Dang no talent loser!!

[kidrock]

Well there are many people who think anyone who has won a championship under the current points system is not a legitimate champion and I'm surprised your not in their corner with the way you have blasted NASCAR for the current points system.

Like I told you I could care less about the points or how a champion is crowned. to me that doesn't define how good a driver is or not. Heck are we now going to say that Mark Martin was not a good driver because he never won a cup championship. I don't think so.

[CIRF]

Well there are many people who think anyone who has won a championship under the current points system is not a legitimate champion and I'm surprised your not in their corner with the way you have blasted NASCAR for the current points system.

Like I told you I could care less about the points or how a champion is crowned. to me that doesn't define how good a driver is or not. Heck are we now going to say that Mark Martin was not a good driver because he never won a cup championship. I don't think so.

Just for the record I don't like this chase deal, at all. That said, every points system that has been used in NASCAR has had it's shortcomings. I believe that one of The King's championships used a points system that was based on the size of the total purse and he won another based on length (in miles) of the points paying races.

Bob Latford was the author of the best points system ever used in Cup and even it was flawed. The flaw was that a driver could win the points championship without winning a single race. Luckily that never happened but Benny Parsons won the 1973 championship having only won 1 race that year and that particular version of the points system was not used prior to '73 and was never used again. What's interesting about '73 was that Parsons won the championship with just 1 win and David Pearson only ran 18 of the 31 races and he won 11 of the 18 he competed in. Pearson was on fire driving for the Wood Bros.

As I said before, in the minds of most knowledgeable fans the points system used during most of the Winston Cup era was the best but needed a tweak or two and just a bit more emphasis placed on winning.

Coincidentally or otherwise, the Winston Cup era produced the biggest surge in popularity of NASCAR, produced by far the best racing and produced the most legitimate and most exciting points competitions. Once again, was it coincidence? Maybe, but it's doubtful.

Agree 100% on your point that championships don't define the quality of a drivers' career. Look at David Pearson, who is regarded by most (including myself from purely a fan perspective) as being the best of all time and he won but 3 championships. But then again David only ran for the championship 3 times, and won it 3 times, if that tells you anything.

Mark Martin actually won 1 Cup championship in 1990. The driver that is listed as the '90 champ simply had Billy France Jr. and NASCAR much deeper in his pocket that Martin did and in this case it paid off, big time.

[kidrock]

Just for the record I don't like this chase deal, at all. That said, every points system that has been used in NASCAR has had it's shortcomings. I believe that one of The King's championships used a points system that was based on the size of the total purse and he won another based on length (in miles) of the points paying races.

Bob Latford was the author of the best points system ever used in Cup and even it was flawed. The flaw was that a driver could win the points championship without winning a single race. Luckily that never happened but Benny Parsons won the 1973 championship having only won 1 race that year and that particular version of the points system was not used prior to '73 and was never used again. What's interesting about '73 was that Parsons won the championship with just 1 win and David Pearson only ran 18 of the 31 races and he won 11 of the 18 he competed in. Pearson was on fire driving for the Wood Bros.

As I said before, in the minds of most knowledgeable fans the points system used during most of the Winston Cup era was the best but needed a tweak or two and just a bit more emphasis placed on winning.

Coincidentally or otherwise, the Winston Cup era produced the biggest surge in popularity of NASCAR, produced by far the best racing and produced the most legitimate and most exciting points competitions. Once again, was it coincidence? Maybe, but it's doubtful.

Agree 100% on your point that championships don't define the quality of a drivers' career. Look at David Pearson, who is regarded by most (including myself from purely a fan perspective) as being the best of all time and he won but 3 championships. But then again David only ran for the championship 3 times, and won it 3 times, if that tells you anything.

Mark Martin actually won 1 Cup championship in 1990. The driver that is listed as the '90 champ simply had Billy France Jr. and NASCAR much deeper in his pocket that Martin did and in this case it paid off, big time.

Funny I don't see Mark Martin as the winner for 1990. I'm not going to say that Dale did not have NASCAR on his side but, with that being said I don't want to assume because that sure got in trouble the last time I did that lol. What are you trying to say here?

Like I said I know some knowledgeable fans that say those who have won during his chase format are not legitimate champions.

[CIRF]

Funny I don't see Mark Martin as the winner for 1990. I'm not going to say that Dale did not have NASCAR on his side but, with that being said I don't want to assume because that sure got in trouble the last time I did that lol. What are you trying to say here?

Like I said I know some knowledgeable fans that say those who have won during his chase format are not legitimate champions.

All you have to do is go back and check out some of the things that happened in 1990 like the excessive points penalty for the intake manifold on the #6 car at Martinsville and the favoritism shown the #3 car at the fall race at Charlotte that year. As many, including myself, have said many times before, it's not a case of NASCAR fixing races. But, when an opportunity presents itself that has plausible deniability built into the situation and maybe a judgement call or two, NASCAR would allow a particular team or driver to reap the benefit with a minimum of outcome damage.

Many an astute NASCAR fan, and even a few participants, will agree that there were some very favorable, if not a bit fishy, outcomes during the 1990 season. That's not to say it wasn't going on prior, and most assuredly, after that season but it seemed to have the most detrimental effect on one driver and team and a favorable affect on another driver and team in 1990.

I can sight chapter and verse many, many other opportunistic calls and no calls that took place after '90 but those were more subtle in their effect on eventual outcomes. The 1998 Daytona 500 and the 1999 August race at Bristol being the two most glaring exceptions to those subtleties following the 1990 season.

I would say the chase champions are just as legit as some of the champions during a few of the seasons that had the quirky championship process's. However, I sure wouldn't argue with those who believe otherwise because they in fact can make some valid points against legitimacy.

[formercrewguy]

Anyone remember that infamous 200th win of Petty? He should have been dq'd, not given the win and a fine. I think his engine was big.

[kidrock]

All you have to do is go back and check out some of the things that happened in 1990 like the excessive points penalty for the intake manifold on the #6 car at Martinsville and the favoritism shown the #3 car at the fall race at Charlotte that year. As many, including myself, have said many times before, it's not a case of NASCAR fixing races. But, when an opportunity presents itself that has plausible deniability built into the situation and maybe a judgement call or two, NASCAR would allow a particular team or driver to reap the benefit with a minimum of outcome damage.
Kiki
Many an astute NASCAR fan, and even a few participants, will agree that there were some very favorable, if not a bit fishy, outcomes during the 1990 season. That's not to say it wasn't going on prior, and most assuredly, after that season but it seemed to have the most detrimental effect on one driver and team and a favorable affect on another driver and team in 1990.

I can sight chapter and verse many, many other opportunistic calls and no calls that took place after '90 but those were more subtle in their effect on eventual outcomes. The 1998 Daytona 500 and the 1999 August race at Bristol being the two most glaring exceptions to those subtleties following the 1990 season.

I would say the chase champions are just as legit as some of the champions during a few of the seasons that had the quirky championship process's. However, I sure wouldn't argue with those who believe otherwise because they in fact can make some valid points against legitimacy.

So I'm guessing they did the same in his other 6 championships as well.

Where can I find done of those people talking about this?

Man you sure would think they would have gotten their golden boy championship number 8.

[CIRF]

So I'm guessing they did the same in his other 6 championships as well.

Where can I find done of those people talking about this?

Man you sure would think they would have gotten their golden boy championship number 8.

I watched all the other 6 and there were no overly blatant examples that I can recall except that at that time the championship team got their pick of pit stalls during the entire following season. I can remember a prominent crew chief saying at the time that the champion's pit selection could be worth around 50 points at that time. They change that rule following arnhead's last championship season due to backlash from some prominent owners of that time.

Look, you don't need to take my word for it. There are folks that simply will not accept even the possibility of NASCAR and Billy France being in the pocket of the #3 team. Personally, I've looked at some of these things objectively and in a way that I believe is fair minded and have come up with the same conclusion every time. If you don't believe there is anything to it, okay by me, but I lived through it and NASCAR, at that time, was my prime fixation regarding racing, even more so than dirt racing during that period. We kept very close track of what was going on.

Believe this about #8 for #3. Had NASCAR seen any opportunity to sway things for the #3 and against Bobby Labonte in 2000 they surely would have, and did in a couple of small instances but Bobby was too good and too consistent and arnhead was at the end of the line in being competitive enough to put together a championship season. He was only consistently good on the restrictor plate tracks by then and when he had the opportunity to wreck someone for the win (see Bristol Aug. 1999). Time had simply ran out on ol' arnhead and even NASCAR couldn't get him #8.

[drano]

Anyone remember that infamous 200th win of Petty? He should have been dq'd, not given the win and a fine. I think his engine was big.

That wasn't his 200th win that was like 198 and it was at the fall Charlotte race ,engine was to big and left side tires on the right side.

[kidrock]

I watched all the other 6 and there were no overly blatant examples that I can recall except that at that time the championship team got their pick of pit stalls during the entire following season. I can remember a prominent crew chief saying at the time that the champion's pit selection could be worth around 50 points at that time. They change that rule following arnhead's last championship season due to backlash from some prominent owners of that time.

Look, you don't need to take my word for it. There are folks that simply will not accept even the possibility of NASCAR and Billy France being in the pocket of the #3 team. Personally, I've looked at some of these things objectively and in a way that I believe is fair minded and have come up with the same conclusion every time. If you don't believe there is anything to it, okay by me, but I lived through it and NASCAR, at that time, was my prime fixation regarding racing, even more so than dirt racing during that period. We kept very close track of what was going on.

Believe this about #8 for #3. Had NASCAR seen any opportunity to sway things for the #3 and against Bobby Labonte in 2000 they surely would have, and did in a couple of small instances but Bobby was too good and too consistent and arnhead was at the end of the line in being competitive enough to put together a championship season. He was only consistently good on the restrictor plate tracks by then and when he had the opportunity to wreck someone for the win (see Bristol Aug. 1999). Time had simply ran out on ol' arnhead and even NASCAR couldn't get him #8.

Oh so they couldn't find an opportunity. Boy it's a good thing Bobby didn't do anything wrong or old NASCAR would have taken away his championship. I guess that's believable for some

[CIRF]

That wasn't his 200th win that was like 198 and it was at the fall Charlotte race ,engine was to big and left side tires on the right side.

You're right drano, the big engine was The King's 198th victory at Charlotte. King picked up a win #199 at Dover the next season and finished out his win total with #200 at Daytona on Independence Day of 1984.

Oh so they couldn't find an opportunity. Boy it's a good thing Bobby didn't do anything wrong or old NASCAR would have taken away his championship. I guess that's believable for some

Kid, do you remember the 2000 season? Bobby Labonte was steady as a rock all season long. It was actually frustrating ol' arnhead to no end. Ol' arnhead would have a good points day and Bobby would have just as good or better. Bobby would have a bad points day (which were few that year) and ol' arnhead would have trouble of some kind. It was very gratifying and fun to watch week in and week out. Only some kind of one way idiot would have not been happy for Bobby that season. I was at The Brickyard 400 in 2000 and Bobby won it that day and ol' arnhead finished 8th. That was the day that really put Bobby in position to solidify his lead in the points.

Your reading way more into what I'm saying than is there. You're trying to make out that I'm intimating that it was all rigged and I've explained this several times and you refuse to understand what the point is. There is no fixing races, but it's common knowledge that arnhead spent a lot of time jetting down to Daytona and hanging out with Billy France jr. And it was also common knowledge that Billy France Jr. was somewhat smitten with ol' arnhead. When the opportunity presented itself things subtly went a certain way with plausible deniability. Now, I can't say it any clearer than that and if you can't bring yourself to accept that I fully understand. There are a lot of folks that feel the same way but I've yet to see one shred of evidence to the contrary.

[old fan]

dang nab it living in the fog again

[CIRF]

All one has to do is read your posts to understand who actually is living in a fog.

[old fan]

really I don't live in the past like you do , what happened yesterday can't be changed get over it

[CIRF]

really I don't live in the past like you do , what happened yesterday can't be changed get over it

Okay litey. Whatever you say................................I think! LOLOL!!

The fact that you have 2nd grade sentence composition skills is something that is in the past and can't be changed and it's clearly evident that you've somehow gotten over it! LOL!!

[old fan]

true but I DON'T LIVE IN THE PAST A DWELL OVER SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE CHANGED