Last month we discussed driving styles of drivers from the early and
mid 60's, and challenged you, the reader, to compare those drivers with
today's stars. Needless to say, in a comparison designed to
determine stock car racing's "Greatest Ever," it would be necessary to
include greats from the 1950's such as Tim Flock, Herb Thomas, and Lee
Petty, as well as 70's stars like Darrell Waltrip, Bobby Allison, and
Cale Yarborough. Our goals for this exercise however, are to determine who
was best among the specific drivers we have discussed, and to see who had
the versatility to emerge as a star in any era.
Let's begin this segment where we left off last time, taking Jeff Gordon and
placing him in Curtis Turner's Wood Brothers and Holman-Moody Fords,
putting Curtis in the DuPont Chevrolet, and do the same reversal with
Fred Lorenzen and Dale Earnhardt.
Our first comparison is dramatic. There were perhaps no two drivers in
NASCAR history as opposite as Gordon and Turner. Jeff Gordon is a skilled
craftsman, soft spoken and genuinely humble, who being a 'Thinker' enters
every race with a twin concept-- 1) Win the race if he can and
2) Finish the race if winning is not possible, in the highest position
to assure the greatest number of Winston Cup points.
Curtis Turner on the other hand was brash, aggressive in speech, and
intimidating on the racetrack. His goal
before every race was singular. Lead every lap until the car fails or the
checkered flag falls. But what exactly are Jeff and Curtis willing to
sacrifice in order to accomplish those goals? Will they risk hitting the
wall on the final lap in a fender banging duel to the checkered flag? Or will
they take a safe second place finish? Will they spin another car to gain
advantage if it means a fourth place finish instead of a fifth? Will they drive the
car beyond it's limits if the car is incapable of winning? And through
the course of a season, who will earn more money for themselves and their
car owner?
The answers are obvious. All great drivers take calculated risks, and Jeff
Gordon and Curtis Turner are two of the greatest. You can bet they
are prepared every Sunday to put it all on the line to achieve
victory, even if there was a chance that making
that final run to the flag could end in a spin or a brush with the wall.
So this category of comparison is EVEN. Advantage to neither driver.
But what about our next category, racing ethics? Would JG intentionally
spin an opponent to achieve a higher finish and pick up some extra Cup
points? The answer is no. In this category Turner wins.
Curtis would run over a scout troup if they happened to be between him and
a higher finish. ADVANTAGE TURNER.
What about that given Sunday when the car they are driving is an 8th
place car, and nobody-- not Jeff Gordon or Curtis Turner can make it go
faster or finish the vehicle higher? In this situation Jeff runs as hard
as he can, he works with his crew at pit stops, and he finishes the race
in 6th. Better than the car is capable, because he is a better driver than
his competitors in faster cars. On the other hand, Turner simply drives his
car through the first turn wall early in the race, attempting to win a
race in an 8th place car. ADVANTAGE GORDON.
But what about total wins and average finish? Would Turner win an
occasional race that Jeff Gordon would not? The answer is yes, but Turner
would also lose races that Gordon would win. JG would finish an
alarmingly greater number of his starts and most of those finishes would be
"in the money." ADVANTAGE GORDON.
Now let's put Gordon in Turner's cars. No power steering, no radio
communication, and no spotter. The task is more difficult to be sure, but
remember the competition has the same disadvantages. Would Gordon's
stature allow the same efficient wheel turning as the bigger more physical
Turner? We will never know the answer to that question, but we do know this.
The 1960 Grand National (Winston Cup) Champion was Rex White. Rex was 5'4".
The 1962 and 1963 champ was Joe Weatherly. Joe stood 5'8".
Such performances indicate that Jeff Gordon would adjust and compete,
probably at exactly the same level he now competes.
But what about Turner? Given the comparative driving ease of a 2001 Winston Cup
stock car, 250 more horsepower which Curtis would love, and a spotter to
bail him out of a few reckless driving jams, would he have performed
differently? Probably not. After all, tigers do not change their stripes
and NASCAR today is somewhat less lenient about running into competitors on
pit road and on the race track. Curtis would have driven much like Dale
Earnhardt, with comparable physical skill, but less savvy than NASCAR's
recently departed superstar.
The winner in this comparison is Jeff Gordon-- hands down. But don't
discount Turner. He was a man of great presence and driving skill. He
would have competed in any era and he would would have won races against
the best of today and yesterday.
Our next match up is between two more of the all time greats, Fred Lorenzen
and Dale Earnhardt. Like Gordon and Turner we have another 'Thinker' and
'Charger' comparison. For this match up though YOU have to do some of the
work. I'm going to provide the Lorenzen data, and you plug in Earnhardt.
Remember, there is no right and wrong. We are comparing styles and you
decide who is best in your mind.
Would Fearless Freddie go toe to toe with Dale on the way to the
finish line? We'll never know, but we do know he went
door to door with Fireball Roberts, Richard Petty, A.J. Foyt, and Curtis
Turner. And he won about 80% of the time. Could he do the same
against The Intimidator? The best answer to that question may lie in a
statement made by Muhammad Ali a few years ago. When asked how he would
have faired against Mike Tyson, the Champ replied simply, "No worse than
Frazier." But you are evaluating this one so make the call.
What about the fender banging on the short tracks? Would either have
spun a competitor to gain advantage? Lorenzen was the consummate pro. Although
he was all business on the track, he frequently moved out of the
grove when having a bad day. But don't discount the Golden Boy's emotions.
He didn't spin donuts after winning a race and he was careful to thank
sponsors and crew members, but Fred always had a quick retort for the
competition in Victory Lane. After winning at Atlanta, he once
proclaimed, "I won this race to prove a Ford is just as good as a Pontiac."
And what about driving the car beyond it's limits? It happens to a number
of great drivers. But Fred Lorenzen drove his car to its limits, never beyond.
Our next category is average finish and money winnings. Both Lorenzen and
Earnhardt were leaders in their respective eras but who would you rather
have in a car with a bad fuel pump? Lorenzen had such a car in the
1962 Daytona 500. He qualified at 156 mph, six miles per hour slower than
the pole sitter. Throughout the day he methodically drafted with faster
cars while nursing the accelerator to carefully stay
competitive. He finished fifth. That same year he won two races in a 406
Ford which produced 50 less horsepower than the 421 Pontiacs of a dozen of
his competitors. Remember though, there was "one tough customer" named Dale
Earnhardt who handled a wounded car pretty well himself. And no one was
more durable than "the man in black."
Who would make more money for their car owner? That's a hard one to
answer. Both drivers usually finished in the top 10 when they
were driving top level competitive vehicles. To get a true measuring stick
however, we should look at Lorenzen's peak years in a Holman-Moody Ford
(1961-1967) and Earnhardt's championship years.
Remember in your comparisons, the attrition rate in the early 60's was much
higher than today. Races frequently finished with no more than 15-20 cars
running.
Now let's switch cars. The Intimidator in a Holman-Moody Ford and The
Elmhurst Express in the Goodrench Chevrolet. I said I wouldn't help
but I'll give you a hint on this one. Dale Earnhardt would have been
right at home in the 60's. Manual steering and no radio would have probably
been his preference, and no one was tougher behind the wheel.
But don't think Fred would have faired poorly in the 90's. With his level
of concentration, driving ability, and the added advantage of spotters and
a radio, Fearless Freddie may have been even better!
Well there you have it. A duel comparison of four of stock car racing's all
time greats. But let's not end this session just yet. Where would Jimmy
Spencer fit in in our driver categorization? How about Ricky Rudd and Dale
Jarrett, or Jeff Burton and Rusty Wallace? Get out your pencil and have
some fun. Just remember that greatness can be defined in many different
ways. The best at the peak of his career is often a different person than
the best for a long career. As to what constitutes the greatest
ever, well, that's a decision you'll have to make on your own.
|
Copyright ©2001 Jeff Gordon Online All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of U.S. copyright law. |
