Purvis

[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".

[hanginitout]

Just a question? What is he doing now? Last I had heard he was running some crate stuff. Then I had heard he had an accident with his hauler,

[a25rjr]

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".

Well said......I 100% agree!

[Pennsboro23]

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.

Very informative post, I wish I were able to see Swartz, Purvis, Moore etc. I started going racing with my pops in the mid 1990's. At that time, Bloomer and Moyer were dominating, and my all time favorite driver Freddy Smith was still winning a lot of races. Being from Pennsboro, I had to become a fan of Freddy. They actually started calling him Mr. Pennsboro. I do agree, it always seems like those were the good ol days and you always wish you could go back and relive those moments when racing was in it's ''hay day''. Even though I was never privileged enough to watch Jeff Purvis, I have great respect for what he accomplished in the sport and glad that we can have conversations like this to debate who we think the best drivers of all time are.

[grt74]

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".

no he didn't set the world on fire just yet, but the stars were about to line up before he got hurt, he was in top notch equipment for a couple of races and showed he could get it done and gibbs was ready to put him in the seat (sponsor wise)

jeff is doing well these days, he has several businesses, but racing is a thing of the past for him these days, but he still likes to talk about it from time to time, i do like the stories cj tells from time to time

but he was one of the very few to get to the top, and in a time when it wasn't very easy to do

[kidrock]

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.............

And that is the rest of the story!!

[jog49]

All this talk that goes on constantly about who's the best this and who's the best that is just endless speculation. There has been a small, select group of drivers over the life of dirt racing that, if they pulled through the pit gates, had a very high probability of winning the race that day or night. Purvis would have been among that group during his too brief stint on dirt. He could drive anything reasonably well and used that talent to move up into the NASCAR ranks. Ken Schrader was such a driver too but Purvis was probably better along the way up to NASCAR.

[RW57]

One thing Purvis had going for him was he was a class act not a total jerk like some of today's drivers. People liked him.My opinion if he had stayed in dirt racing he would have been the best ever still may be.

[jog49]

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

Then it's not the two or three everyone is arguing about but rather Buck Simmons. He has 1,024 verifiable career wins which far outdistances anybody I know of in dirt late model racing.