[DaytonFlyersFan]

Hey guys, I just got a question. I'm just talking from first-hand experience right here. How many people get a lot of heat from their peers about being a NASCAR fan? I'm always getting ripped on by my friends/family for liking NASCAR. They always tell me, "There's nothing exciting about watching a bunch of cars go around in circles for four hours, watch another sport". And I always tell them "I like it, I think it's exciting". But they just don't seem to get it. They also say that it is a redneck sport and it's boring. So I guess what I want to know is: why do so many people hate NASCAR?

[LSC9901]

Like anything that people dislike, it probably has a lot to do with the fact they don't understand the sport. If you don't understand the basics of it then most just sluff it off as stupid. The long ago concept of it being a hillbilly, redneck sport still exists in the minds of those that don't follow or understand it.

[Phils20]

AS LSC says, it is partly just from not understanding the true nature of the sport.

I'm no golf fan, but I never put anyone else down for watching or enjoying it.

I think it's pretty pathetic that some are so miserable they like to rain on others parade.

[azrael492]

I never used to like it until I stumblied across it on TV and my son started watching it. He really loved the cars, and it was a really close race. The last few laps were very exciting. I still find it hard to watch a whole race...partly because I don't know all the rules and get confused by the announcers.

[Bob Tanner]

I think I can add some insight here, Flyer. Excellent question, by the way.

There are a number of reason why people "don't get" (I dislike the word, "hate;" it's one of those terms just thrown out there without thought about implication) NASCAR.

First and historically, most long time (I'd say fans for over thirty years) are relics of the era when Americans had a "love affair" with the automobile. The car was an extension of their personalities. Many people actually worked and maintained their own cars. Many of these same people went to their local race tracks regularly and watched, or were involved with, or maybe even were, the local "hero's. Ergo, becoming a NASCAR fan was as natural as Ashley Judd's good looks.

The people who didn't fall into the above category considered NASCAR and all stock car racing a rather esoteric sport and, as "outsiders, disdained it.

Many people who don't "get it" today are jocks and pseudo-jocks who grew up being spoon-fed stick&ball. Getting a bat and glove, basketball or soccer ball for Christmas is much more common than getting a go-kart or a quarter midget.

Add to this, motor sports are not covered, or even existent, at a college level. All you hear about if conference stick&ball. Sports journalists are NOT groomed in our hallowed halls of learning; they're re-programed with OJT after they get their first gig on some media outlet.

Throw all of these facts together and you have a large segment of good folks who see, in NA__AR, a sport they have no understanding of. Psychological fact here: It is human nature to distrust, dislike and even fear anything they don't understand.

That's my personal take on it, anyway,

But I could be very, very wrong...

[BiscuitMan]

There are many web sites and blogs all over the Internet that ask the same question. Respondents all seem to come up with similar comments that you received about not wanting to watch 40 rednecks making left turns for 5 hours. I have also received similar comments as well. However, I realized what the person's background was and that their interest in automobiles were very limited. That was my assumption.

But, I really think the major factors as to why some people are turned off with NASCAR racing is the fact that there is 1 winner and 42 losers at each race. This morning's paper listed over 50 winning teams in college basketball. Even, professional golf had 4 tournament standings results. On a given wekend during football season half the college teams are winners and half the NFL teams are winners. Also, the competitive seasons for these sports are relatively short (except for the NBA). NASCAR drags its season out 10 months. These factors have to have a bearing on acceptance of a sport.

I attended all the races at Daytona this year. As I sat in the seat at the track, I looked around and saw very few young people. Most seemed to have grey hair. This caused me to wonder, was this sport going to see a demise once these "old people" disappear?

[Bette]

There are a lot of different reasons given here. Probably is a bit of truth in all of them.
I dont follow Nascar, but I am smart enough to know that every sport has its own attractions.
There are as many different reasons for following a sport as there are different people. I'd suggest dont worry about it and dont get into it with them. Its not worth it and definitely dont let them take away from the joy of your sport. You can tell by the number of people in the Nascar forum here there are a lot of people who are just like you in your appreciation of the sport. Definitely not a redneck sport.

[DaytonFlyersFan]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

I think I can add some insight here, Flyer. Excellent question, by the way.

There are a number of reason why people "don't get" (I dislike the word, "hate;" it's one of those terms just thrown out there without thought about implication) NASCAR.

First and historically, most long time (I'd say fans for over thirty years) are relics of the era when Americans had a "love affair" with the automobile. The car was an extension of their personalities. Many people actually worked and maintained their own cars. Many of these same people went to their local race tracks regularly and watched, or were involved with, or maybe even were, the local "hero's. Ergo, becoming a NASCAR fan was as natural as Ashley Judd's good looks.

The people who didn't fall into the above category considered NASCAR and all stock car racing a rather esoteric sport and, as "outsiders, disdained it.

Many people who don't "get it" today are jocks and pseudo-jocks who grew up being spoon-fed stick&ball. Getting a bat and glove, basketball or soccer ball for Christmas is much more common than getting a go-kart or a quarter midget.

Add to this, motor sports are not covered, or even existent, at a college level. All you hear about if conference stick&ball. Sports journalists are NOT groomed in our hallowed halls of learning; they're re-programed with OJT after they get their first gig on some media outlet.

Throw all of these facts together and you have a large segment of good folks who see, in NA__AR, a sport they have no understanding of. Psychological fact here: It is human nature to distrust, dislike and even fear anything they don't understand.

That's my personal take on it, anyway,

But I could be very, very wrong...

Yeah, you can say that again. Sometimes I might miss a race for some reason or another, and I'll want to watch sportscenter or something to get the results, and I hardly ever get the results from watching sportscenter. They're always focused more on NFL/MLB/NBA/College Sports, etc. I can't really see why people consider it a redneck sport. NASCAR has tracks in places like Las Vegas, New Hampshire, California, Illinois, Canada, Mexico, Delaware, Michigan, etc. It's not just the "southern states" that have NASCAR race tracks. Last time I checked those aren't really places that are populated with "rednecks". I think that right there is proof that NASCAR tries to appeal to a broader audience then just your "typical southern boys".

[DaytonFlyersFan]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

Like anything that people dislike, it probably has a lot to do with the fact they don't understand the sport. If you don't understand the basics of it then most just sluff it off as stupid. The long ago concept of it being a hillbilly, redneck sport still exists in the minds of those that don't follow or understand it.

Yeah, and I've just had about enough of it. I've had a lot of people make some pretty crude remarks at me that I found offensive. I've had people say, "Oh my god, NASCAR? What next? Country music? Hunting and fishing?". I'm just like gee wiz, whats up with all the hostility towards NASCAR? You can call me naive if you want, but I'm not real familiar with this whole connection between NASCAR and rednecks. I always thought it was a "anybody can watch, anybody can follow it" sport, but I guess according to some people that I encounter, it's apparently just an "exclusive sport for southerners"

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by DaytonFlyersFan

I can't really see why people consider it a redneck sport. NASCAR has tracks in places like Las Vegas, New Hampshire, California, Illinois, Canada, Mexico, Delaware, Michigan, etc. It's not just the "southern states" that have NASCAR race tracks. Last time I checked those aren't really places that are populated with "rednecks". I think that right there is proof that NASCAR tries to appeal to a broader audience then just your "typical southern boys".

Aha! Flyer, my man, you bring up another popular myth which has permeated stock car racing history, and has lent itself to this "Southern redneck image."

Contrary to popular opinion and legend stock car racing is NOT, repeat: N-O-T unique to the South and Southerners! It didn't even originate in the South, as far as I know anyway. It began when the first automobile owner came upon the second automobile owner and thought, "I bet my carriage can outrun his?"

There were organized stock car racing sanctioning bodies long before NASCAR came onto the scene. Three that I know of were holding organized races prior to the founding of NASCAR in 1949.

The very first Indianapolis 500 in 1911 was a stock car race
American Automobile Assoc began sanctioning in 1946
California Roadster Assoc began the same year
Mutual Roadster Assoc started in Indiana in 1947

Another urban legend which lends itself to the redneck Southern image is the theory that it all began with moonshiners on a "bus-man's holiday."

It is true a lot of the early drivers in NASCAR got their skills running shine.
It is true that a lot of these same drivers knew how to make a car go very fast.
It is NOT true they used the cars they ran shine in, in competition.

Think about it a second... Car were expensive and the people who ran shine were not known for their wealth. A large percentage of the family income came from how dependable and how fast their cars were. Now, if YOU were in a like position, would YOU tempt the Gods and take a risk of ruining YOUR livelihood on a silly race, which paid less than one load of delivered moonshine?

The cars they used were. except in rare instances, shine runners. They were cars the drivers managed to utilize and they used their considerable talents to make them competitive. Some of these early drivers weren't too educated but they sure weren't known for their stupidity!

NASCAR got the publicity.
Most people who attended auto races across the country were on the middle-to-lower end of the socio-economic spectrum and a lot of folks in this category related more to The Grand Old Opty than they did the metropolitan Opera...

Throw all of this together and <Presto!> You have a redneck image.

That's my personal take on it, anyway.

But, I could be very, very wrong...

[SteelPhoenyx]

Originally Posted by DaytonFlyersFan

Yeah, and I've just had about enough of it. I've had a lot of people make some pretty crude remarks at me that I found offensive. I've had people say, "Oh my god, NASCAR? What next? Country music? Hunting and fishing?". I'm just like gee wiz, whats up with all the hostility towards NASCAR? You can call me naive if you want, but I'm not real familiar with this whole connection between NASCAR and rednecks. I always thought it was a "anybody can watch, anybody can follow it" sport, but I guess according to some people that I encounter, it's apparently just an "exclusive sport for southerners"

Being that I'm in California, NASCAR isn't THE sport of popular choice. I live in the Bay Area, so I have the hordes of A's, Giants, Raiders and 49ers fans around here to deal with.

Funny thing though, nobody ridicules me for my passion for NASCAR. Maybe because they know I'll weld the doors shut on their cars if they do?

[Team Yates]

Originally Posted by SteelPhoenyx

Being that I'm in California, NASCAR isn't THE sport of popular choice. I live in the Bay Area, so I have the hordes of A's, Giants, Raiders and 49ers fans around here to deal with.

Funny thing though, nobody ridicules me for my passion for NASCAR. Maybe because they know I'll weld the doors shut on their cars if they do?

You go girl!!!!

[WestCoast]

Still hard to shed the image, when the announcer says this about Bristol…

"This place sells out faster than a Larry the cable guy concert"

[SteelPhoenyx]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

Still hard to shed the image, when the announcer says this about Bristol…

"This place sells out faster than a Larry the cable guy concert"

True, but that's damn funny.

[DOF_power]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

Aha! Flyer, my man, you bring up another popular myth which has permeated stock car racing history, and has lent itself to this "Southern redneck image."

Contrary to popular opinion and legend stock car racing is NOT, repeat: N-O-T unique to the South and Southerners! It didn't even originate in the South, as far as I know anyway. It began when the first automobile owner came upon the second automobile owner and thought, "I bet my carriage can outrun his?"

There were organized stock car racing sanctioning bodies long before NASCAR came onto the scene. Three that I know of were holding organized races prior to the founding of NASCAR in 1949.

The very first Indianapolis 500 in 1911 was a stock car race
American Automobile Assoc began sanctioning in 1946
California Roadster Assoc began the same year
Mutual Roadster Assoc started in Indiana in 1947

Another urban legend which lends itself to the redneck Southern image is the theory that it all began with moonshiners on a "bus-man's holiday."

It is true a lot of the early drivers in NASCAR got their skills running shine.
It is true that a lot of these same drivers knew how to make a car go very fast.
It is NOT true they used the cars they ran shine in, in competition.

Think about it a second... Car were expensive and the people who ran shine were not known for their wealth. A large percentage of the family income came from how dependable and how fast their cars were. Now, if YOU were in a like position, would YOU tempt the Gods and take a risk of ruining YOUR livelihood on a silly race, which paid less than one load of delivered moonshine?

The cars they used were. except in rare instances, shine runners. They were cars the drivers managed to utilize and they used their considerable talents to make them competitive. Some of these early drivers weren't too educated but they sure weren't known for their stupidity!

NASCAR got the publicity.
Most people who attended auto races across the country were on the middle-to-lower end of the socio-economic spectrum and a lot of folks in this category related more to The Grand Old Opty than they did the metropolitan Opera...

Throw all of this together and <Presto!> You have a redneck image.

That's my personal take on it, anyway.

But, I could be very, very wrong...

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 ...

Originally Posted by john glenn printz

In early 1909 the American automobile makers, through the agency of the Manufacturer's Contest Association (MCA), which had been formed with Benjamin Briscoe (1867-1945) as president on 10 Feb 1909, approached the AAA with a request to standardized the rules for the upcoming 1909 American racing contests. Previous to this certainly, some U.S. auto manufacturers had tried to use racing as a promotional advertising tool or aid but one still gets the impression somehow that it was still for the "glory" of it all, as well. However in late 1908/early 1909 the industry bureaucrats wanted to utilize racing success, mostly as a quick and instant sales pitch. So in 1909 and 1910 arises the brief U. S. "craze" for events using a "stripped stock car chassis" format. Even the Vanderbilt Cup races in 1909 and 1910 were further debased from that of 1908, by becoming an event solely for stock type chassis. Now the all-out thoroughbred racing cars, built to a mostly weight formula, were almost totally banned from competition in the U. S.
.
.
...
The new 1909 racing regulations and rules proved however to be over elaborate and overwrought. The new scheme divided the stock racing car categories into five basic categories based on the weight, but mainly on the piston displacement of the engines and thereby left something for almost everybody.
.
.
...
The five displacement categories were; 1. under 160 cubic inches, 2. 161 to 230 cubic inches, 3. 231 to 300 cubic inches, 4. 301 to 450 cubic inches, 5. 451 to 600 cubic inches, and sometimes a "Free-For-All" classification was added to allow "all-out" or thoroughbred racing vehicles to run also. Thus in the major AAA (U.S.) racing dates staged during the 1909 to 1912 seasons, the five classes (or six), often ran co-currently in time with each other and each separate classification was deemed theoretically, and in actual practice too, a separate race. A good analogy here would be the Le Mans 24 hour sports car race. One basic problem with this new system proved to be that in some of the piston displacement categories there were very few entrants or none at all. Sometimes there was just one team, all of the same make, in one of the categories. In fact, it proved to be in actual practice, that there were so few entries in each piston displacement category that each auto manufacturer had thus a very good chance of an overall victory. But to what end? It was all just what the U.S. automobile industry and its ad men wanted, i.e. cheap and easily obtained victories. And still there were other more serious problems with this new setup. The so-called five "stock" classifications, which had been "taylor-made" for the auto industry by it own request and representives, was subject to constant abuse. The manufacturers almost always made their actual "stock" racing models, which they actually put on the track, of finer and more expensive materials, of much greater craftsmanship, and of closer and more precise tolerances than the more normal production engines and gear train, which they sold to the general public. When the AAA tried to enforce the "stock" provision rules, it had no real option but to disqualify the more open abuses of the rules by certain passenger car manufacturers. This made, of course, the said manufacturers look like they were deliberately cheating (which in fact they were) and, in the resultant bad publicity, the situation was a lot worse than merely losing a few races. The said auto company, in an indignant huff and crying unfair treatment, would then pull out of racing completely. The AAA Contest Board then faced the prospect of having no or fewer entries for the various "stock chassis" contests. It all became rather high farse and by 1911-12, the idea of staging races solely on a "stock chassis" basis was mostly over.