[Racer Duck]

I'm starting this thread because of a post in another thread in the "regular" NASCAR forum that named best drivers for certain time periods. When I thought back to something I posted recently where people only look at championships or wins to determine who the best driver was without looking at what I called "failures" - those who didn't win but came in 2nd or 3rd, I decided I'd ask, and answer, the question of who was, indeed, the most successful top 3 drivers from each decade beginning in 1949 and running thru 2006 based solely on their success on track.

It is my opinion that drivers from different eras can be compared because they currently are compared from one season to the next. The standard argument that teams or equipment or technology is different and so a comparison is not valid falls by the wayside because as each season passes there are different players (owners, drivers, crew), different teams (mixes of the players), different technologies, and (many times) different rules within which the competition is carried on. Therefore if a comparison from season to season or even from 5 seasons previous is valid, then time is the only factor that's different; the level of competition doesn't change from season to season or even from decade to decade. Thus, statistics, raw statistics, will tell the tale.

With that in mind I ask: "Who were the top 3 drivers in each decade - 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and in 2000's to date?"

Guidelines:

1. each driver with a top 3 finish in a single race within the decade will receive the following points:
   1. first place - 3 points
   2. second place - 3 points
   3. third place - 1 point;
2. each driver with a top 3 in championship points for a season within the decade will also receive the following points:
   1. first place - 3 points
   2. second place - 2 points
   3. third place - 1 point;
3. the top 3 drivers for each decade will be those with the highest total points; 1st will have the most points, 2nd will have the next most points, etc.;
4. successes from previous decades do not carry over .. or even from previous seasons - each is autonomous - it is recognized that some seasons spanned the traditional "year end" mark, and in some cases the traditional "decade end" mark, however the season is the deciding factor for race dates, not the calendar date;
5. there is no effort to "normalize" the results based on the number of races in a season to the number in a previous or subsequent season;
6. there is no effort to "normalize" the results based on track size nor track surface: a lap is a lap is a lap -and- a win is a win is a win.

When I have the answers calculated I will post them. In the mean time,

BEGIN SPECULATION!

[simple simon]

50's Lee Petty
60's Richard Petty
70's Richard Petty
80's Rusty Wallace
90's Dale Earnhardt Sr
00's Jeff Gordon

[Bob Tanner]

Sorry, Duck. Some decades just don't lend themselves to one single, or even two, outstanding drivers.


50's:.....Herb Thomas, Curtis Turner, Tim Flock
60's:.....(An example of my above statement) David Pearson, Ned Jarrett,
Richard Petty, Joe Weatherly
70's:.....Richard Petty, Cale Yarborough, Bobby Allison
80's:.....Darrell Waltrip, Dale Earnhardt, Terry Labonte
90's:.....Dale Earnhardt, Jeff Gordon,
00'S:.....(with only half a decade to draw on) Jimmy Johnson, Tony Stewart

The best overall NASCAR driver, from every decade is, IMNSVHO, without a single doubt in my military mind, is David Pearson. No one, except Ned Jarrett, even comes close to matching the figures he's got.

Drivers who never lived to match their full potential, but might have been on this list: Robbie Moroso, Tim Richmond and Alan Kulwicki

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Drivers who never lived to match their full potential, but might have been on this list: Robbie Moroso, Tim Richmond and Alan Kulwicki

how about Davey Allison ?

and of course with my love for the Andretti family i cant leave out Aldo (even if this is NASCAR) ..... some said he was better then Mario before his wrecks

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by simple simon

how about Davey Allison ?

and of course with my love for the Andretti family i cant leave out Aldo (even if this is NASCAR) ..... some said he was better then Mario before his wrecks

Excellent question...why didn't I mention Davey? I, personally think Davey might have fallen into the same category Dale Jr has fallen into; the immense burden of legacy.

Buddy Baker beat the odds but his dad was never as well known outside of immediate NASCAR circles as Junior's or Davey's was/is.

Kyle Petty has it beat but he suffered a mid-career identity crisis, tried to have too many irons in the fire, and his success, as a driver suffered greatly.

Davey had an additional problem, when it comes to legacy, he also had a successful uncle, Donnie.

I have no real feeling about how Davey would have done but my immediate thoughts are that he might well have fallen short of the shadow cast by his father and uncle. Unfortunately, we'll never know. <sigh>

I've heard and read that Aldo was at least Mario's equal severe crashes ended his career.

Since you mention Aldo, let me refresh your memory on the "Legacy Curse." Do the names Tony Bettenhausen and sons Tony Jr. and Gary ring any bells? How about Bill Vukovich and Billie Vukovich? I've had a couple of discussions with Gary and he says that while having a famous and successful father opens a lot of door, it also puts a great deal of weight on one's shoulders.

Once again, Al Unser Jr seemed to have the "Legacy Curse" beat completely but... We all know about his problems off the track (that could be a legacy of his uncle Bobby?). I'd say Michael Andretti is the most successful racing son, that I can think of immediately. Wonder how Marco will do?

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Since you mention Aldo, let me refresh your memory on the "Legacy Curse." Do the names Tony Bettenhausen and sons Tony Jr. and Gary ring any bells? How about Bill Vukovich and Billie Vukovich? I've had a couple of discussions with Gary and he says that while having a famous and successful father opens a lot of door, it also puts a great deal of weight on one's shoulders.

Once again, Al Unser Jr seemed to have the "Legacy Curse" beat completely but... We all know about his problems off the track (that could be a legacy of his uncle Bobby?). I'd say Michael Andretti is the most successful racing son, that I can think of immediately. Wonder how Marco will do?

yeah i know of Tony ....... and Little Al is just a drunk imo

Jacques Joseph Charles Villeneuve <------- im not sure how his father was but he is a great driver

(sorry to have brought up Aldo RD and gotten so far off topic, but i do love the Andretti's)

[Racer Duck]

after several false starts, one completely screwed up spreadsheet, and two power losses (which emphasized the need to do frequent saves) I now have the first of the 7 installments. I decided to work in reverse beginning with the current decade because it has the least number of races to tabulate. so without further ado,

Decade 2000 (not including the 2007 season)

• there were 214 races during this timeframe in which 54 drivers shared 752 podiums: Stewart - 63; J. Gordon - 62; Johnson - 52.
  • two drivers tied for the most wins: Steward & J. Gordon - 26; with Johnson having the 3rd best at 52.
  • 2nd place podiums were topped with Stewart - 22, J. Gordon - 19, & Johnson - 16.
  • 3rd place podiums added some different faces: Earnhardt, Jr. - 20; J. Gordon & Martin -17.
• the 7 season championship podiums were distributed as follows (in alphabetical order):
  • Biffle = 2nd:1
  • J. Burton = 3rd:1
  • Ku. Busch = 1st:1, 3rd:1
  • Earnhardt, Sr. = 2nd:1
  • Earhhardt, Jr. = 3rd:1
  • Edwards = 3rd:1
  • J. Gordon = 1st:1, 3rd:1
  • Hamlin = 3rd:1
  • Johnson = 1st:1, 2nd:2
  • Kenseth = 1st:1, 2nd:1
  • B. Labonte = 1st:1
  • Marlin = 3rd:1
  • Martin = 2nd:1
  • Stewart = 1st:2, 2nd:1
• using the following points values: 1st = 3; 2nd = 2, 3rd = 1;the top 3 drivers for the 2000 decade (thru the 2006 season) are:
  1. Stewart - 145
  2. J. Gordon - 137
  3. Johnson - 121

let the cussin's & discussions begin!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

after several false starts, one completely screwed up spreadsheet, and two power losses (which emphasized the need to do frequent saves) I now have the first of the 7 installments. I decided to work in reverse beginning with the current decade because it has the least number of races to tabulate. so without further ado,

Decade 2000 (not including the 2007 season)

• Stewart - 145
• J. Gordon - 137
• Johnson - 121

[/list]let the cussin's & discussions begin!

For the six and a half seasons in this decade, it looks good to me.

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

For the six and a half seasons in this decade, it looks good to me.

which half season did I miss?

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

which half season did I miss?

Thsi season, 2007

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Thsi season, 2007

are you intentionally trying to confuse me? (not hard, you know.)

I stated the Decade 2000 only included 7 seasons and did not include the 2007 season.

then you say "For the six and a half seasons in this decade, it looks good to me." not a typo, so figured there was something else amiss .. as many problems as I had putting this together, it wouldn't have surprised me .. thus my question .. and now we're back to here .. confused.

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

are you intentionally trying to confuse me? (not hard, you know.)

I stated the Decade 2000 only included 7 seasons and did not include the 2007 season.

then you say "For the six and a half seasons in this decade, it looks good to me." not a typo, so figured there was something else amiss .. as many problems as I had putting this together, it wouldn't have surprised me .. thus my question .. and now we're back to here .. confused.

technically Bob is right (and we all know Bob is the technical type)

this decade started with 2001, not 2000 ........ think about it, the very 1st year is called year 1, not year 0

so the 6 and a half years this decade would be years 2001-2006 plus the 1st half of this season

[Racer Duck]

Originally Posted by simple simon

technically Bob is right (and we all know Bob is the technical type)

this decade started with 2001, not 2000 ........ think about it, the very 1st year is called year 1, not year 0

so the 6 and a half years this decade would be years 2001-2006 plus the 1st half of this season

yeah, I know. and the year before year 1 was year -1. I never knew whether Julius Caesar understood the concept of the number 0 when he had his calendar commissioned, however it's very clear his "calendar keepers" did not by going from 1BC to 1AD (it must have been all those X's and C's and I's and V's that got them confused.) a mathematician would never have allowed a progression from one odd number to another without an intervening even number. isn't it odd our numbering system begins with the number 0 while our time recording doesn't? but I digress....

the Julian Calendar not withstanding, a high level examination of the data I reported would have revealed to the reader:

• 1 season of 34 races and 6 seasons of 36 races would have been required to produce the 214 total races (the exact amount from 2000 thru 2006 .. imagine that...);
• that I explicitly stated "7 season championships" which could not have happened in "six and a half seasons" (as Bob called it);
• and that I also explicitly stated "thru the 2006 season" which completely eliminates the 2007 season (as did "beginning in 1949 and running thru 2006" in paragraph 1 of my opening post which started this thread)

as is my right as author of the report, I chose to begin my decade (by definition "decade" represents a period of 10 years - ref: Decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) with the year 2000 (even though there aren't 10 years represented) and thus named the period "Decade 2000" (which also should have been a hint to the beginning year in the report.)

so you will appreciate my confusion by a "half season" being mentioned. my only conclusion could be either a "tongue in cheek" statement was being made or my statements had been either misread or misinterpreted.

but, as they're saying around here right now, "that's all water under (and over) the bridge." just so that the future reports, which will also be labeled "Decade", will not be misinterpreted as to which years are referenced, I will call the earliest years (1949 thru 1959) Decade 1950 (author privilege, again), and the remainder will be Decade 1960 (1960-1969), Decade 1970 (1970-1979), Decade 1980 (1980-1989) and, the one I'm working on now, Decade 1990 (1990-1999).

now I must run .. Decade 1990 is calling....

[simple simon]

i apologize if i sounded like a jackass RD ...... it was just info ingrained into me in High School history class that many people would wrongly celebrate the end of the millenium (sp) on December 31, 1999 .... which would be inaccurate ...... i just never forgot that lesson, sorry

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

so you will appreciate my confusion by a "half season" being mentioned. my only conclusion could be either a "tongue in cheek" statement was being made or my statements had been either misread or misinterpreted.

i figure many here must have assumed the "half season" meant they figured you would include the stats from what has already transpired this year

[LSC9901]

So now I'm confused more than ever. I no longer kow for sure just what decade I was born in, which one I'm living in and I don't know if this is a history class, math class or a NASCAR forum thread !!!

I am thinking that, once digested, I may have learned something here though.