[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

Actually it is possible we see it the same yet express it differently. Wow, can that really happen within the bounds of the English language?

Both Pearson and Martin could flat out drive/race. Both knew the reality that is "to win ya gotta be there at the finish". Both did this. One, as it turns out was able to do a bit more "at the end" than the other. Now the "why" of this could be a near never ending discussion.

I see many followers of the sport today confusing "points racing" and "smart racing". I've been fortunate over the years to be involved with the sport in a fashion that helps me understand that the vast, vast, majority (it's flippin' so near 100% ya couldn't squeeze a hair in) of the drivers out there are in each and every race to win. Should it become clear at various points in the race that the win will need to wait for another day, an adjustment to the car, a different point in the race, the driver/racer moves to "best I can muster" yet finish mode. This is "smart racing" yet some move to label it "points racing". It is in the nature of the human driver/racer to want to win. Sometimes team owners clearly intervene, and that is a shame.

Give me racers. Wanting foremost the win but at every instance during the contest trying to best the next person ahead of him/her.

Your last sentence says it all.

Yep, I'd say we see the same thing but express it from different points of view. The debating tactic is termed "mutual reciprocity."

I agree that probably 38 or 39 of the 43 drivers go out there with some idea of winning. Sorry but I'm just too cynical to believe that Morgan Shepard, Kurt Shelmerdine, Carl Long and a few others is out there for anything but the best pay check they can collect. The ones who irritate me are the drivers who "Big Picture" race and replace "the best finish I can muster" with "I'll just look for a good points day."

I guess it breaks down to what makes your socks roll up and down. Personally, I'm a race fan and not a Cup Champion fan. I'm afraid I'll always defer to Junior Johnson's explanation of the matter, "I always figger'd that if I win, the championship'd take care of itself." For better or worse, I fear that type of driver is a dinosaur and is almost extinct from today's NA$CAR.

[BringBackWilkesboro]

I am going to take a stab at explaining this whole thing. Winning a race is the ultimate goal of 35-40 of the drivers that start a race. To win a race you must first be there at the finish, to be there at the finish you must stay out of trouble, to stay out of trouble you must race smart and finally, racing smart means being somewhat conservative. As wing said, there often comes a time when a driver realizes it isn't his day and he should try for the best finish he can muster. Best finish he can muster=most points he can muster. That is where being consistant and points racing come into play. So could it be that points racing, big picture racing, smart racing and consistency are just part of one big championship winning formula? Well yes, but we already knew that. It seems like we have gotten ourselves into some sort of viscious circle. So viscious, I'm not even sure I understand what I just posted.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BringBackWilkesboro

I am going to take a stab at explaining this whole thing. Winning a race is the ultimate goal of 35-40 of the drivers that start a race. To win a race you must first be there at the finish, to be there at the finish you must stay out of trouble, to stay out of trouble you must race smart and finally, racing smart means being somewhat conservative. As wing said, there often comes a time when a driver realizes it isn't his day and he should try for the best finish he can muster. Best finish he can muster=most points he can muster. That is where being consistant and points racing come into play. So could it be that points racing, big picture racing, smart racing and consistency are just part of one big championship winning formula? Well yes, but we already knew that. It seems like we have gotten ourselves into some sort of viscious circle. So viscious, I'm not even sure I understand what I just posted.

I believe that we'll all agree that we just want to see them race.

BTW, I hope no NA$CAR official; reads your above, Wilks. They might pencil-whip it a bit then insert in in the rule book somewhere and fine drivers if they don't adhere to it.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by BringBackWilkesboro

I am going to take a stab at explaining this whole thing. Winning a race is the ultimate goal of 35-40 of the drivers that start a race. To win a race you must first be there at the finish, to be there at the finish you must stay out of trouble, to stay out of trouble you must race smart and finally, racing smart means being somewhat conservative. As wing said, there often comes a time when a driver realizes it isn't his day and he should try for the best finish he can muster. Best finish he can muster=most points he can muster. That is where being consistant and points racing come into play. So could it be that points racing, big picture racing, smart racing and consistency are just part of one big championship winning formula? Well yes, but we already knew that. It seems like we have gotten ourselves into some sort of viscious circle. So viscious, I'm not even sure I understand what I just posted.

Great post! And I truly mean that. Your last line brought smile and laugh that continues on, and on. Day maker! Thank you.

[Tuck4Bama]

From what I can tell from reading the posts on this point change the extra five points per win will make a big difference in the chase for the cup. it seems to me thatconsistantly finishing top 10 will not get you into the cahase. If a driver finishes 10th every week but doesn't lead a lap and another dominates five races by leading the most laps and winning 5 races the driver than wins 5 will be 100 points ahead not counting the differnce in 1st and 10th place. Driver will have to lead laps and score wins to even have a chance to make the chase.

This will make all drivers to race as hard as they can every week. I think it will make for mre competetive racing.

[LSC9901]

Maybe another part of the irritant is that some of the teams go from one race track to the next with the notion that "well we need to at least finish in ____ place to reamain in contention". That is not racing to win that is racing to have a chance to win. If you are racing for a future chance then you are not really racing. It seems that you are merely in the protection mode. I'm not against consistency finishing but more and more I see the sport moving away from the idea that they are out there for the win. I see the "Chase" as a portion of the reason why points racing has become more prevelant. I'll stay away from my usual rant & rave about the chase. Hopefuly the new and improved points system will add more incentive to win versus that other style of racing that has taken over.

[clutch]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Maybe another part of the irritant is that some of the teams go from one race track to the next with the notion that "well we need to at least finish in ____ place to reamain in contention". That is not racing to win that is racing to have a chance to win. If you are racing for a future chance then you are not really racing. It seems that you are merely in the protection mode. I'm not against consistency finishing but more and more I see the sport moving away from the idea that they are out there for the win. I see the "Chase" as a portion of the reason why points racing has become more prevelant. I'll stay away from my usual rant & rave about the chase. Hopefuly the new and improved points system will add more incentive to win versus that other style of racing that has taken over.

LSC do you really think that ......and I Loathe the term......Points racing is new?
I dont see that the Chase has made it more prevalent....in fact for those outside the top 10 of outside 400 in points it makes them even more determined....dont it?

Points racing.......uugh thats hard to say, has been around since they started calling it a racing "season"

I just copied this from Wikipedia.....they arent always right !!!!

From the beginning of championship series until 1967 championship points were based on prize money purses. Races with lesser purses paid fewer points than races with bigger purses.
First,the NASCAR point system used for championship from 1949 till 1951 awarded points on basis 10 points for the 1st place, 9 pts for 2nd, 8 pts for 3rd and so on, multiplied by 0.05*race purse (Race worth $4000 paid 200 points to the winner, 180 for 2nd place...). No info about how many points were given to drivers finishing below 10th place.
From 1952 till 1967, the NASCAR point system was based on linear scale for first 25 positions: 25-24-23-... Coefficients changed, but were always depending on prize money. From 25th place down there were awarded the same number of points.
In 1968, NASCAR started to award points depending on race distance, not prize money. Point system was 50-49-48-... multiplied by 1 for events to 249 miles, 2 for events 250-399 miles and 3 for events 400 miles and more. System stopped from 50th place. This system was in use until the end of 1971 season.
In 1972, together with shortening the schedule, the point system was also modified. Basic points of 100-98-96-... were awarded for each race. Additionally, lap points were awarded for the number of laps completed. Tracks under 1 mile, 0.25 points a lap; 1-mile tracks, 0.50; 1.3-mile track (Darlington), 0.70; 1.5-mile tracks, 0.75; 2-mile tracks (Michigan), 1.00; tracks 2.5 miles and over, 1.25. This system was also used in 1973.
In 1974, the points system was simple: Total money winnings from all track purses (qualifying and contingency awards did not count), in dollars, multiplied by the number of races started, and the resulting figure divided by 1,000 determined the number of points earned. By the end of the season Richard Petty had such a big lead in points, that he increased it even by finishing 30th while his main rival Cale Yarborough made a top-5 (Remember - the money was multiplied by the number of races started. Even if Cale made more money in one particular race, when the total money was multiplied by e. g. 27, the difference between the two leaders could also increase in comparison with situation after race 26).
The current NASCAR points system was developed in 1975 following years of trouble in trying to develop a points system -- from 1949 until 1971, six different systems were used, and in 1972, NASCAR used a different system each year for the next three years.
That type of inconsistency, which included a system, which rewarded most mileage for the entire season, and then another year where mileage and finishing positions were counted, favored larger circuits, and some fans complained about a champion who only won one race. That resulted in a 1974 ill-fated attempt at basing the points system on money and starts. Even though one driver won consecutive races, his opponent who had won the big money races had scored more points.
Bob Latford, a former public relations official at Lowe's Motor Speedway, devised NASCAR's most popular points system, which was adopted in 1975, which NASCAR used two different versions for their series from 1982 until 1998. In the system, the winner received 175 points, second 170 points, and other positions exactly the same as the current points system.
Until 1998, the Busch Series points system offered 180 points for the winner, but no bonuses for leading laps. The same was true for the Craftsman Truck Series until the end of that season, when NASCAR decided to standardise the points system for their series.
One complaint about the points system was that a driver could finish second and receive an equal number of points as a race winner, which was possible if the driver who led the most laps finished second. NASCAR fixed the problem in 2004 by adding five points to the winner.

[Bob Tanner]

In reading all the replies in this thread it appears to me that all of us have basically the same idea, just some very minor deviations from that basic concept. I believe that we can all agree that we want to see drivers win, or at least finish as high as their ability allows them to finish.

In a bit of reflection I believe a lot of this controversy about "Points racing" is brought on by the drivers themselves when, after the checkers fall they say things such as, "Maybe I could have passed him but I was looking at the big picture," or "It was a good points day for us," or statements such as that.

I believe that if the drivers, crew members, or owners would think about what they say and how their statements affect the fans, this discussion and general distaste for "Points racing" would be considerably less.

Just my final thought on the matter.

[Tuck4Bama]

Let me see if I have this straight, A driver can recieve 190 points for most laps led plus winnning and the most a driver can lose with a DNF is 175.

Let's say that a driver is really hot and has 10 wins (Rusty Wallace did it and still lost the chamionship to Dale Earnhardt) that would give him 150 bonus points if he or she did it in the first 26 races and then get 100 bonus points going into the chase. Now that is going to force drivers to go for the win every week. Adding 5 points for a win will help but make it 10 for a win and one DNF could ruin your season.

Now that brings up another problem, if a driver is mathmatically eliminated early for DNF finishes drivers that usually drive "clean" will be very nervous racing them.

NASCAR is going to have to get a handle on deducting points for over agressive driving and pit crew violations "cheating".

[trollmc08]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

In reading all the replies in this thread it appears to me that all of us have basically the same idea, just some very minor deviations from that basic concept. I believe that we can all agree that we want to see drivers win, or at least finish as high as their ability allows them to finish.

In a bit of reflection I believe a lot of this controversy about "Points racing" is brought on by the drivers themselves when, after the checkers fall they say things such as, "Maybe I could have passed him but I was looking at the big picture," or "It was a good points day for us," or statements such as that.

I believe that if the drivers, crew members, or owners would think about what they say and how their statements affect the fans, this discussion and general distaste for "Points racing" would be considerably less.

Just my final thought on the matter.

Bob your insight astounds me. I have been against points racing but not consistency. Sitting here reading all thees posts by Bob,clutch, and wing I have figured out they are the same thing. I guess the difference is the things the drivers say, as you said Bob. I know in my own racing some times you don't have the car to win so all you can do is git the best finish you can git. after all you are steal racing the car in front of you or at the very least the car behind you. I am sure y'all have noticed that some of the best racing isn't always for the lead.

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by trollmc08

Bob your insight astounds me. I have been against points racing but not consistency. Sitting here reading all thees posts by Bob,clutch, and wing I have figured out they are the same thing. I guess the difference is the things the drivers say, as you said Bob. I know in my own racing some times you don't have the car to win so all you can do is git the best finish you can git. after all you are steal racing the car in front of you or at the very least the car behind you. I am sure y'all have noticed that some of the best racing isn't always for the lead.

That kinda puts it in perspective..... DAMN!

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by clutch

LSC do you really think that ......and I Loathe the term......Points racing is new?

Sorry .. If I left you with the impression that I felt points racing was something new I apologize. Obviously it isn't. My perception is that the chase does encourage those that are close or are in the top 10 to be much more aware of where they are in the points standings. There will never be a perfect points system so we'll just have to accept what they force down our throats.

Also with the effort to remain in the top 35 I see that as another reason to be more aware of your standings in the points and what you need to remain in that top 35 group. I dislike that top 35 issue anyway. Make it into the race only if you qualify. If you were last years champion and cannot cut the mustard for any given race .... tough. Too many gifts for those who aren't good enough to make it into the big game.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Also with the effort to remain in the top 35 I see that as another reason to be more aware of your standings in the points and what you need to remain in that top 35 group. I dislike that top 35 issue anyway. Make it into the race only if you qualify. If you were last years champion and cannot cut the mustard for any given race .... tough. Too many gifts for those who aren't good enough to make it into the big game.

Here, here!! The Honorable Assistant Moderator from Vermont has spoken and aquitted himself quite well.

Set, and match point.

[clutch]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

I dislike that top 35 issue anyway. Make it into the race only if you qualify. If you were last years champion and cannot cut the mustard for any given race .... tough. Too many gifts for those who aren't good enough to make it into the big game.

LSC, along with Bob I have to agree with you also. I'm glad to see them at least limiting the past champ provisionals. I'd like them stopped altogether

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by clutch

LSC, along with Bob I have to agree with you also. I'm glad to see them at least limiting the past champ provisionals. I'd like them stopped altogether

...and the Honorable Gentleman from Down Under has also with eloquence and finality. It would seem that the majority of us are in complete agreement. Everone mark the time and date; this may not happen again. (g)