[oncea3fan]

Surprised this hasn't come,

of course I am talking Sr. here vs. jeff gordon.

make you pick but also back up your claim with valid reasons

[Lefty Noob]

Wow, what a can of worms to open up. Let's check the numbers.

Wins: Gordon 78, Earnhardt 76, advantage GORDON
Cup Championships: Gordon 4, Earnhardt 7, advantage EARNHARDT
Poles: Gordon 61, Earnhardt 22, big advantage GORDON
Both are former rookies of the year.
Both were named to the NASCAR 50 Greatest Drivers list.
Earnhardt is the only driver to win a race in four different decades.
Both enjoyed success and fame outside of auto racing, including on TV and in movies.

Man, is this a tough one. If you look at it without bias, they are so close it's not even funny.

[oncea3fan]

my thoughts are that Earnhardt was better (suprise there huh?)
dale drove sub par cars to victories and top finishes.
his rookie season was with a car/team that I don 't think had won.

JG on the other hand stepped in to a team/owner that had several wins, with tim richmond,kenny shrader,terry labonte.

dale also had to do the team bounce in the early 80's, jeffy has never had to worry about were he would be next year.

Earnhardt has also driven hurt, and even put the car on the pole at the glen with a broken collar bone...........thats tough.

can't really hold this against jeff because I don't think he ever been hurt.


earnhardt was aways willing to make the bold moves, were jeff aways just has a good car that sticks to the bottom, altough jeff did impress me at Indy when it broke loose in 4 and he stayed on it and got the pole.

[SpaceCadet]

Just for the sake of discussion, I compared stats (wins and championships only) for the years 1993 - 2000. Gordon and Sr. raced against each other in this time frame and obviously the other drivers they raced with were all the same, so their competition was the same. Their equipment was probably pretty close at that time. Sr. had 21 wins and 2 championships. Gordon had 54 wins and 3 championships. The fact that Gordon was fresh and at the beginning of his career while Sr. was in the second half of his career may have been a factor, who knows. So statistically, I say Gordon. But stats don't tell the whole tale for me. I was impressed that Gordon at such a young age did not allow himself to be intimidated. He went bumper to bumper or banged sides with Sr. and didn't back down. I was impressed with Sr. because I felt he had a lot of respect for Gordon. The deciding factors for me are purely subjective and just my gut talking. First, some Earnhardt diehard fans drive me crazy because they are very narrow minded. That can be said of Gordon fans, too. They just don't seem to be as over the top as the others. It's not the driver's fault, but like I said, this is just my gut talking here. The other is that I simply don't like the win at all cost style of driving. I don't like wrecking to win. Do all driver's do it, Gordon included? Yes. Did Sr. do it much more consistantly than most? Yes. That's why he was the Intimidator, right? (A great marketing ploy, as well). I just plain didn't like his driving style, much the same as I don't care for Stewart's style. Having said all this, I give Gordon the small edge, but I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for Sr.'s talent, accomplishments, and contributions to the sport. This could be a good thread if we can keep it civil!

[Lefty Noob]

This is all great stuff, folks. Love the analysis. So Earnhardt gets points for doing what he did with cars and team situations that were inferior to Gordons, and Gordon gets points for winning the head-to-head battle (although Gordo was younger than Sr.). Just for the sake of the debate, how do they stack up, head-to-head over the first 5, 10, or how many years of their respective careers?

[Racer Duck]

Here's the numbers....

Career Length (years)-- Sr:27----Jeff:16
Cup Championships----- Sr:7-----Jeff:4
Champ percentage----- SR:25.9--Jeff:25.0

Total races------------Sr:676----Jeff:484
Total Wins-------------Sr:76 -----Jeff:78
Win percentage--------Sr:11.2----Jeff16.1

Top 5-----------------Sr:281-----Jeff:222
Top 5 percentage------Sr:41.5----Jeff:45.8

Top 10----------------Sr:428-----Jeff:297
Top 10 percentage----Sr:63.3-----Jeff:61.3

Poles-----------------Sr:22-------Jeff:61
Pole percentage ------Sr:3.2------Jeff:12.6

Avg Start Position-----Sr:12.9-----Jeff:9.5
Avg Finish Position-----Sr:11.1----Jeff:12.4

Most Popular Driver----Sr:1--------Jeff:0

Longevity is on Sr's side, thus his totals are higher. Jeff seems to have the edge in the percentages. Sr. usually improved his position during the race while Jeff lost positions - but then Jeff started in the front more than Sr. And, finally, Sr is more popular than Jeff (which is not a guage of skill.)

All in all, I think they're very close and picking who's best is close to splitting hairs. History will probably be the best arbiter.

[jks812]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Just for the sake of the debate, how do they stack up, head-to-head over the first 5, 10, or how many years of their respective careers?

Wouldn't that be hard to do?Everything was completely different for Earnhardts first 5 or 10 years than it was for Gordons.
I would have to say for the most part Sr was the best of the older Nascar and Gordon the best of the new.
But just trying to pick one, I'd have to go with Sr. He has raced not so good equipment and done pretty good. Jeff wouldn't know what to do without great equipment.I imagine Sr would have drove anything, I also imagine Gordon will only drive the best.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by jks812

Wouldn't that be hard to do?Everything was completely different for Earnhardts first 5 or 10 years than it was for Gordons.
I would have to say for the most part Sr was the best of the older Nascar and Gordon the best of the new.
But just trying to pick one, I'd have to go with Sr. He has raced not so good equipment and done pretty good. Jeff wouldn't know what to do without great equipment.I imagine Sr would have drove anything, I also imagine Gordon will only drive the best.

Yeah, it's not really a fair comparison either, just like the actual head-to-head between the two drivers isn't 100% accurate and equal either. It's hard to compare two athletes like this who had their primes at different times, in different eras, but it's best to be as thorough as possible, if you ask me.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by jks812

I would have to say for the most part Sr was the best of the older Nascar

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Richard Petty, David Pearson and Bobby Allison are the cream of the crop in "the older NASCAR"...

[oncea3fan]

I don't have the stats but what about avg. point finsh over thier career.

I think of the phrase from "Days of Thunder"

"you calculating drivers and then you have comacozy drivers"

kinda fits here huh.

I also like "I'm droppin the hammer" about the best part of that movie, they used to have that at Sams club as a demo for the surround sound, I loved it.

[jks812]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Richard Petty, David Pearson and Bobby Allison are the cream of the crop in "the older NASCAR"...

Oh, thought it was Sr and Gordon only, sorry.

[LSC9901]

Oh my ... this is going to get real good. I've got a bunch of opinions about some of the previous posts, so here we go.

As Lefty noted this IS a tough one. Bias is part of being a fan. The degree of bias is what makes a fan a fanatic and over the top. Just another reason I favor no particular driver.

The fact that Jeff was taken into a team with a great record versus Sr. bouncing around is more a product of the times. In the early Sr. days there were more single car teams than multi-car teams. The more cars, generally the more success. For me this would be an unfair comparison.

Space Cadet brought up some nice stats for the years that they actually raced one another. In those years I too was not a fan of how Dale drove. He was very much like what Tony is today. Pass & crash or win at any cost. I understand there are others who do not view it that way but that is how I saw it. Even though I did not like his style of driving I still think he brought a lot to the sport and he brought a lot of the sport to the fan. Now about Jeff's fans not being as over the top as maybe Dale's were/are ???? Dunno ... I just don't see it that way.

Racer Duck, your stats also are great. Even though Sr. does have more time in his favor as of this moment, Jeff will probably surpass Dale in most if not all catagories by the time he reaches Sr.'s age.

We can sit here and discuss the head to head stats and reason why one is better than the other because of different situations. Basically the only comparison there is, is the numbers. Until Jeff is done we'll never know for sure.

In the meantime I'll vote for ...............

[jks812]

Okay, let me try to explain again. I know I should not be typing anything before lunchtime.
Okay you've got 2 great drivers basically from different periods. How do you really compare the two?Sr started his career in the 70's and Gordon in the 90's. Almost everything about the cars and all were different. There is even pretty much 2 different styles of racing. Teams that are, or were, at the time of starting, set up completely different. Sr basically went with a team that had not alot, Gordon went with a team that was already set and winning. Sr was old style and Gordon is new style, thats what I meant by the older and newer ( no not even I think Sr was better then Richard and neither will Gordon be).
To me the best way to compare who's best would be to take 2 drivers who went with teams that weren't the best and made something happen.
This is comparing a driver with a nothing team to a driver with an already championship caliber team. Thats why I said I have to say Sr. He really took nothing and made something. Gordon took something and continued it.

[PenelopePitStop]

I was having a real hard time with this thread, but you guys continue to impress the h*ll out of me with your knowledge.

My first thought was, "What do you mean by 'best'?" Jeff has an impressive record, but I think Sr. was a better driver.

As previously stated, Earnhardt could win, or at least finish well, with a piece of junk for a car. Gordon doesn't have that talent. As also stated, Sr. drove hurt many times. I also remember when he had to get out of the car after starting a race. He was so emotional. Now THAT'S a racer!

Beyond that, you really can't compare two generations. The technology that today's drivers have didn't exist back in the day. I "enjoyed" watching Sr. I can't say the same for Gordon, in fact, he bores me.

I don't know guys ... today's flock is more celebrity than talent ... and there's a difference between a "driver" and a "racer". Perhaps that's why ticket sales have slumped. Most tracks have been sold out a year in advance, but that's not the case this year. Maybe it's the "Race to the Chase", and drivers are more focused on a solid finish than a win.

Bottom line: Sr. gets my vote!

[Mike24]

The only way we can compare Gordon to Sr is... putting up the stats from their first 7 full time seasons.

Jeff Gordon - Poles 30 Wins 49 Top 5 118 Top 10 144 Championships 3

Dale Earnhardt - Poles 3 Wins 19 Top 5 82 Top 10 128 Championships 1

As you see, Jeff's first 7 seasons were better than Dale Sr's. Lets compare Gordon and Sr when they raced each other, from 1993-2000.

Jeff Gordon - Poles 33 Wins 52 Top 5 129 Top 10 166 Championships 3

Dale Earnhardt - Poles 9 Wins 23 Top 5 101 Top 10 160 Championships 2


Both stats show Jeff is better than Dale Sr. But, I remain neutral in the Earnhardt/Gordon debate. Both were great drivers who had alot of success. I can't say which is better, but the stats show Jeff Gordon is better.

And for those who think Jeff was handed a silver spoon, you are wrong. Jeff had to come up through the ranks just like Sr had to. Jeff doesn't have the talent to take a horrible race car and finish good with it? I challenge you on that comment. Jeff was out to lunch at Bristol, and he brought it home 3rd, and had a shot to win the race. Jeff can take a bad car and make it a winning car, just like Sr could. But like I said, I am neutral on this debate. Both were great drivers, and I can't say one was better than the other.