[DOF_power]

Now back to why people hate NASCAR.
Well everything that has a big fan base also has a detractor base. Misconceptions on one hand and PR-overexposure/over-hype on the other also add to this.
NASCAR isn't the only one with this problems.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Bob what you say is mostly true except it goes back even further. Motorsport began in 1894 in France/Europe and in 95 in America, but the first true racecars/thoroughbreds/prototypes such as the Mercedes 35 came later in the early 1900s.
So till then it was stock car motorsport. As for oval track racing, the first U.S. oval track events took place in early September 1896 at Narragansett Park, Rhode Island and it consisted of three 5 mile sprint events.
But then prototype racing took over until ...

I knew the first actual organized race took place on The Continent before the turn of the Century but the date and site escaped me.

I thought my opening paragraph kinda covered it:
"It began when the first automobile owner came upon the second automobile owner and thought, "I bet my carriage can outrun his?"

I'm equally sure that there were racing sanctioning bodies which pre-date the three examples I gave (AAA, CRA - which is now call California Racing Assoc, and the MRA of Anderson, IN) but I wrote the post acapella and went with knowledge in my head.

Thanks for the reinforcement.

The legend of racing's redneck heritage is just one of the things which drive me nutz[er]. The other is this belief that moonshiners were the first drivers.

[DOF_power]

Myths are always more interesting and important to a governing body than reality.

[BiscuitMan]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

The legend of racing's redneck heritage is just one of the things which drive me nutz[er]. The other is this belief that moonshiners were the first drivers.

This "myth" actually is propagated by people who were there and wrote about it. Check out Neal Thompson's book "Driving with the Devil". It is one of the most accurate accounts of Southern moonshine, Detroit wheels and the birth of NASCAR.

Sure, these early drivers were mostly Southerners, but lead by Bill France who really wasn't a Southerner. He was from Washington DC. Most Southerners consider Washington DC to be the capital of the North. France had the vision and foresite to organize poorly paid drivers at races where many times in the past the organizer took off with the attendance money and winers purse just before the race was over. Bill France changed all that and it has developed into what it is today. A big money making sport.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BiscuitMan

This "myth" actually is propagated by people who were there and wrote about it. Check out Neal Thompson's book "Driving with the Devil". It is one of the most accurate accounts of Southern moonshine, Detroit wheels and the birth of NASCAR.

Sure, these early drivers were mostly Southerners, but lead by Bill France who really wasn't a Southerner. He was from Washington DC. Most Southerners consider Washington DC to be the capital of the North. France had the vision and foresight to organize poorly paid drivers at races where many times in the past the organizer took off with the attendance money and winners purse just before the race was over. Bill France changed all that and it has developed into what it is today. A big money making sport.

I don't pull a lot of stock in many people who write about sports in general and automobile racing in particular. If one goes to Amazon.com you can find pages and pages of NASCAR-related books, the vast majority of which are written by people who, before 2001, had zero interest in any form of mechanized racing. Now, unfortunately, it's just a trendy subject that a money-paying segment of society will plunk down the schekles to peruse.

Two quick examples of this are Pete Golenbock and David Poole. Pete was a stick&ball reporter for the Chicago.. Trib or Sun Times; I don't remember which who was only tangentally interested in racing until he met Kyle Petty in 1997. He wrote one book and he's immediately an authority on NASCAR. Second is our old friend David Poole. David was an obit writer for the Observer until he became friends with Liz Clarke. Her coverage of Kulwicki's death piqued his interest and Tom Higgins convinced the paper to give him a chance. David will freely admit he never attended a NASCAR race prior to 1998!

I know nothing about Neal Thompson and he may well be authentic. However, with the exception of Greg Fielden, I hold all "Authoritative NASCAR writers," and their stories suspect.

I've been around race tracks since 1950 and have followed NASCAR since 1957, so I prefer to go on memory and experiences. I'm sure a lot of the first NASCAR drivers had experience running the mountain roads at night. I'm equally sure a few of them actually used the cars they made those runs with. (Glen Dunwiddie is a prime example here) But on the whole of all stock car racing, they were a minority.

Not much shine was being distilled and run up in the Midwest, Northeast and out in California, where the modern concept of stock car racing was actually born. They were running roadsters (stock cars sans roofs) at Ascot and Gilmore, near Los Angeles, in 1932.

NASCAR was a late comer to the game. However, Bill Sr. had the vision no one else previously had. You are pretty much dead on as to your above description. However, history proves he wasn't as beneficent as many thing. There was at least one driver's boycott over safety and one riot over purse money. That led to the successful marketing of personalities, which ultimately has led to this thing we have today.

Southerns have a right to be proud of the successful product. However, like Algore didn't invent the Internet, the South didn't invent stock car racing. They just took a saleable product and perfected it.

[BiscuitMan]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I don't pull a lot of stock in many people who write about sports in general and automobile racing in particular. If one goes to Amazon.com you can find pages and pages of NASCAR-related books, the vast majority of which are written by people who, before 2001, had zero interest in any form of mechanized racing. Now, unfortunately, it's just a trendy subject that a money-paying segment of society will plunk down the schekles to peruse.

Two quick examples of this are Pete Golenbock and David Poole. Pete was a stick&ball reporter for the Chicago.. Trib or Sun Times; I don't remember which who was only tangentally interested in racing until he met Kyle Petty in 1997. He wrote one book and he's immediately an authority on NASCAR. Second is our old friend David Poole. David was an obit writer for the Observer until he became friends with Liz Clarke. Her coverage of Kulwicki's death piqued his interest and Tom Higgins convinced the paper to give him a chance. David will freely admit he never attended a NASCAR race prior to 1998!

I know nothing about Neal Thompson and he may well be authentic. However, with the exception of Greg Fielden, I hold all "Authoritative NASCAR writers," and their stories suspect.

I've been around race tracks since 1950 and have followed NASCAR since 1957, so I prefer to go on memory and experiences. I'm sure a lot of the first NASCAR drivers had experience running the mountain roads at night. I'm equally sure a few of them actually used the cars they made those runs with. (Glen Dunwiddie is a prime example here) But on the whole of all stock car racing, they were a minority.

Not much shine was being distilled and run up in the Midwest, Northeast and out in California, where the modern concept of stock car racing was actually born. They were running roadsters (stock cars sans roofs) at Ascot and Gilmore, near Los Angeles, in 1932.

NASCAR was a late comer to the game. However, Bill Sr. had the vision no one else previously had. You are pretty much dead on as to your above description. However, history proves he wasn't as beneficent as many thing. There was at least one driver's boycott over safety and one riot over purse money. That led to the successful marketing of personalities, which ultimately has led to this thing we have today.

Southerns have a right to be proud of the successful product. However, like Algore didn't invent the Internet, the South didn't invent stock car racing. They just took a saleable product and perfected it.

I'll move my Neal Thompson, Ed Hinton, and Tom Jensen books to the "fiction" section of my library.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by BiscuitMan

I'll move my Neal Thompson, Ed Hinton, and Tom Jensen books to the "fiction" section of my library.

No need to get huffy. I didn't say they were totally wrong, just that I trust my own experiences more than I trust others.

Ed's been around a long while and knows his stuff. Thompson and Jensen I know nothing about, except I have seen Thompson's book mentioned. So, if you want to put them in the fiction section of your library, that's your call.

However, anything by Fielden, Brock Yates, or Tom Higgins, that is designated as commentary is probably pretty factual and fairly objective. I'll give you that Brock will stretch a truth, now and then.

Despite our education systems efforts to dumb down our kids, there are lots of folks out there who have slipped through the cracks and actually read for recreation. Therefore there is a lot of money to be made in supplying them with NASCAR-related material. This has led to a glut of mediocre writings.

That is one reason why I depend on my own memory and experiences for my knowledge.

[DOF_power]

Bob you're not only right, but you have no probably no idea just how right you are. It's far from being a NASCAR "myths" issue.

McMaken and Printz run in trouble with CART when they started to debunk the Means/Haresnape/Catlin "mythological heritage writings" about the history of the national championship in the lost years.
Here's how and why:

Originally Posted by john glenn printz

Then again, back in 1985 the CART brass claimed that McMaken and myself had swindled CART of $550 because the historical section which we had provided CART for their 1985 Media Press Guide at their (i.e. Jan Shaffer's) request, and which got printed in it by mistake, was false and bogus. CART said Mr. McMaken and myself had pulled a fast one, and had made CART "to look absurd and ridiculous", and that much of our data (pages 223-292) was pure fantasy. This was mainly, if not wholly due, to Mr. Bob Russo and a bosom buddy of his, i.e. the biggest money sponsor in CART, at the time. That man in 1985 had the two biggest money accounts and sponsorships. He was the man behind all our problems with CART as Bob himself had no real clout, but the big money man did. I never thought that big money or purely business considerations would vitiate AAA automobile racing historical data and statistics (after all who really cares), but I was proven wrong. Compare with my entry on the thread 1946 AAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP, 22 Jan. 2007.

Ken and I also contributed an ALLTIME NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP INDY CAR WINNERS listing to the CART 1985 media guide (pages 223-227). This had never been put together before either. I compiled it all from Mr. McMaken's box scores. After 1985 CART never gave us any credit for that either. The driver win totals (top ten or so) use to appear in USA TODAY newspapers for years, as supplied by the CART PR men. That was all McMaken and Printz information originally. CART just kept adding and changing the win totals as the additional CART races occurred.

But after our CART swindle I was "persons non grata" to everyone in the CART organization. There was just one exception which I must acknowledge, i.e., J. Kirk Russell, CART's technical man and rules maker. He always thought I was O.K.

Russo was now put in charge of the historical section of the 1986 CART Media Guide and changed all our data back to Means-Haresnape-Catlin orthodoxy, and added new errors by his other quite random changes as well. Bob retained well over 95% of our statistics submitted in late 1984, for the 1985 CART guide, but we were no longer given proper credit for our info. And we no longer had any control over our own data. CART would no longer talk to us. Instead eight people were all collectively thanked and all given equal credit (CART 1986 MEDIA GUIDE, page 18, including Russo himself and his sugar daddy. I thought their listing themselves was dumb, as it might later prove incriminating. Naturally Russo excised all our commentary, which we considered an integral part of our material. CART would not even send me copy of their new 1986 media guide.

That was the way the data was always printed after 1985, always with Russo's revisions, until the very expiration of CART in late 2003, from bankruptcy. McMaken and myself apparently had no effect at all, and we soon disappeared from the scene. Many thought I was dead.

Bob had no use for false information. Ken and I had put both AAA 1920 reckonings in the 1985 CART guide, on pages 238, 239 and 274. But Russo was interested in only true historical data, so he excised all references to the 1920 five event schedule in the 1986 CART guide, i.e. pages 216 and 226. Unfortunately Bob had guessed wrong again, i.e. he retained the later false chart and threw out the earlier and true! See Gordon Kirby's CORRECTING THE RECORD BOOKS (AUTOWEEK, May 11, 1987).

Worst was to follow. Ken and myself having not been heard of, from 1985-87, Russo now decided to show how the McMaken/Printz contention that Gaston Chevrolet was the real 1920 AAA National Champion was totally in error. That, I deem, was a major Russo mistake. I had no advance warning about his INDY CAR RACING article (JANUARY 1987, pages 43-45) but when it arrived in my mailbox, and I read it with care, I broke into uncontrollable spasms of laughter. I was still laughing six months later, although I don't see anything funny about it now. Bob may have been a racing journalist, a publicist, and PR man but he was not a historian.

So and, with good cause for past offences, I penned a hard hitting and vicious attack on both Catlin and Russo (ICR, January 15 & 22, 198; and this finished us off for good. USAC, CART, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and all the American Auto Racing Writers & Broadcasters Association, Inc. (AARWBA) members rose up to a man, against us. Catlin and Russo were both considered semi or wholly divine figures by the likes of the USAC people and the AARWBA. I had attacked two of the most venerable figures in American auto racing, and NASCAR still gives a writer's award in the name of Russ Catlin and the AARWBA does the same for Bob Russo.

But I agree totally with Mr. H. Donald Capps' statement, "It is difficult to conceive of a sport which would allow such nonsense to exist....", i.e. all its mixup of past data and the actual history. Consult Mr. Capps' entry on BOB RUSSO AND THE 1920 AAA CHAMPIONSHIP of 22 Sept. 2006.

And so, after 35 years of work on the project, I had accomplished nothing more than to be completely blackballed by USAC, CART, IMS, and the AARWBA. And the McMaken/Printz investigations had had, seemingly, no effect at all! After all that, I quit, for a full decade. What a waste of time! And I have other interests besides the history of motor car racing. Only the Brits, across the Atlantic and where Catlin and Russo were much lesser known, took any interest in the McMaken/Printz investigations and findings. In the U.S. no one was interested. Well...it's all water under the dam now, but that's what happen to Ken and myself. Corporate America and CART at work.

Now to make a long story, short; I started up again about four years ago and we have been saved by the internet. It was a totally unexpected development. I got on this data base on September 11, 2006. That is 9/11. Unluckly for others but luckly for Ken and myself. I think the struggle and war is largely over now, about the Means, Haresnape, Catlin and Russo issues. So much progress has been made.

It is to the English that Ken and I owe a great deal. It was Gordon Kirby at the beginning (1981-84) and the Atlas F1 Bulletin Board at the end (2006-0. In between, Peter Higham another Englishman, first put our ideas into a book, i.e. THE GUINNESS GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL MOTOR RACING (1995), although neither Ken or myself were mentioned in the Acknowledgements in either the 1st or 2nd editions. (Compare with Mr. Bob Marley's entry of 26 Feb. 2002 on the thread WHICH RACES DETERMINED THE AAA AMERICAN CHAMPIONSHIP?) Our AAA historical reconstruction was again repeated in his 2nd edition (2003), now called THE INTERNATIONAL MOTOR RACING GUIDE, on pages 452 and 456. I believe that Mr. Higham called me from England once, by phone, when he was putting the 1995 book together. Peter wanted to know if we had the top five finishers for all of the AAA Championship contests. We did, but I never heard from him again.

The American (!) Jan Shaffer, who included our data in the 1985 CART NEWS MEDIA GUIDE, against orders from his CART superiors, also deserves much credit. Shaffer was dismissed from his CART post in c. July 1985, for printing our information in the 1985 CART guide.

Many thanks to you all!!!

It wasn't until CART was bankrupt that the historical issues were rectified and the McMaken/Printz findings/history were put on the new ChampCar site as opposed to the old Means/Haresnape/Catlin myths.

So Bob better put those memeories of yours in a diary/blog so that some poor real historians/writers in the future have some source of actuall/real data as opposed to the official PR myth fantasies. Cause unfortunately you were spot on again.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DOF_power

Bob you're not only right, but you have no probably no idea just how right you are. It's far from being a NASCAR "myths" issue.

So Bob better put those memories of yours in a diary/blog so that some poor real historians/writers in the future have some source of actual/real data as opposed to the official PR myth fantasies. Cause unfortunately you were spot on again.
[/size][/font]

Since NA__AR has become the "In" sport a virtual cottage industry of "Real" NASCAR history books has popped up. I've tried to read a few but most seem to focus on the way they think people think NASCAR was. The end result is that many confuse NASCAR history with stock car racing history. It's frightening the number of fans who have no idea that major race sanctioning bodies in the USA predate NASCAR by a decade and a half, and stock car races were promoted three or four decades earlier.

As far as the first NASCAR racers being moonshiners... I'm looking at the finishing line up for the first sanctioned NASCAR race at Charlotte (6/19/49), and can identify no more than six drivers of the 33 who ran the race as "moonshiners."

Unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be) my memory isn't what it was. I don't collect memorabilia but I do have a pretty extensive library of auto racing news reports, programs, posters and books (mostly written before 1990) to jog my recollections.

Thanks for the reinforcement.

[DOF_power]

There should be a book called "Stock car racing before NASCAR".

Just a few examples:

• Ft. Smith, Arkansas...Barney Oldfield ran here in 1910 and the track survived into the 1950's.

• Savannah -- home of the ACA Cup races and then host of the Vanderbilt Cup.

• Ormand and Daytona Beach

• Atlanta Motordrome -- a high-banked two-mile dirt oval built by the founder of Coca-Cola, billed as the "Indianapolis of the South." Louis Chevrolet won the first race in 1909 or 1910.

• Charlotte Speedway-- a Jack Prince, 40 degrees, 1.25 mile board track than ran from 1924 to 1926

• Miami-Fulford Speedway, a 50% banked board track built around 1925. One race was held there, won by Pete DePaulo.

• Wheeling, W. Va. where the AAA ran in 1911
  

There was AAA, NMRA,ARCA, NARL, CSRA, IMCA, USAC, URC and NSCRA stock car racing before and/or during NASCAR early years, and this is just in southern/"traditional" NASCAR teritory.

[titans#1]

i dont think people hate it they just dont understand what kind of talent and knowledge it takes to be competitive in the sport.

[NASCAR Gnome]

Rather than try to reason why people dislike the sport, I would steer them to why I really like the sport!

NASCAR to me, is very much like a TV SOAP OPERA! In Cup you have 43 drivers, 43 crew chiefs, 30-plus owners, the officials, the suppliers, TV personalities, radio and so on and so on. Every week there's a certain amount of drama and yes, the fact that there will be 42 losers every race makes it even more dramatic!

It truly is like following a soap! Stop and think about that for a minute...

In Daytona, it was the Dodges winning (coming out of nowhere)
In California, it was the weather - aka "weepers"
In Las Vegas, it was the oil tank cover
In Atlanta, it was Smoke vs. Goodyear
In Bristol, it was Harvick vs. Smoke

Anyway, my take is very simple: team sports present the team and as much as the drivers and crewmen state it's a team sport, stock car racing is all about personalities. You have your bad guys, your good guys and Dale Junior! You have the "Evil Empire" i.e., the governing body of the sport, and on and on.

Really now, what's not to love?

[3fanforever]

This may be trivial, but I think one of the reasons people hate NASCAR goes all the way back to the Confederate vs Yankee days. NASCAR was born in the Confederacy and for years, run mostly in Confederate states. All the people who hated NASCAR saw was Confederate flags waving proudly from the campgrounds and the infield. When they drive down south, they saw NASCAR stickers on the back of pickup trucks alongside Confederate flag stickers. And they saw Confederate fans who were not ashamed or afraid to fly those flags or display those stickers. That was the root of a lot of hatred for the south and anything associated with it, and still is today to a certain extent. It's been pounded into the conscious of Amercia that the Confederate flag represents everything that's bad and wrong about the South, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Times have changed, and we don't see those flags flying on TV anymore. I think NASCAR has told them not to show them. But they're still there, although nothing like they used to be. But the hatred for what was, is still there. Some folks just can't let go and move on.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by 3fanforever

This may be trivial, but I think one of the reasons people hate NASCAR goes all the way back to the Confederate vs Yankee days. NASCAR was born in the Confederacy and for years, run mostly in Confederate states. All the people who hated NASCAR saw was Confederate flags waving proudly from the campgrounds and the infield. When they drive down south, they saw NASCAR stickers on the back of pickup trucks alongside Confederate flag stickers. And they saw Confederate fans who were not ashamed or afraid to fly those flags or display those stickers. That was the root of a lot of hatred for the south and anything associated with it, and still is today to a certain extent. It's been pounded into the conscious of Amercia that the Confederate flag represents everything that's bad and wrong about the South, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Times have changed, and we don't see those flags flying on TV anymore. I think NASCAR has told them not to show them. But they're still there, although nothing like they used to be. But the hatred for what was, is still there. Some folks just can't let go and move on.

You could be right but it has never been an issue for me and you can't get much further north than where I am.

[Geechee843]

i didnt rea dll the post cuz they are all pretty long but i gett eh point. i dont "hate" it. i just dont understand all the rivalries and what not. i'll watch hte last few laps but i dont have the patience to watch hte other 495. but dont get me wrong. i know not everyone can do it, it takes balls of steel. and about your comment saying that most people dont like it because they get a ball&bat for christmas and not a go kart- a ball/bat is not nearly expensive as a go kart.

and about the redneck thing. i dont call it a redneck sport, but lets be honest, its way bigger down here than anywhere else. and when i watch sportscenter and a racer is on, its kinda hard to not notice their drawl. i live in south carolina and i cant begin to tell you how many pickup trucks i see with 3,20,24,5 etc..etc decals on the bumpers and back windows.

its not that people dont want to understand it or give it a try. its just that some people may genuinely find it boring.

hell i didnt understand too much about hockey til i watched it. now i cant get enough (and its not a "black persons sport"). i've tried to watch nascar. i really have. i'm teh type of fan that wants to have a connection with the athlete im watching. not look at their hood or bumper for 500 laps.

i know im opening up the flood gates here, but to me , its rather boring. that doesnt mean there is anything wrong with nascar (or me). im not a detractor or a hater. i have mad respect for those guys. its just not for everyone. every other sport faces teh same things. some people say basketball is for "coons" and football is for "dum jocks" and abseball is for "fat americans". the only difference is that,whether we like it or not, teh bulk of its fan base is based in the south