« This is ridiculous...almost | Main | Observations at random »
October 14, 2009
Hall of Fame picks
By DAVID GREEN
Fifty people much better qualified than I will make the official decision later today, but for what it's worth, here are my five selections for the inaugural class of inductees into the NASCAR Hall of Fame:
"Big Bill" France, Dale Earnhardt, Richard Petty, Junior Johnson and Curtis Turner.
It would be pretty hard to go wrong in picking any five from the list of 25 finalists, and equally difficult to choose a lineup that would please everybody. But those are my picks.
It was no easy matter, but I made my choices in a pretty quick sequence based on long-held opinions about the sport and its history.France, I think, is the one absolute choice. If not for his vision and leadership, stock car racing as we now know it would likely never have developed. Nothing of such magnitude is the product of any single individual, but France was the one irreplaceable piece in the puzzle.
Earnhardt will not be a unanimous pick, for various reasons. But it was he who stood out among all others during NASCAR's rise to full-blown national (and even international) acceptance. It was he who, better than any other, bridged the gap from the previous established generation of drivers to the generation now led by Jeff Gordon. He was the point man, the lightning rod.
Petty, in a similar role, brought NASCAR from its regional popularity to the cusp of bigger and better things. Often compared to Arnold Palmer as one who best personified his sport, Petty not only won more races and more championships (until Earnhardt tied him) than anybody else, he won hearts and souls.
Johnson, nicknamed by Tom Wolfe as "the last American hero" in that famous Esquire magazine article, was legendary enough as a driver, but then he went and became one of the most successful team owners in the sport. It was he who fielded the cars for those three consecutive Grand National championship seasons in 1976-77-78, the mark that was broken only last year.
Turner is perhaps the longest shot in my list of five. He was a contemporary of Johnson's and, like Johnson, he never won a championship title in what is now the Cup Series as a driver. He never accumulated numbers in great numbers. But he stood out as a unique character in a very colorful era, with movie-star good looks and antics such as drawing a "lifetime" ban (it was rescinded in 1965) from NASCAR after he tried to organize drivers into a branch of the Teamsters Union in 1960, in exchange for "bailout" financing from Jimmy Hoffa when the endeavor to build Charlotte Motor Speedway proved to be more than he and partner Bruton Smith could handle.
As for Earnhardt and Petty, yes -- their legends would be diminished considerably without their supporting casts. Earnhardt wouldn't have been Earnhardt without Waltrip, Elliott, Gordon and other on-track rivals. Petty not only one-upped his father, the first three-time GN champ, but he achieved his greatness in competition with the likes of Roberts, Pearson, Yarborough and other greats.
As for Johnson and Turner, they might cancel each other out on many ballots because of their similarities as "outlaw" characters. Johnson was the prototypical moonshine runner of stock car racing's origins and Turner was the party-hearty "Pops" who would have seriously tested NASCAR's present-day substance abuse policy with a race-day breathalyzer check.
Plus, my no-brainer pick, Big Bill France, called Turner the greatest driver he ever saw.
I omit three of my personal favorites who, in my own heart, are at the top of all lists -- David Pearson, Bobby Allison and Bud Moore. One or more of them may very well end up on the list to be revealed later today.
I won't mind being wrong on any or all counts.
October 14, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
I'm just glad I am not one who has to make this choice. I have thought about how would I go about picking. Maybe those who had the most infuence, maybe those who had the best statistics, maybe it would be those who I could say if it were not for them I would not still be following this sport. Then I realized that however I changed the criteria my list would be different. So all I can say to those who are voting is good luck. And to those five that will make it as well as those that don't today (but will all be there someday) congratulations and thanks for the memories.
Posted by: Peter | Oct 14, 2009 12:27:33 PM
Peter: Very well stated.
Posted by: David Green | Oct 14, 2009 1:12:27 PM
No surprises in this announcement. I had Big Bill, Petty, and Earnhardt as sure things, but got bogged down trying to pick only two from Johnson, France Jr., and Pearson.
Several things I do not like about this system. First, I read that the voters spent several hours in a room discussing the choices. That's too much room for pressure. Let the voters make the call publicly or privately as each voter sees fit. Let them mail in their ballots a day before or a month before the deadline.
Second, I really don't like the "five per year" rule. At least 20 (if not all) of the 25 nominees deserve to be in a hall of fame. Why make them wait? On the flip side, there will be years (long after I'm gone) when there really aren't five real hall of famers out there, yet five will get in because of lack of competition.
Do it like baseball: get a panel of 100 or so voters, pick some nominees (that part of it works OK) and if any of them get 70 or 75% of the vote, they're in. If not, they're out. No one makes it this year? Too bad.
Posted by: Doug in CA | Oct 14, 2009 5:10:35 PM
Yes David,
Your selections are solid. Ah heck, I just agree with everyone. Now, we can yack about adjusting the Hall balloting, just like the championship.
At 5 per year, we don't need any new hall caliber contributors for 10 years. I admit not to be as familiar with the Turner Story, but sounds as he may enter the same year as say, Smokey Yunick?
It seems to me that the format could have included categories. Owner's, Drivers, "Pavers" (track icons), and yes the media.
No matter, it will be fun to watch it grow.
Posted by: Larry | Oct 14, 2009 7:09:09 PM
What determines who is eligible for induction? If you are a owner or driver, do you have to be out of the sport for a certain period of time?
Posted by: 68 camaro ss | Oct 14, 2009 10:21:48 PM
Doug: I agree with your endorsement of baseball's system and rejection of a set number of inductees each year.
Larry: I agree. Fun, indeed.
68: Ron Green Jr.'s story includes this paragraph: "The 20 nominees who were not elected will not automatically be re-nominated next year. A nominating committee again will offer a list of 25 candidates to be inducted in 2011."
Posted by: David Green | Oct 15, 2009 12:30:09 AM
I was not too pleased with both France's being inducted in the inaguaral class, but it is what it is. I think I'll wait a few years to visit the hall, you know,,,when more than 3 drivers are actually enshrined.
Posted by: Lynn Dozier | Oct 15, 2009 5:58:53 PM
I really think that the Hall would be best served by catagorizing the inductees,,,Media, owners, drivers, ect. with more than 5 per year. At this rate, it will take a very long time to fill the hall.
Posted by: Lynn Dozier | Oct 15, 2009 6:02:57 PM
Lynn: You make a good point about waiting to visit the Hall. I guess they are counting on all the other exhibitions that go with such a facility rather than just the primary subjects, the inductees themselves. However, as you point out, the number of inductees is going to be a pretty small one for some time.
Posted by: David Green | Oct 16, 2009 8:47:18 AM
Considering how long overdue for a Hall of Fame for NASCAR. They should increase the yearly numbers for the first 5 years. Then they could drop it back to where it is now.
Posted by: 68 camaro ss | Oct 18, 2009 4:29:45 PM
68: that was my reaction at first - why wait? But it's OK. This is a Big Deal for NASCAR, and if they want to stretch it out for a few years, that's fine. It keeps the PR machine running. Otherwise, suppose that they elect the 25 nominees this year. That brings about a much bigger problem: after those 25, how many more are out there? The sooner you elect all the easy ones, then they HAVE to pick five every year! Whatever the eligibility is, not that many become eligible each year.
Quick question: who was the most recent "virtual lock for the HOF" driver to end his career? Dale Jarrett? Is he a "lock?" (Answer: if they have to name five each year, sure he is.) Before him? Earnhardt? The list of deserving candidates will slow to a trickle soon enough. I'm in no hurry to get there.
A final thought. Geoff Bodine was from my part of the world. He won 18 races in a 25-year career. I almost guarantee he'll be in the HOF some day. Would he be if there was no mandatory 5 elected?
Posted by: Doug in CA | Oct 20, 2009 2:52:07 PM
Doug,
There are alot of "oldtimers" to pick from. I think it could be awhile before guys like Rusty Wallace and Dale Jarrett would go in to the Hall.
Posted by: 68 camaro ss | Oct 20, 2009 10:51:40 PM
68: yes, it could be while for DJ and Rusty. But soon after that, there wil be people in there only because they have to name five. So I'd rather delay Rusty and DJ if only to keep out the unworthy, and that can only be done by eliminating the "five per year" rule.
Posted by: Doug in CA | Oct 21, 2009 12:31:08 AM
You have to change your midset when it comes to inductees. All I see listed in your posts are drivers. There are many inovators, owners, promoters, who are deserving as well. I just happen to think that Bill France Jr. could have waited until at least next year.
Posted by: Lynn Dozier | Oct 21, 2009 3:40:29 PM
Outside the driver ranks, several names come to mind -- Humpy Wheeler, Harold Brasington, H. Clay Earles, Enoch Staley, Joe Littlejohn and Bruton Smith among other track builders or owner/operators/promoters;
Red Vogt, Hubert Westmoreland, Smokey Yunick, Bud Moore, Cotton Owens, Dale Inman, Waddell Wilson, Jake Elder and John Holman-Ralph Moody among many other wrench-turners/crew chiefs/car owners;
And how about the PR and media aspects of the sport? Surely Houston Lawing, Chris Economaki, Joe Whitlock, Ken Squier, the great "Pappy" Higgins, Greg Fielden and my dear friend, the late Gene Granger, are prominent on that list.
You just wonder how they will ever be able to include everybody who deserves it.
I have to come back to baseball, with its percentage method, as a better way of determing hall members.
Posted by: David Green | Oct 22, 2009 12:39:00 PM
David,
Baseball for example has career numbers that somewhat guarantee Hall of Fame consideration. Such as 500 homeruns or 300 wins for a pitcher. What do you think would be the most important thing for a driver to have on his stat sheet?
Posted by: 68 camaro ss | Oct 22, 2009 5:39:22 PM
David,
Now that you have opened the "can".
How could you mention even a short list of owners/chiefs, and not mention Buddy Parrot?
Certainly all the Champions will be in there someday, right? (DJ/Rusty)
Wouldn't Bodine enter with credit for helping to bring the power-steering and full face helmet?
And, while you opened the CAN, do you have to go to the 2nd floor, for Davey and Tim Richmond?
The Winston Dude, Roberson?
Who was that Winston Girl? Brooke
Hat Guy? You know,
We agreed there will be fun.
Posted by: Larry | Oct 22, 2009 8:27:45 PM
68, you didn't direct your question at me, but I'm gonna jump in anyway. When David mentions baseball and its percentages, he isn't talking about a magic stat that gets you into the HOF. He's saying he agrees with me that if you get 70 or 75% of the votes, you're in. There should be no mandatory number of people getting in every year.
Wins are really the only meaningful stat for a driver, aren't they? (Lots of wins means lots of top tens, etc.) Average finish? Number of starts? Does Mikey really belong in the HOF because he started a boatload of races?
Of course, maybe that isn't what you meant, in which case, pardon the interruption!
Posted by: Doug in CA | Oct 22, 2009 8:28:41 PM
68, Just had to butt in here. Great question.
Wins, First in my head was say 10. At 10 you include, Sterlin', and Donnie Allison. Cool by me.... but at that number you exclude Paul Goldsmith, Kasey(9), Kyle Petty and David's soft spot..A.J., and I don't mean Almendinger.
Say 20, you also get, Mark Martin, both Labontes, Jeff Burton and Benny. But falling short are Davey, Buddy Baker(oneofmysoftspots), Neil and Harry.
So, could we agree that 10 is too few and 20 too many? Heck no, lol.
Someone is gonna be left out no matter where we draw the line.
Posted by: Larry | Oct 22, 2009 8:40:59 PM
Larry,
Wouldn't you think one or more Championships would hold more weight then just wins? Thats where I have a hard time drawing the line. When does one trump the other?
Also, is this for all NASCAR Touring series or just Cup?
Posted by: 68 camaro ss | Oct 22, 2009 9:03:38 PM
Here is a example. DJ has 32 wins and 1 Cup title. Terry Labonte has 22 wins but has 2 Cup titles. Who is more deserving?
Posted by: 68 camaro ss | Oct 22, 2009 9:10:24 PM
Alan Kulwicki: 3 wins, one title.
Junior Johnson: 50 wins, no titles.
Makes the mind boggle, don't it?
68: gotta include all series. Just because they never went for Cup you can't exclude Sam Ard and Richie Evans!
Posted by: Doug in CA | Oct 23, 2009 12:45:15 AM
68,
It seems that we all have the "what if's" at the ready. To me, a Championship is an entry. While we have exceptions for most senarios, there is no champ that I would exclude.
That's why I had a little fun with the wins category. Plate wins don't count, right. ha
As I read it, "Nascar Hall of Fame"..so yeah include Mr. Evans. Champ Lajoie, and Safety Lajoie. And adding Busch Champs give a window for ....
Then to the Dash series for Mr. Hobgood, and Mr.Roger Moser.
Then your last twist with DJ and Terry. It would be ok to enter them the same year. But, if it's gotta be one or the other, give the nod to Terry for Cups in two different decades. Or you could penalize Terry for not doing better in that car, based on it's numbers after he left.
Doesn't this end with the "Jaws" quote,
"We're gonna need a bigger boat"!
Posted by: Larry | Oct 23, 2009 8:39:08 AM
Wow. Great exchanges on this one, guys. Thanks very much for making this one of the most enjoyable posts I've ever done.
To chip in on the discussion:
* I believe the hall proper should focus on the premier series, with separate displays dedicated to the less prominent series and their stars. I'd prefer to see these guys honored in the context in which they achieved their greatness -- Sam, Richie, Ralph Earnhardt, Jack Ingram, Butch Lindley, Bugs Stevens, Rapid Ray Hendrick, et cetera.
* Race victories are my first criterion. I think Pearson, Allison, Yarborough and Waltrip clearly demonstrated hall-of-fame talents by winning in great numbers, as Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, Tony Stewart and Kyle Busch (among others) are now doing. I think that's what race fans remember first and foremost.
* Muliple championship titles merit consideration as well, while single titles should be weighed with all other achievements. Winning at least one championship, obviously (to me, anyway), should not be a requirement (see Roberts, Fireball; Lorenzen, Fred; and Turner, Curtis, to name only three).
* As for my hero A.J., I have a feeling that there ought to be a different way to honor the handful of drivers who earned their greatest stardom in other series but excelled also in limited NASCAR participation. I definitely believe Foyt, Mario Andretti and Dan Gurney deserve some mention, somehow, but separate from the mainstream, full-time NASCAR guys.
* I personally would vote in favor of Davey Allison, Tim Richmond and Alan Kulwicki.
Posted by: David Green | Oct 23, 2009 8:43:44 AM
David, reading your last post makes me afraid that you're going to run out of asterisks! NASCAR HOF is NASCAR HOF. Period. You're in or out, you're not in a "special wing." Richie Evans's plaque can talk about how he ran the modifieds, and Cale Yarborough's can talk about Cup, but put them in the same room.
And to summarize my other point (sometimes it takes me a while to simplify things), I have far, far less problem with a MAXIMUM number of inductees each year, but have big problems with a MINIMUM number.
Posted by: Doug in CA | Oct 23, 2009 10:50:20 AM
Post a comment
Advertisements
Subscribe to this blog's feed