Purvis

[ptown]

The only way you can be the best ever is to have the best lifetime career stats.

[seminole939913]

I watched Jeff race several times and some of the more memorable ones were the shows he and Ronnie Johnson would put on when they would run the dirt late models on the 1/4 mile asphalt track in Huntsville, Alabama and I think they ran the 1/4 track in Nashville a couple of times as well but I did not make those. I know the first time they had the show in Huntsville, their points leader in the weekly asphalt late model division (I believe it was Mike Oliver) brought his car and Purvis lapped him within the first ten laps of the race with Johnson right on his heels and the asphalt regular pulled in and parked and watched the rest of the show. I think the top four cars were all that finished on the lead lap that night, but it sure was a good, very fast paced, race for the entire 100 laps.

[Illtsate32]

I had the privilege to see them both race. They both are one of the best. IMO In Jeff's first 5 starts in the world 100 he had 3 wins and 2 -2nd place finishes . Scott has 4 wins in 25 + starts .

Would of had 15 worlds at least...

[dirtdobber45]

Would of had 15 worlds at least...

If he didnt he wouldve been close to that. Plus some of those Dreams

[let-r-eat]

Purvis ALL DAY EVERYDAY over any other driver out there today or yesterday in a DLM. He's the best to ever hold the wheel of one.............

It was AMAZING how free he could race a car without wrecking. On these slick tracks of today, he would be lapping the field in these 100 lappers. Hell, he did it back then. He would be even MORE today. Watching him corner a car is a sight that all DLM drivers today should be watching with extreme focus. The guy was beyond good.............

[Pennsboro23]

dam fellas, that had to hurt, lmao
and thats the truth, truth

Not really. Like ptown said, the only way to be the best ever is to have the statistics to back it up. Ask 100 random knowledgeable dirt late model fans, who the best late model driver of all time is and 70 percent of them say Bloomer, 25 say Moyer, and the other 5 percent would include Purvis, Freddy Smith, Moran, etc.

Just like any other sport, stats don't lie. Gretzky, Jordan, Tiger, Brady all the best of their sport because of their accomplishments. Winning championships, and dominating their sport for many years. With Purvis, everything is well he WOULD have won this or that...the thing is he didn't. No doubt, he COULD have. Is Tony Stewart considered one of the best dirt racers of all time in either a sprint car or super?

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

Not really. Like ptown said, the only way to be the best ever is to have the statistics to back it up. Ask 100 random knowledgeable dirt late model fans, who the best late model driver of all time is and 70 percent of them say Bloomer, 25 say Moyer, and the other 5 percent would include Purvis, Freddy Smith, Moran, etc.

Just like any other sport, stats don't lie. Gretzky, Jordan, Tiger, Brady all the best of their sport because of their accomplishments. Winning championships, and dominating their sport for many years. With Purvis, everything is well he WOULD have won this or that...the thing is he didn't. No doubt, he COULD have. Is Tony Stewart considered one of the best dirt racers of all time in either a sprint car or super?

Tiger hasn't and won't win the most majors. Stats don't lie. There are two ways to decide who is the best. Are we talking about stats or actual ability? Those are different. And drivers from different eras can't really be compared because of different races available. NASCAR recognized Richmond in their list of all time greats.

[Pennsboro23]

Tiger hasn't and won't win the most majors. Stats don't lie. There are two ways to decide who is the best. Are we talking about stats or actual ability? Those are different. And drivers from different eras can't really be compared because of different races available. NASCAR recognized Richmond in their list of all time greats.

As you can tell, I'm not much of a golfer. But you understood my point.

I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree.

[MasterSbilt_Racer]

As you can tell, I'm not much of a golfer. But you understood my point.

I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree.

Its an exercise in opinion. Everyone is entitled to one. Just explaining how I see it. IMO, Purvis is the best and Swartz was the most exciting. Everyone else is free to their own opinion. A lot of the college boyz on here never saw either one race. LOL

[zyoung25]

I never seen Purvis race, but I did watch Charlie a good bit growing up. I feel like Purvis is the best, even without watching him in person. I guess I'm more of a numbers guy, I don't have to see people in action to know their greatness. Bo Jackson was probably the best multi sport player ever, and never won a title. Him and Purvis remind me a lot of each other in a sort. Nobody ever got to see how great they could've been, but numbers don't lie on how great they actually were either.

[dirtdobber45]

Jeff was a dam good driver. He was good at every level. And yes shoulda woulda coulda been the best dlm we have ever seen. But he grabbed that brass ring to further his career. Pretty dam smart in my opinion

[TS FAN]

Its an exercise in opinion. Everyone is entitled to one. Just explaining how I see it. IMO, Purvis is the best and Swartz was the most exciting. Everyone else is free to their own opinion. A lot of the college boyz on here never saw either one race. LOL

Once again you are right. We all have opinions. Fine
For ME Purvis!!! Bloomer second. I watched both of them plenty. Purvis pretty much left LM racing in his early thirties. Career stats are fine to look at, but it never says who is the best just based on those.

[CIRF]

The only way you can be the best ever is to have the best lifetime career stats.

Not really. Like ptown said, the only way to be the best ever is to have the statistics to back it up. Ask 100 random knowledgeable dirt late model fans, who the best late model driver of all time is and 70 percent of them say Bloomer, 25 say Moyer, and the other 5 percent would include Purvis, Freddy Smith, Moran, etc.

Just like any other sport, stats don't lie. Gretzky, Jordan, Tiger, Brady all the best of their sport because of their accomplishments. Winning championships, and dominating their sport for many years. With Purvis, everything is well he WOULD have won this or that...the thing is he didn't. No doubt, he COULD have. Is Tony Stewart considered one of the best dirt racers of all time in either a sprint car or super?

Okay, fair enough. We'll just settle on the fact that Purvis was way too talented and too good to languish away his career by winning every "dirt late model crown jewel" many times and constantly winning on every obscure little dirt bull ring in the country. He moved on..........and up. Simple as that.

The big difference between the athletes you mention and Purvis is those athletes made their mark competing in the absolute pinnacle of competition in their chosen sport. That was not the case with Purvis in regards to dirt late models. DLM's are not the pinnacle of racing competition and I mean absolutely no disrespect to the DLM division which is my first love. It's just the way it is.

There are guys that have been absolute beasts in college football and basketball (see Archie Griffin and Danny Manning) or in the minor leagues of MLB but that isn't the pinnacle of their sport. Purvis was good enough that he was given the opportunity to move up to the pinnacle. DLM's turned out to be just a stepping stone for him because of his superior talent.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[BloomerHarvickFan]

I had the privilege to see them both race. They both are one of the best. IMO In Jeff's first 5 starts in the world 100 he had 3 wins and 2 -2nd place finishes . Scott has 4 wins in 25 + starts .

Bloomquist did have 2 World wins in his first 3 starts.

[BloomerHarvickFan]

Purvis also has a very small sample size at Eldora too with only 8 starts.
He had an average finish of 5.0
Bloomquist has an avg. finish of 7.07 with 27 starts
Bloomquist not only has 4 wins, but 18 top 5 finishes in 27 starts including 8 runner up finishes.
Scott has finished in the top 3, over half of the time.

[Pennsboro23]

Okay, fair enough. We'll just settle on the fact that Purvis was way too talented and too good to languish away his career by winning every "dirt late model crown jewel" many times and constantly winning on every obscure little dirt bull ring in the country. He moved on..........and up. Simple as that.

The big difference between the athletes you mention and Purvis is those athletes made their mark competing in the absolute pinnacle of competition in their chosen sport. That was not the case with Purvis in regards to dirt late models. DLM's are not the pinnacle of racing competition and I mean absolutely no disrespect to the DLM division which is my first love. It's just the way it is.

There are guys that have been absolute beasts in college football and basketball (see Archie Griffin and Danny Manning) or in the minor leagues of MLB but that isn't the pinnacle of their sport. Purvis was good enough that he was given the opportunity to move up to the pinnacle. DLM's turned out to be just a stepping stone for him because of his superior talent.

Hope that clears it up for you.

No, I completely understand, and no hard feelings. I just love history and statistics of sports. Purvis probably was the most talented driver we have ever seen in late models, I just wish he would have stuck around to see what he would have done.

[jog49]

Wouldn't you all love to see the big rigs arriving at your favorite tracks with wraps on them like the hauler of Purvis?

[Chris Thomason]

That would be cool! Was he doing that before his nascar days?

[CIRF]

No, I completely understand, and no hard feelings. I just love history and statistics of sports. Purvis probably was the most talented driver we have ever seen in late models, I just wish he would have stuck around to see what he would have done.

No hard feelings whatsoever. I understand your point of view and I appreciate your respectfulness. I also highly respect your appreciation for the history and numbers of sports as a whole.

I reckon things always look better when looking back on them as a time of your life when the world was your oyster and before life has a chance to cause a person to become jaded. Purvis' heyday in dirt late models was at time when the late model division was teeming with exceptional talent and big car numbers. Moyer was entering his heyday, bloomy was a bright up and coming star along with Moran and Francis, etc. Chargin' Charlie Swartz was putting on a show no matter where he raced and guys like Freddie Smith, Larry Moore, Mike Duvall and Buck Simmons were wildly popular established stars of the division. At that time I was deeply involved with a winning late model team and when Purvis showed up at an event we knew we had to work a little harder and would need a little luck, too.

At the time Purvis left the dirt he was the most feared and respected dirt late model driver of them all. I will always believe he was the best to strap his ass into a dirt late model. If anyone has proof to the contrary I'm all ears. Not looking for a pissing contest, just looking for anything that would make the case against him besides comparing numbers against guys that raced late models 25 or more years longer that Jeff.

[Finnfan]

Just my 2 cents... I was lucky enough to watch Purvis 8-10 times and he didn't win every feature I saw, just like Bloomquist and Moyer don't always win. It was clear he was an exceptional talent, but its not really fair to compare him to Bloomer, Moyer, Owens, Moran, etc... because they did "stay" in dirt LM racing and all their stats are irrefutable. In other words, you don't have to put a would of, could of, should of...in front of any of their accomplishments/wins, they actually DID them.

Purvis chose to leave, which was his absolute right to do and I'm sure was better financially, but to me, when you choose to leave a sport, you don't get the right to the "Oh he could have won this and that 50 times..." label. To me that gets forfeited once you decide to leave, and you only get to rely on the accomplishments you actually DID. That goes for any driver.

The truth is no one knows exactly what Purvis would have done if he stayed, so it's comparing apples to oranges, since other drivers did STAY and rack up wins (see Bloomer and Moyer). Perhaps Purvis wouldn't have adapted to the different chassis changes over the years, perhaps he would've but no one knows for sure, while we do know for sure that Bloomer and Moyer (and others) did adapt and succeed. Purvis didn't exactly set the world on fire in the Nascar/asphalt ranks.

And for the record, I'm not at all anti-Purvis, I just think it slights the other drivers when people say "Purvis would have been better".