I dunno Greg, that's an apples to oranges comparison. They came up in two different eras, and of course when you compare one of the pioneers to one of today's drivers, the pioneers are almost always going to look better. 'Cause they're the pioneers, they did it first and paved the way for everyone else.
As far as Danica is concerned, I like her, and I wouldn't count her out of winning at Sonoma or Watkins Glen. She's run well on road courses in Nationwide. That said, it's one thing to not count someone out, but it's quite another to consider them a legit threat to win.
Yes, as far as equipment/team/talent goes, Danica has arguably the best overall shot that a woman has ever had to make a name for herself in NASCAR, hence why the media shoves her down our throat nonstop. (Yeah, yeah, her looks play a part in that too.) However, I think a lot of Danica's fans - and haters - would benefit from forming more realistic expectations of her. I'm speaking generally here, not specifically to anyone on this forum. Last I checked, she was still a Cup rookie, and honestly, she probably came in a few years too early. (Money/sponsorship talks, and it is what it is.)
If she has a good run/finish, that's great, but it doesn't make her the next big thing. If she has a poor run/finish, it doesn't make her a complete and utter failure. Not yet. In a few years, when she has had plenty of good or bad runs/finishes, we'll be able to make a much more fair assessment of how good or bad she is. Until then, we, her fans and haters, need to simmer down and just let the woman race.
Okay, I'm climbing down off my soapbox now.