Good discussion about what makes "good racing"

Charlie Spencer said:
It won't happen, but since there are so many definitions of great racing, why use three basically similar series to try to meet the all of the expectations?
Click to expand...

This is a brilliant point. :cheers:
 
Don't expect me to make a habit of it. If I'm not going to do it at work for pay, I'm sure not doing it here for free. :D
 
Last edited:
TexasRaceLady said:
Personally, "good racing" is a race where most of the teams are competitive. Who wins is really immaterial to me.
Click to expand...

Like the first sentence, hate the second. Like it or not, "who wins" is a factor for race enjoyment for a majority of fans, IMO. Which is the reason why the races this year suck. It's quite clear week to week that only 3-4 drivers have a good chance and maybe after that the next 7 or so have an outside chance.

Everyone else is filler. And if you're a fan of one of those "fillers" you get turned off real quick.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
... there must be a couple of other variations.
Click to expand...
Heck, run a series with two-car teams that compete as teams. Points are awarded to the team, not to individual drivers, based on the highest finishing team member. Confine it to short tracks and let 'em block like roller derby.

My point is, there's plenty of room outside the current boxes -IF- NASCAR can get past using their traditional products to satisfy their entire audience. Since that isn't going to happen...
 
kk5fan said:
And if you're a fan of one of those "fillers" you get turned off real quick.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't agree on this. I spent that first season Toyota was in NASCAR just pulling for them to make races. I spent 2014 winning two races. When you suck, you hang on the next race in anticipation that things will get better.....and when they do, your driver is screaming in happiness just like Kyle did in Chicago in 2014. That day was way better than a win for me.
 
Great drama and a great finish. That’s where NASCAR really has lacked lately, there is next to no great storylines until this big 3 dominance which is bringing entertainment back to the sport.

Look at Dale Jr’s signature win at Daytona, it was an all time moment because of the backstory. What backstories are there today? And because of this we don’t connect with the drivers the way we used to
 
Mispeedway15 said:
Great drama and a great finish. That’s where NASCAR really has lacked lately, there is next to no great storylines until this big 3 dominance which is bringing entertainment back to the sport.

Look at Dale Jr’s signature win at Daytona, it was an all time moment because of the backstory. What backstories are there today? And because of this we don’t connect with the drivers the way we used to
Click to expand...

Chicago and New Hampshire are a couple of the best finishes in years IMO.

As for the backstories....I really think you have a point there. The money is huge. We have kids living in mansions set for life driving race cars. You cannot connect on the day to day life stuff. I think you have to connect to the driver's personality, but before that connect to the machines, technology.....the stuff that makes our sport different than stick and ball.
 
Revman said:
Yeah, I don't agree on this. I spent that first season Toyota was in NASCAR just pulling for them to make races. I spent 2014 winning two races. When you suck, you hang on the next race in anticipation that things will get better.....and when they do, your driver is screaming in happiness just like Kyle did in Chicago in 2014. That day was way better than a win for me.
Click to expand...
I think you're making my point for me. Your guys win, you're happy. What if it didn't happen for an entire season or even years?
 
kk5fan said:
I think you're making my point for me. Your guys win, you're happy. What if it didn't happen for an entire season or even years?
Click to expand...

2007. 2014. Hell, 2013 was even more painful. Fast, but engines blowing right and left. Been there man. Didn't flinch. Not even a little.
 
You have a vested interest. It's different. Other fans will just walk away, as they are doing. In droves.
 
Mispeedway15 said:
What backstories are there today?
Click to expand...
The back stories are there, it's how they're presented that's changed.

I'm going way out on a limb here and guess that you're over 50 (as am I) and not particularly active on the major social media sites (and I'm not either). We learned about a driver's history and personality from print media, esp. publications dedicated to covering the sport. (We certainly didn't get the kind of pre- and post race coverage we have now, or the daily magazine-format shows.)

Now a driver can reach out directly through social media without needing to wait on somebody from a magazine to decide to interview him. We can still connect with drivers the way we used to; what's changed is HOW we CONNECT with drivers.

But if my two assumptions are wrong, I apologize. No offense was intended. Me, I don't care what these guys do when they're not behind the wheel.
 
The Kyle Busch vs Kevin Harvick show has really brought some attention back. Sorry to every other driver (including mine, the 88), but they need to keep winning races.
 
Revman said:
I know that I am a little off topic here, but allow me to make this point....I watched the WRC over the weekend. I follow the sport on social media, and through a forum. I have not seen one reference to whether or not the rally was good. Not freakin' one. I have seen tons of discussion over performances, technical developments, fan enthusiasm, and a general excitement over the sport. Think about this. Not one reference to a general assessment over the quality of the event.....I think that the response to rally is similar to stick and ball. Do we assess the event, or respond to the quality of the event relative to the performance of our preferred participant(s)? Why the hell does this live in NASCAR?....and again, MOST IMPORTANTLY, why is NASCAR chasing its ass over this?
Click to expand...

I have to agree with the sentiment here. I don't follow WRC, but I follow many other forms of racing, and some other sports casually. I have never found another in which such focus is placed on rating or expressing instant satisfaction / dissatisfaction with each event. Everywhere else in the galaxy, it is a given that some contests are going to be nail-biting thrillers and some are going to be won in dominant fashion. People who enjoy the competition for what it is roll with the punches and watch through highs and lows. They discuss what happened, not whether what happened qualifies for a Two Thumbs Up or a B-minus.

There is nothing wrong with the race ratings themselves as a fun exercise. I don't participate because I have trouble seeing the utility when there is no widespread agreement on what 7/10 means. For some people, 7 is about low as they go. Others would say 7 is a C as in average as @StandOnIt stated. Still others would look at a 0-10 scale and assume 7 must still be quite good, since it's much closer to the best rating than the worst.

The problem isn't the polls themselves. It's the shocking insecurity that exists throughout the sport that creates the impetus for constant fixing, tweaking, and enhancing to chase higher approval.
 
Agree that the polls are for interesting discussion only, not scientific at all.

Now, why is there such consternation within the fans regarding the quality of racing? At it’s heart is a little TMI and a lot of technology.

Back in the early days, meaning the 60’s and 70’s, racing was downright dangerous. The cars were a complete unknown relative to finishing. Even the factory teams, while much stronger, had regular moments of mechanical failure. So, cars were laps down, but leader blows and it’s a new ball game.

The 80’s saw more teams emerging, and some big personalities. Remember what a huge deal the Winston Million was? Million Dollar Bill Elliot was HUGE, a giant leap in the sport pay scale. A southern sport was hitting the big time. More cars were competitive, great sponsors, etc.

The 90’s saw (IMO) the best racing Nascar had to offer. It fueled the explosive growth that created massive expectations. That occurred at the apex of a population curve where car culture met disposable income from baby boomers plus the young adults who witnessed the 90’s and liked it. This all came to a slow downslope when the economy lurched into recession...just as tracks and hotels were charging huge sums for everything. Remember how hard it was to get a ticket to Bristol? At the SAME time, NASCAR birthed the “car of tomorrow”. That brick didn’t go over well, didn’t race so good, and just added to the problems.

Today, we get more information than ever before. In car cameras everywhere, in car audio, announcers who do not let two seconds of dead air exist, etc. Couple that with race cars that are more technologically advanced than ever, more reliable than ever (they rarely break), and less adaptive to racing conditions than ever. If you get your car to run 10th in practice and qualify about the same, you will almost never get it good enough to win, even though it is really fast compared to a 10th place car from the good old days.

My point in summary is this: years ago stock car racing seemed more stock (was certainly closer), had more mystery relative to mechanical outcomes, and seemed to require more magic in the pits during the races to get fast. Cars we’re more dangerous; we didn’t look for people to get hurt or killed (far from it), but that risk element did interest some. Today we have better race cars overall, but some of the romance was lost along the way. It happens in other sports too. When people fall out of love with a sport, they are more easily prone to abandon being fans (fanatical) and just become interested spectators or drop it altogether. Combine this with the demographics, a lagging car culture particularly among young people, and you have....today.
 
gnomesayin said:
It's the shocking insecurity that exists throughout the sport that creates the impetus for constant fixing, tweaking, and enhancing to chase higher approval.
Click to expand...

Holy ****....This is THE statement. Well done.
 
Conover said:
Agree that the polls are for interesting discussion only, not scientific at all.

Now, why is there such consternation within the fans regarding the quality of racing? At it’s heart is a little TMI and a lot of technology.

Back in the early days, meaning the 60’s and 70’s, racing was downright dangerous. The cars were a complete unknown relative to finishing. Even the factory teams, while much stronger, had regular moments of mechanical failure. So, cars were laps down, but leader blows and it’s a new ball game.

The 80’s saw more teams emerging, and some big personalities. Remember what a huge deal the Winston Million was? Million Dollar Bill Elliot was HUGE, a giant leap in the sport pay scale. A southern sport was hitting the big time. More cars were competitive, great sponsors, etc.

The 90’s saw (IMO) the best racing Nascar had to offer. It fueled the explosive growth that created massive expectations. That occurred at the apex of a population curve where car culture met disposable income from baby boomers plus the young adults who witnessed the 90’s and liked it. This all came to a slow downslope when the economy lurched into recession...just as tracks and hotels were charging huge sums for everything. Remember how hard it was to get a ticket to Bristol? At the SAME time, NASCAR birthed the “car of tomorrow”. That brick didn’t go over well, didn’t race so good, and just added to the problems.

Today, we get more information than ever before. In car cameras everywhere, in car audio, announcers who do not let two seconds of dead air exist, etc. Couple that with race cars that are more technologically advanced than ever, more reliable than ever (they rarely break), and less adaptive to racing conditions than ever. If you get your car to run 10th in practice and qualify about the same, you will almost never get it good enough to win, even though it is really fast compared to a 10th place car from the good old days.

My point in summary is this: years ago stock car racing seemed more stock (was certainly closer), had more mystery relative to mechanical outcomes, and seemed to require more magic in the pits during the races to get fast. Cars we’re more dangerous; we didn’t look for people to get hurt or killed (far from it), but that risk element did interest some. Today we have better race cars overall, but some of the romance was lost along the way. It happens in other sports too. When people fall out of love with a sport, they are more easily prone to abandon being fans (fanatical) and just become interested spectators or drop it altogether. Combine this with the demographics, a lagging car culture particularly among young people, and you have....today.
Click to expand...

Damn. Well said. I enjoyed reading this. Thank you.
 
kk5fan said:
You have a vested interest. It's different. Other fans will just walk away, as they are doing. In droves.
Click to expand...

I have said frequently that it is my contention that it is not the racing, it's how we watch. Perhaps a vested interest is necessary in some aspect of this sport?
 
Charlie Spencer said:
The back stories are there, it's how they're presented that's changed.

I'm going way out on a limb here and guess that you're over 50 (as am I) and not particularly active on the major social media sites (and I'm not either). We learned about a driver's history and personality from print media, esp. publications dedicated to covering the sport. (We certainly didn't get the kind of pre- and post race coverage we have now, or the daily magazine-format shows.)

Now a driver can reach out directly through social media without needing to wait on somebody from a magazine to decide to interview him. We can still connect with drivers the way we used to; what's changed is HOW we CONNECT with drivers.

But if my two assumptions are wrong, I apologize. No offense was intended. Me, I don't care what these guys do when they're not behind the wheel.
Click to expand...

Lol I’m 25. I agree with social media, but these guys just don’t seem as interesting. It’s funny because watching F1 the egos and personality of those top guys is so much like 90s NASCAR
 
Mispeedway15 said:
Lol I’m 25. I agree with social media, but these guys just don’t seem as interesting. It’s funny because watching F1 the egos and personality of those top guys is so much like 90s NASCAR
Click to expand...

I don't think most of the top drivers are lacking personality. I believe there has been an enormous failure to market their personalities as distinct figures. Even the "Big 3" stuff is half-hearted, as the impressive feats being accomplished by them are portrayed as problems more than anything worth celebrating.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Each would run a schedule shorter than any of the current national three; maybe 15 or 20 races each. Mix and match at least two at the same track every weekend. Heck, have a full schedule at two different tracks most of the weekends. Say, the plate series at Daytona on Saturday, and the R/C guys run the infield on Sunday. Run the R/Cs on the Ponoco infield and the V-6s around the triangle. Run the V-6 and IROC at M'ville. Each would be a single-day show, with P, Q, and race all on the same day.
Click to expand...
Damn Charlie, your confusing the thread with common sense. Could I add that one of those races be tape delayed and shown mid week?
Clutch said:
I know that this thread is about the racing but half the enjoyment for me is the people I meet there and those that I go with plus the friendships I have gained.
@BobbyFord and his family and @DUN24 .
They have blessed my life and I look forward to our races as fellowship as much as great racing!
Click to expand...
That is the part I miss. I haven't been able to go see one Cup race. On the other hand I do save a lot of travel money. :D
kk5fan said:
And if you're a fan of one of those "fillers" you get turned off real quick.
Click to expand...
You must be part of generation where everyone who signed up gets a trophy. In every sport there are those who win and those who come in last. The guy who came in last may one day be the guy winning. I am quite sure fans of Martin Truex are very satisfied today compared to when he drove for MWR.
 
kk5fan said:
Ole Jimmy was quite the bad boy character unlike today's vanilla buttoned down corporate driver drones.
Click to expand...
But I didn't know that initially. All I knew about him for the first couple of years was how he wheeled a car.

Mispeedway15 said:
It’s funny because watching F1 the egos and personality of those top guys is so much like 90s NASCAR
Click to expand...
As I noted, I mostly don't care what any athelete says or does when he's off the track, field, court, etc. I'm a fan of the sport first and the participants second. I'll try to not start an open-wheeled sidebar but for all the personality and ego F1 drivers may have, I still find the racing boring and difficult to follow. Great personalities can't get me to watch something I don't enjoy.

Ditto NASCAR; people aren't going to watch something they think is boring just because they like the people involved (other than family).

Clutch said:
I know that this thread is about the racing but half the enjoyment for me is the people I meet there and those that I go with plus the friendships I have gained.
@BobbyFord and his family and @DUN24 .
They have blessed my life and I look forward to our races as fellowship as much as great racing!
Click to expand...
Great point, but that could be said of almost any activity people are passionate about.
 
-What is the percentage of old time fans, that don't do much social media and respond to surveys like this. I would think it would be dominated by the younger viewers.Personally I have No idea how to do a tweet or any of the other things
 
Team Penske said:
Damn Charlie, your confusing the thread with common sense. Could I add that one of those races be tape delayed and shown mid week?
Click to expand...
Sure, but why? Other sports don't hesitate to schedule multiple competitions on the same day. Run one pair of series in the Eastern or Central time zone, run two others on Mountain or Pacific. Get over the idea that everybody has to run the same track at the same time. Run two top-tier series, East and West, and have them only overlap for a limited number of races. Award double points for those events.

My point remains, it's easier to appeal to multiple definitions of 'great racing' by offering series that tailored to those definitions instead of trying to make one shoe fit all feet.
 
I wish there was an easy answer to this question - our sanctioning body sure has struggled to find the answer. I am sure I am not alone on this board but I just love racing - if I stumble across a K&N race midweek I am excited as hell. Doesn't matter the series or the track I am always tuning in.

That being said there are forms of racing that produce "better" racing to me personally. For example, I will tune into F1 occasionally and some years more than others but I would much rather watch a stock car race / oval race where there is an increased likelihood for some side-by-side racing.

I was at the WoO race at Ransomville Speedway last week and prior to the Outlaws running a local series ran a couple quick heats and a main before the big boys came out. Obviously with the top 3 NASCAR series running mainly speedways this isnt practical to emulate, but to me it would be a good way to get more air time for local or lower series and broadcast the type of grassroots racing we all love.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
As I noted, I mostly don't care what any athelete says or does when he's off the track, field, court, etc. I'm a fan of the sport first and the participants second. I'll try to not start an open-wheeled sidebar but for all the personality and ego F1 drivers may have, I still find the racing boring and difficult to follow. Great personalities can't get me to watch something I don't enjoy.

Ditto NASCAR; people aren't going to watch something they think is boring just because they like the people involved (other than family).
Click to expand...

I agree but where it hurts NASCAR is Monday thru Friday. The sport doesn’t drum up storylines like you see in the NBA and NFL
 
I admit I don't look at sports or pop culture media. I don't follow the NBA at all and only pick up the NFL after racing season is over, so I'm not sure what weekly storylines you're referring to. Most of the ones that trickle down to me usually involve the police blotter.

Assuming NASCAR was able to generate those stories, would the mainstream sports media pay any attention? Since I don't look at them, they may do a better job of covering NASCAR than I'm aware of.
 
Wrangler1 said:
I was at the WoO race at Ransomville Speedway last week and prior to the Outlaws running a local series ran a couple quick heats and a main before the big boys came out. Obviously with the top 3 NASCAR series running mainly speedways this isnt practical to emulate, but to me it would be a good way to get more air time for local or lower series and broadcast the type of grassroots racing we all love.
Click to expand...
It was practical at Loudon, but I don't know if the Modifieds were even shown on tape delay.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Sure, but why? Other sports don't hesitate to schedule multiple competitions on the same day. Run one pair of series in the Eastern or Central time zone, run two others on Mountain or Pacific. Get over the idea that everybody has to run the same track at the same time. Run two top-tier series, East and West, and have them only overlap for a limited number of races. Award double points for those events.

My point remains, it's easier to appeal to multiple definitions of 'great racing' by offering series that tailored to those definitions instead of trying to make one shoe fit all feet.
Click to expand...

This is how to make the xfinity series interesting again. Just make the Xfinity series the West, and the Cup series the East. Make the 4 car teams split into each division, i.e. 2 in the east and 2 in the west. Daytona, Talladega, Charlotte, Vegas, and Darlington are the combined events. Everyone gets a chance to qual but only the top 43 get in. The others go home, charter or not. Then come playoff time, the top 15-20 from each division get in and the rest of the teams aren't invited. Then you really have a meaningful playoff.

To go even further, the truck series becomes your feeder series to the Xfinity/Monster cup series. ARCA and the K&N series merge into 3 divisions, east, west and central (midwest formerly ARCA) and this new series feeds the truck series.
Bam! Reorg finished, when do I get my office in Daytona? lol
 
Team Penske said:
I am quite sure fans of Martin Truex are very satisfied today compared to when he drove for MWR.
Click to expand...

I wonder if many of his fans came onboard at FRR. Perhaps the biggest part of Martin's story is his journey to the top--not his time at the top. If this is the case, and his fans came from his successes, it is a shame that such a small part of what he has done is appreciated.
 
Conover said:
The 90’s saw (IMO) the best racing Nascar had to offer
Click to expand...
The early '90's did...once they started morphing the bodies into unrecognizable blobs...like the twisted Monte Carlo's it was pretty much over.
I liked the '60's and '70's the best...followed by the '79 to '93 era...since then it has been sporadic as to quality, some highlights here and there...but. Not much since '03 though...hate the play off system.
Revman said:
the networks chase the drama and personal interest stories
Click to expand...
Agreed...if they would follow the bar fights it would be more interesting to me.
 
Team Penske said:
You must be part of generation where everyone who signed up gets a trophy. In every sport there are those who win and those who come in last. The guy who came in last may one day be the guy winning. I am quite sure fans of Martin Truex are very satisfied today compared to when he drove for MWR.
Click to expand...

Not all fans are "pure racing fans" like you, who need define fanhood because you don't like the kind of fan I happen to be.

I need a team to cheer for, and if that team constantly sucks I start to lose interest. it's normal. In my mind there's one winner and everyone else is a loser. No participation trophies here.

BTW I'm 56 and I 've been watching since the 80's.
 
kk5fan said:
Not all fans are "pure racing fans" like you, who need define fanhood because you don't like the kind of fan I happen to be.

I need a team to cheer for, and if that team constantly sucks I start to lose interest. it's normal. In my mind there's one winner and everyone else is a loser. No participation trophies here.

BTW I'm 56 and I 've been watching since the 80's.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the need to cheer for a team 100%. I differ in that I think that part of the joy of success is the struggle to get there. I spent 2014 waiting for the next race for things to get better. In Chicago, they did. Just my take....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom