Searching for compliments

There was no shortage of mail following this past weekend’s race at Talladega. Unfortunately, none of it was complimentary.

Many of you did compliment my story on giving Jimmie Johnson the credit he deserves, but few are ready to qualify him as their favorite, which seems to be the theme of 2009.

Nice column, but the fact that you have to answer the criticism of Jimmie Johnson really explains why he isn’t revered except by some in the media. Fact is NASCAR’s fan base is what matters in NASCAR and most fans I know could care less about Jimmie Johnson winning four in a row. And isn’t what the fan base thinks the most important part of NASCAR?

Fans find him boring and in no way exciting despite his skill as a driver. Most fans find the fact that he rides for Hendrick to be the reason. Or the fact that the Chase’s races are geared toward his driving style. I for one find nothing compelling when these other factors are factored in and they can’t be ignored.

So to tell us we are out to lunch is out to lunch. You can have champions that aren’t the consensus of the main sports fan base. Jimmie is one of those. And it says a lot that him winning four in a row isn’t generating buzz in the sports world.

If this was four in a row in any other sport it would be a celebration, or if JR was the one winning four in a row. But in the end very few NASCAR fans revere Jimmie like a Petty, or Earnhardt Sr. I believe that if this was Gordon, he would be much more revered. In fact, Mark Martin has gotten more love from the fans.

JJ is a boring pretty boy with little pedigree or prestige that most fans care about. Those are the facts.

Kent R. Sawatzky
Thornton, Colo.

The fact is your description of Jimmie Johnson is consistent with what I heard and read from fans describing Jeff Gordon in the late 1990s. I have a hard time believing that fans of New York or Philadelphia were real thrilled with the Boston Celtics’ eight consecutive titles. I can’t imagine North Carolina or Kentucky fans were pulling for UCLA during their run of seven straight NCAA championships.

Therefore, I do not expect fans of the 42 drivers Jimmie Johnson competes against to applaud him. But understand that within the sport Jimmie and the 48 Team are respected adversaries.

My point is Johnson is headed toward a fourth consecutive title and him winning it is not contingent on being the most popular driver or even being revered. His winning is contingent on being better than those he competes against under the format that exists.

---

Ricky – I have enjoyed your column for some time now, and I have to tell you that this is one of the most influential and informative columns I have read – fabulous work!

I am not a diehard JJ fan either – although I do respect what the Hendrick organization has accomplished. Given the standings today, many readers are looking for other excuses for JJ’s success – car, engine, team, sponsor dollars, crew chief etc.

This article clearly states all the facts in a very objective manner taking into account all of the above points into consideration. Ultimately in the end, you are completely correct that it boils down to talent – pure and simple.

Additionally, JJ deserves to win given his dedication and on track performance. Just a few kind words for you to keep up the great editorial!

Robert Graziotto
Vancouver, British Columbia

P.S. If you are ever in Western Canada – drop me a line. We can take you out snowmobiling (that is if you still ride) in the back country into some of the best mountain riding that the Rockies has to offer.

I’m asking no one to root for Jimmie, buy a T-shirt or join his fan club. I am only asking readers to appreciate what we are witnessing.

All of us watching NASCAR during this decade will have the opportunity to describe to people 20 years from now our perspective on Jimmie Johnson during his prime. When we describe his three, four, or perhaps even five titles in a row, we need to be clear on the facts.

• That he competed in the age of parity, in a car that was scrutinized so closely that it was nearly identical to the 42 it competed against.

• That when he was winning titles he had teammates such as Jeff Gordon, Mark Martin and Kyle Busch who he was beating.

We also should include the fact that Jimmie had the respect and admiration of those he competed against while winning these titles, in large part, because the titles did not come as a result of knocking drivers out of the way in route to victory.

We won’t have to preface any of this with “Jimmie was a great points racer” because his three 195-point wins in the first seven Chase races suggest otherwise.

Jimmie Johnson has succeeded with talent, hard work and determination, and history will speak to it.

I will take you up on the snowmobile trip. In fact, I was on the phone this morning checking on the status of my Arctic Cat for the coming season.

---

Good morning Ricky!!! It’s the morning after ‘Dega, and I wonder if NASCAR gets it? As a long-time fan I just don’t understand how they give the drivers a car that will work very well doing something (two-car breakaway) and then tell them “you can’t do that.”

Do you think the single-file racing we saw yesterday was a form of protest by the drivers?

What’s next? Remote-controlled cars at Daytona and ‘Dega?

Now let’s talk about safety. Where does NASCAR go from here with the CoT? It was very obvious that the back wing caused the 39 to flip. All the other hood roof flaps went up; so did the car.

Boring race. Looking back, wish I had DVR’d the race and watched football. Won’t make that mistake again. Just glad I didn’t pay to watch that.

Brian
Wilder, Ky.

I do not think the single-file racing we saw was any type of protest. I believe it was an inevitability for experienced drivers who, having competed at Talladega enough, understood they were going to accomplish very little by running side-by-side for four hours.

Through a combination of the new car and Talladega being recently resurfaced, competing there has become ridiculously simple. If you captured any of Tony Stewart’s in-car audio, he was very clear in how redundant competing at Talladega can be for drivers. The majority of the veterans chose to bide their time knowing the first 80 percent of the race was nothing more than rehearsal for the finish.

The problem with competing at Talladega is that it’s too easy. Anyone can run full throttle under the current platform on which they compete. Because of that, winning becomes a direct measure of pushing, blocking and courage – or stupidity, depending on your perspective.

The only solution that would satisfy the drivers and create better racing would be to make the cars drive poorly, which would break up the pack. In other words, make it more difficult. That way, talent can capitalize and those less talented would be forced to lift off the accelerator and really have to fight for position on the track.

I understand NASCAR implementing rules at this track to prevent drivers from becoming reckless, however I wonder if that is attainable at a track that seems to have been designed for pure speed.

I truly believe NASCAR is in an awkward position as it relates to Talladega because they need to find a way to minimize the risk for fans and drivers, while at the same time try to preserve the integrity of competition.

---

With all the engineering work that went into the CoT, isn’t it possible to design a car that will meet all that NASCAR wants out of a car, plus have the ability to not flip over if it spins around? It should just be a matter of aerodynamics.

Jeff T.
Kansas

Jeff, I agree that there should be a solution to keeping these cars from becoming aircraft, but the single biggest contributor to this is speed. The car is fast and heavy, and with the front and back stretches of Talladega being the length of most runways, it is predictable that at some point fans will see an airborne race car. Restrictor plates slow the car, but not enough.

Unless they slow the cars dramatically, you will continue to have the risk of cars coming off the ground as soon as the transition from creating downforce (traveling forward in race conditions) to sliding sideways or backward. When that happens, they often create lift, and it appears roof flaps can only recognize one stage of the process – or simply not react quickly enough.

We need to somehow slow the cars more quickly when the driver loses control. In other words, institute something that would acknowledge a car changing direction and assist in slowing it or reversing the effects causing the car to lift.

Requiring the cars to be heavier would probably help, but that may create challenges for the tire manufacturer.

---

Ricky, after the ‘Dega article and the “Yahoo! Sports Minute” bit on racing and what the fans want, I think you and the other analysts are missing something. Yes, fans want excitement and danger, and yes, we all want safety and the drastically increased likelihood of a driver walking away from a crash. But the problem with today’s “racing” isn’t the car or the drivers but the sport management.

The cars are safer than before, the drivers are much safer than before, and the speeds are faster but not THAT much faster than before. So why does NASCAR throw the yellow so many more times than before?

That’s part of what’s causing the fans’ disgruntleness. It seems that a yellow comes out for any idea of debris, even a piece of paper, not to mention a car sliding across the track.

Watched a replay of a Martinsville race from the late ’80s or early ’90s (can’t remember which). There was a car into the wall with two laps to go and nobody seemed to think about throwing the flag – the race kept going and finished under green.

The speeds weren’t any faster than today’s but yet today they’d stop the race. And given the safety equipment today vs. back then, the risk was MUCH greater before.

Is it that today’s drivers can’t deal with the issues, or is it NASCAR wants to keep everything “perfectly safe,” or is it that today’s cars can’t handle small debris like yesterday’s cars could?

Whichever it is, it’s one of the biggest drawbacks to today’s racing – the risk vs. reward is diminished and everything seems to be run “overly safer” for little reason and little gain.

Tim
Fairfax, Va.

Tim, I am not going to campaign to you and the readers on how much I’ve enjoyed the racing, or the new car, or the double-file restarts. I have too much respect for all of you buying tickets, dedicating portions of your weekends to watch or listen and take the time to weigh in on the sport.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions.

I do believe NASCAR listens to the fans. They would be foolish if they did not.

Having said this, I believe fans need to give NASCAR more credit on their initiatives and commitment to the safety of our sport, not only toward competitors, but also to those of you sitting in the grandstands. The cautions are an extension of that safety, because they do not want or need tires exploding as a result of debris on the track.

They may not have thrown a caution in the closing laps of races in the ’80s or ’90s. They also did not mandate the use of HANS devices, or operate tracks with safer barriers.

There have been several wrecks this season (Joey Logano at Dover, Ryan Newman at Talladega) where we saw the driver walk away from a destroyed race car. I know they and their families appreciate the progress NASCAR has made with safety. Whether the racing is better now vs. then is up for debate. Whether the sport is safer is not.