAR approved tracks, do you think that I will see more testing at my home track, The Milwaukee Mile, and other tracks that don't have a Sprint Cup race?
Jeff Dorow
Milwaukee, Wisc.
Unfortunately, Jeff, The Milwaukee Mile will see no NASCAR-sanctioned testing in 2009. TMM does play host to both a Nationwide Series event and a Camping World (formerly Craftsman Truck) Series event – and those make for an automatic disqualifier for ALL NASCAR teams from testing there, be they Sprint Cup, Nationwide or Camping World series teams.
