Do wins mean more now or then?

S

smack500

Guest
With so much parity and rules in this sport we have now, do you think wins mean more now or did they mean more back then???

For example what was harder to acomplish?

Richard petty's wins in his time period
Dale Earnhardt sr's wins in his time period or
Jeff gordon's wins in his time period
 
Mean more to who?

To the guys winning, a win is a win is a win.
 
I probably should have been more specific, I ment Did it or does it take more skill/ talent to win back then or now.
 
Personally I think it's all the same.

I don't think it take more or less talent or skill now, just different skill.

This one can be argued endlessly.

* The cars are better prepared now so obviously it takes less skill to drive one.

* The cars are bettere match so it is much harder to win.


To me it is all the same. A win is a win is a win.
 
I have to agree with TonyB here. The skills may differ but it still requires great skills.
 
All it took when Richard Petty was winning was a bank roll, He outspent most of his competitors.

When Dale Sr. was winning there were only a handfull of cars a threat to win week in and week out.

These days there are more cars competing for the win than ever before.

I think a win is harder to come by these days.
 
Originally posted by bowtie@Jul 6 2004, 05:04 PM
All it took when Richard Petty was winning was a bank roll, He outspent most of his competitors.

When Dale Sr. was winning there were only a handfull of cars a threat to win week in and week out.

These days there are more cars competing for the win than ever before.

I think a win is harder to come by these days.
agreed.
 
Originally posted by bowtie@Jul 6 2004, 05:04 PM
All it took when Richard Petty was winning was a bank roll, He outspent most of his competitors.

When Dale Sr. was winning there were only a handfull of cars a threat to win week in and week out.

These days there are more cars competing for the win than ever before.

I think a win is harder to come by these days.
Pretty much dead on.

Petty's record is impressive, but then for many of those years they raced three or four "sanctioned" events per week. With a little selective travelling, he could pretty much assure himself of being the class of the field most of the time.


The 70s saw a little more competition, what with Petty Enterprises, The Wood Brothers, Junior Johnson, the Allisons, and some others. But by and large on a week in week out level, you had maybe half a dozen guys to really worry about.

The 80s saw even more of the same. Childress, Hendrick, Elliotts, Junior Johnson again, The Wood Brothers to a lesser degree, Travis Carter, and others were pretty well funded and fielded strong cars more often than not.

In the 90s, Roush, Yates, Gibbs, and others joined the fray and we saw more and more guys with legitimate chances to win on a given Sunday. Petty Enterprises and The Wood Brothers all but disappeared, and of course Junior Johnson retired, but there were plenty of folks who stepped in to fill the void.

Now, on any given weekend, we may have as many as 25 guys with realistic shots at a win. I do believe that the astronomical amount of money it takes to be a top flite team will begin to whittle away at that number over the next few years though. Just a hunch.

Still, a win is a win is a win. I'm as impressed with a Ricky Craven winning Darlington or a Johnny Benson winning his race as I am with a Roush/Hendrick/Gibbs/Evernham/Penske driver reeling off four in a row simply because of the odds stacked against the mid pack guys. Always have been. I have a soft spot for those guys regardless of the era, make of car, or anything else. I like seeing Joe Nemechek up front as much as I liked seeing Lake Speed or Lennie Pond or D.K. Ulrich run well in slightly lesser equipment. It's good for the sport to have that sometimes. Who among us would truly be upset if a Ward Burton or a Kyle Petty or even a Jeff Green should post a win or a top five?
 
Back
Top Bottom