Who was Better in their prime? Petty or Pearson?

Team21RacingFan

Team21RacingFan

Spectator
Joined
May 12, 2025
Messages
6
Points
3
Just wondering because I was born 1990: So they raced way before I even existed. What was it like watching David Pearson and Richard Petty race on the track in that era? And also who in your opinion was a better Racecar Driver? The #21 Car David Pearson or the #43 Car Richard Petty?
 
If you wanted someone who almost never made a mistake or missed an opportunity, David Peearson was the GOAT. He was flawless.

If you wanted the best ambassador the sport has ever had, it was Richard Petty. He was a positive force back when it was needed most.

There is also the workhorse effect. Petty was out there running all of those grinding races when they were doing about 50 of them each year. Pearson ran some of the full seasons, too, but not as often.

I couldn't say either one was better than the other with a clear conscience.
 
I watched these men first battle in person when I was 12 at Hickory Motor Speedway (1970). Watched any race I could on TV, or at tracks once I could drive to them. Impossible to rank one over the other. Pearson was the more strategic driver, played the long game in moving up when necessary to contend or win (hence the Silver Fox nickname). Richard Petty almost always had great equipment, but he was also very talented, very tough, and would work an ill handling car as well as anyone. Back “in the day” cars didn’t hold up like modern racing’s nearly invincible chariots. Knowing how hard to push your race car was important, cause they would break under too much abuse.

Pearson was my second favorite just behind Catawba County’s native son Bobby Issac. These guys, along with Petty, Bobby Allison, Cale Yarborough and others, were tough as nails. No power steering, no cool suits, no ergonomically fitted safety seats, yet generating high speeds, coping through vicious hard wrecks, etc. If you wanted to race, you just did what you had to do. Some drivers were just better at Superspeedways (see Buddy Baker) but all of them grew up racing short tracks. Fact is all of these guys were really good. Hard to say one was better than the other. Petty indeed said he thought Pearson was the best, so that’s as high a compliment as one can get.
 
I appreciate reading the thoughtful responses here and learned from them. My instincts say Pearson was the superior driver, but that Petty had charisma and other qualities in spades that made him the sport's biggest star. But I wasn't there.
 
I'm even younger at '91 but just researching the history and based off what Petty has said I'd go with Pearson. I mean to really compare you'd need Pearson to run the schedule like Petty did, but i think its telling the years he really went for the championship he won the championship.
 
I was born in 1993, so I obviously didn't get to see them in their primes. I'd give Richard Petty the edge. His win % took a major hit in the latter part of his career because he ran until his 50's when he wasn't competitive anymore.

His stats are absurd, he won 80 races in the modern era, so the argument that he padded his stats in the late 60's when there were 50 races a year is invalid to me.

Pearson ran select races every year, so he was always fresh, while Petty was a grinder and always went for the championship.

7 championships > 3 championships

200 WINS. Crazy.
 
Fun fact: Richard Petty finished top 10 in points in 1987 at age 49, the 25th time he accomplished that feat.

Correction: He won 60 races in the modern era.
 
I honestly don't know. I do know that Richard Petty also winds up outside NASCAR for a hot second in his prime due to manufacturer politics otherwise his stats would be even better than they are. In that era, being Cup champion was more like being the modern World of Outlaws champion. Saying that, quantity has a quality all it's own in race wins and Petty's can both be seen as comparatively minor league to today but also him racing the best available stock car drivers in the entire country in his era when that's how it worked. I might even get spicy and say that Petty by virtue of what NASCAR was then likely raced a better overall talent base than the modern Cup drivers do in so much as modern Cup drivers do not have to race the elite of the pavement late model world whom lack the funds to make the jump. Of course, some (Byron, Erik Jones, Carson Hocevar, others occasionally) do push doing this with success, which is sorta like how things were in the ASA days of the 80s and 90s too.
 
I didn’t get to watch Pearson as I started watching in 1990. But from what I have seen and the stats, Pearson is probably the best ever.
 
It's close, and both have their merits, but I'll go with Pearson. If he had run more than four full seasons, Petty might NOT be the King.
 
JJ_14 said:
I was born in 1993, so I obviously didn't get to see them in their primes. I'd give Richard Petty the edge. His win % took a major hit in the latter part of his career because he ran until his 50's when he wasn't competitive anymore.

His stats are absurd, he won 80 races in the modern era, so the argument that he padded his stats in the late 60's when there were 50 races a year is invalid to me.

Pearson ran select races every year, so he was always fresh, while Petty was a grinder and always went for the championship.

7 championships > 3 championships

200 WINS. Crazy.
Click to expand...
Yeah. And Reagan was there for the 200th
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom