[SpaceCadet]

Did anybody else see the article by Ricky Craven on the Yahoo Sports page? I'd post a link but I'm a total computer moron and don't know how. It's a pretty decent article and he brings up lot's of nominee's for all time best driver that I hadn't even thought of. But my jaw almost hit the dirt when he chose Gordon as the all time best. It's only his opinion, remember, it's not written in blood. The Gordon, Sr., Petty debate has been done to death, but does it hold any weight with you guys that someone who has raced with them has this opinion? And what do you think of some of the other's he mentioned as all time best possiblities other than the usual three?

[LSC9901]

The best ever? - NASCAR - Yahoo! Sports

I will guess that this is the site you were looking at ???

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by SpaceCadet

Did anybody else see the article by Ricky Craven on the Yahoo Sports page? I'd post a link but I'm a total computer moron and don't know how. It's a pretty decent article and he brings up lot's of nominee's for all time best driver that I hadn't even thought of. But my jaw almost hit the dirt when he chose Gordon as the all time best. It's only his opinion, remember, it's not written in blood. The Gordon, Sr., Petty debate has been done to death, but does it hold any weight with you guys that someone who has raced with them has this opinion? And what do you think of some of the other's he mentioned as all time best possiblities other than the usual three?

Wow 'det, that's a really cool article. RC does a really clean/clear job of defining his personal criteria, citing multiple examples for a number of his personal criteria, then tying it out to his choice. To be clear, the question posed was "the best competed against". Not sure whether his response to "best all time" would have been the same or not. Guess someone would have to ask him before we'd know.

Also seems RC's criteria is not limited in the least to Cup. He eliminated many Cup drivers of note when applying the broader measure of open wheel, dirt, Busch, etc. Seems his measure is driven off of his roots - not a bad thing becuase at least he is speaking from a platform of personal and direct experience and knowledge. Oh that more would stick to that. In fact it seems if the question was "best ever Cup driver competed against" - kinda looks like Earnhardt may have been his choice.

Anywho, great article. MUCH better than those dragged on to this forum that are the product of medidiots (that 'ol blended word).

Thanks.

[3fanforever]

I guess you could say in NASCAR... Richard Petty was the best in his era, then Dale Earnhardt followed Richard and was the best in his era, then Jeff Gordon followed Dale, and may very well be the best in his era. But his era is not over yet, so that's an open book for now.
Of course we all have our opinions as to who of the three is best ever, and it's probably no wonder who I'd choose.
But saying that would bring the wrath of Petty and Gordon fans down upon me, and we'd go round and round in circles with no finish line.

[SpaceCadet]

Originally Posted by 3fanforever

Of course we all have our opinions as to who of the three is best ever, and it's probably no wonder who I'd choose.
But saying that would bring the wrath of Petty and Gordon fans down upon me, and we'd go round and round in circles with no finish line.

Yeah, that's kind of what I wanted to avoid. Do you think the criteria Craven used for his choices was appropriate? I thought it was the best way of reasoning through this topic that I've seen lately. I also like that so many other top knotch drivers were given credit. In the eternal three way "who's the best" debate, many other extremely talented driver's are often overlooked.

[Nevadastars]

Everyones infatuation with "who's best?" is really funny to me. There are sooooo many variables to it. Who had the best car, horsepower, crew chief, sponsor $$$, etc., all contribute to a drivers success. Yet its the driver that gets all the accolades. In Gordons case, he went to a top team with a stellar crew chief as a rookie, and his success snowballed from there. He NEEDS a superior car to win. In Earnhardts case, it was sheer desire to win that got him where he was and could do it with an inferior car if he had to. Some didn't like his style, but it worked. Petty was in a time when only a small handful of guys realistically had a chance of winning, and he was one of them. Then there are guys like Tim Richmond that never really ran enough to show what his potential was. In my eyes he was every bit as good of a driver as Gordo and the others. Yet he isn't even on most peoples "who's best" list.

Everyone one has favorite drivers, and mine is obvious by my avatar, but nobody can really say one was better then the other. There really is no best ever because there is absolutely no way to prove one individual is better than the other, unless they run together with totally equal cars, which is obviously not going to happen. Numbers do not tell the whole story of how good a driver is.

Was Jim McMahon a better quarterback than Dan Marino or Jim Kelly because he won a Super Bowl and they didn't? I hardly doubt it, but he was on a better team at the time.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Nevadastars

Everyones infatuation with "who's best?" is really funny to me. There are sooooo many variables to it. Who had the best car, horsepower, crew chief, sponsor $$$, etc all contribute to a drivers success. Yet its the driver that gets all the accolades. In Gordons case, he went to a top team with a stellar crew chief as a rookie, and his success snowballed from there. In Earnhardts case, it was sheer desire to win that got him where he was. Petty was in a time when only a small handful of guys realistically had a chance of winning, and he was one of them. Then there are guys like Tim Richmond that never really ran enough to show what his potential was. In my eyes he was every bit as good of a driver as Gordo and the others. Yet he isn't even on most peoples "who's best" list.

Bottom line is, you really cannot say who is the best ever because there is absolutely no way to prove one individual is better than the other, unless they run together with totally equal cars, which is obviously not going to happen. Numbers do not tell the whole story of how good a driver is.

Yup, yup. And then theres - "ever" ain't "over". We all keep that clear, and discussions and comparisons stay in the true fun zone. Really got to agree with your Tim Richmond thing. Davey another in the same category.

Cravens assessment is well done/explained though. And his answer is to the question - best competed against - even though some choose to see it as - best ever - which it ain't.

[SpaceCadet]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

Cravens assessment is well done/explained though. And his answer is to the question - best competed against - even though some choose to see it as - best ever - which it ain't.

That's my bad, Wing. I should have made the title a little longer to include the "competed against" part because it's not very accurate in it's description of the article. Sorry about that - just one more brain fart in a long line of many.

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by SpaceCadet

That's my bad, Wing. I should have made the title a little longer to include the "competed against" part because it's not very accurate in it's description of the article. Sorry about that - just one more brain fart in a long line of many.

That ain't no bad 'det. Earlier on I expressed my appreciation to you for the article which we clearly here enjoyed. We meant it then and we mean it now - Thanks for a really enjoyable article. Fact is, I do not think you really presented it as "best ever". So there - you're even better than ya thunk.

"Thunk" a word? Thunk not.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by wingkey1

That ain't no bad 'det. Earlier on I expressed my appreciation to you for the article which we clearly here enjoyed. We meant it then and we mean it now - Thanks for a really enjoyable article. Fact is, I do not think you really presented it as "best ever". So there - you're even better than ya thunk.

"Thunk" a word? Thunk not.

on the contrary, it was "coined" in the early days of the personal computer. it had to do with converting 8-bit data to 16-bit and back...

[wingkey1]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

on the contrary, it was "coined" in the early days of the personal computer. it had to do with converting 8-bit data to 16-bit and back...

Now here, ya gotta understand, the age of the personal computer (as in Intel and MS based) is the extreme modern era. Having spent 30+ years in the industry as a "fix it" and integrator, the PC was the beginning of the end of true creativity (with regards to hardware) and the beginning of the era of sameness, commodity, price wars, minaturization, etc.

Now we know that's WAY friggin' off topic so we encourage no response and only leave with the suggestion - thunk about it.