108 replies to this topic

[Flat Black 84]

Here is an interesting exercise:

http://www.indianapo...atest-33and-39/

Whatdya make of the results?

And for further analysis--and probable evisceration--is the Top 100 from which the Greatest 33 were chosen:

http://thegreatest33...lt.aspx#drivers

Edited by Flat Black 84, 15 May 2011 - 20:53.

[arttidesco]

What no Bill Cheesbourg !

[E1pix]

This is interesting and a cool Thread idea.... but clearly biased towards the past few decades and seemingly by number of wins. I understand that on some level, but it leaves out some great drivers.

Seeing Marco in that Top 100 invalidates that list for me entirely (though I love seeing a longtime friend of mine on that same list!).

I guess it always comes down to what drivers we like.... and not. Popularity always creeps into these things, which takes away much validity.

[Jim Thurman]

This list in particular was a popularity contest, so while disappointed, I am not surprised that only 10 of the 33 raced in the first 50 years of the '500'. And with the level of research likely done by most participants, I knew anyone who raced 50 years or more ago and did NOT win would not make the cut, so that eliminates the likes of Rex Mays, Jack McGrath, Ted Horn, Cliff Bergere and Leon Duray, among others.

Every time one of these lists comes along, even those done by qualified panelists, there's much hand wringing and bitching over who should or shouldn't be on the list down to intense bickering over whether someone should be #85 or #86, and it is just plain silly.

For the most part, these lists are usually well done, and after all, they are just opinion. It is only in the case of glaring oversight that I have a problem. If anything, they do put names of otherwise long forgotten drivers back into public consciousness.

So, no evisceration from me. There is no need. The general public is going to vote for who they remember and who they've heard of and nothing else.

And, Arti, Cheesbourg had enough trouble making the 33 during his era, usually driving what Buford would call s***boxes And in spite of this, he did succeed several times. Which is pretty damn good

[fbarrett]

Bear in mind that this list was created by the Indy PR folks and current fans, not historians. Any information broadcast by IMS is subject to a huge dose of salt. It would be far more interesting (and significant) to see Donald Davidson's list, especially were he not employed by the track.

Frank

[Flat Black 84]

And it might be interesting for TNFers to create their own dream '500' field.

Things to consider: is greatness to be determined solely by what the drivers did qualifying for and racing in the '500', or is their entire racing career to be taken into consideration? Also, is driving to be the only criterion or are other factors weighed as well? Danica's presence among the top 100 suggests that factors other than driving ability as evidenced by performance in the month of May, were considered by the august panel.

[Macca]

Lists are for shopping.

Paul M

[Roger Clark]

The greatest 33 was R11.

[bradbury west]

Lists are for shopping.
Paul M

The perfect answer, Paul. What a fatuous exercise, especially as it is based on votes cast by a no-doubt motley selection of people who regard voting for such things as meaningful. The X Factor comes to the Brickyard . Is this what TNF has come to?
Roger Lund

[Michael Ferner]

The greatest 33 was R11.

Good point.

I saw this when it was mentioned on another forum, and as a good citizen of democratic schooling I felt obliged to cast my vote. When the first three drivers I wanted to vote for where not to be found on their "Top 100" list, I quickly lost interest...

[Flat Black 84]

The perfect answer, Paul. What a fatuous exercise, especially as it is based on votes cast by a no-doubt motley selection of people who regard voting for such things as meaningful. The X Factor comes to the Brickyard . Is this what TNF has come to?
Roger Lund

At minimum, it's an index of public opinion--and to some extent--knowledge of the '500' right now. How much this list says about the drivers who participated in the '500' is debatable, but it definitely says something about the fans. And insofar as there is no racing without fan support, this subject is fit for TNF. If you are convinced otherwise, then by all means rendezvous with H. Donald Capps and pound sand.

[2F-001]

This sort of thing doesn't do a lot for me - but that's a personal thing really.
I don't see too much wrong here as a subject for idle speculation over a pint or two - which might describe many of our "less academic" threads here; but I'd be more approving if it was couched as "my dream grid" or "the race I'd like to have seen" or something like that, rather than "greatest".

I think it's the vague, but implicitly "quantifiably qualitative" aim of it (if you see what I mean) that upsets people. Selecting a favoured 33 is one step; making that list ordinal by putting them onto a "starting grid" seems to mix up too many variables, too many circumstances, too many driver qualities and too many reasons for voting; and I have to ask "what for?". Well, I know what for - it's an adjunct to a marketing campaign but it's hardly my place to belly-ache about that.

I know these matters often cause us to debate the nature and purpose of TNF - so it's important if only for that - but let's not fall out over it; there's enough vitriol flying about here (for which many of us are responsible, now and again) without us creating more over something originating elsewhere.

Edited by 2F-001, 16 May 2011 - 15:27.

[bradbury west]

At minimum, it's an index of public opinion--and to some extent--knowledge of the '500' right now. How much this list says about the drivers who participated in the '500' is debatable, but it definitely says something about the fans. And insofar as there is no racing without fan support, this subject is fit for TNF. If you are convinced otherwise, then by all means rendezvous with H. Donald Capps and pound sand.

Quod est demonstrandum, dear chap. I rest my case. I understood, and understand, that TNF was essentially about the history of motor sport based on factual evidence, de-bunking rather than perpetuating myths, and establishing an auditable record of events, and certainly not about seeking opinions about favourite this that or the other, which is always such a subjective matter since no party can be proven right or wrong. FYI I have always found Colonel Capps very good company with a deep and wide knowledge of our sport.

As an aside, and again FYI, there is a lot of motor sport, around the world I am sure, which does not attract a vast following of fans. Those who do follow such events are invariably very knowledgeable and highly discerning.

Have a nice day, as I believe you are wont to say
Roger Lund

[Flat Black 84]

Quod est demonstrandum, dear chap. I rest my case. I understood, and understand, that TNF was essentially about the history of motor sport based on factual evidence, de-bunking rather than perpetuating myths, and establishing an auditable record of events, and certainly not about seeking opinions about favourite this that or the other, which is always such a subjective matter since no party can be proven right or wrong. FYI I have always found Colonel Capps very good company with a deep and wide knowledge of our sport.

As an aside, and again FYI, there is a lot of motor sport, around the world I am sure, which does not attract a vast following of fans. Those who do follow such events are invariably very knowledgeable and highly discerning.

Have a nice day, as I believe you are wont to say
Roger Lund

But vexatious though it may be, not all history is neat, precise, concretely objective and "auditable." Your definition of history and TNF's putative purpose is just fine when discussing the piston displacement of the Offy driven by Paul Russo at Syracuse in '58, who came in 4th at DuQuoin in '49, and the fuel capacity of a Delage Type Y. Matters are not quite so tidy when dealing with the social, cultural, intellectual and even biographical history of motor sport. Like it or not--and Capps didn't--opinion (including that of the public) and subjectivty interpose themselves into these more refractory and less "respectable" fields of history. I stand by my case, therefore, the opinions of the great unwashed regarding those who have traversed the Brickyard competitively is a subject worthy of discussion on TNF's empyrean ramparts. And, heck, if a few posters have a spot of fun offering their own opinions about who the greatest were I won't regard TNF as having been sullied.

[Jim Thurman]

Bear in mind that this list was created by the Indy PR folks and current fans, not historians. Any information broadcast by IMS is subject to a huge dose of salt. It would be far more interesting (and significant) to see Donald Davidson's list, especially were he not employed by the track.

Frank, Donald Davidson was involved. If one clicks on the 100 drivers, a short audio file is available of Donald giving a brief about the driver. I would assume he was on the selection panel as well. I agree that his list alone would be more interesting.

I do find it interesting that I can't find who was involved in the selection process other than the description it was an "esteemed panel."

[Jim Thurman]

This comes off far more suited to the "Racing Comments" forum, but many (nee most?) of the little perishers there would pick Tony Stewart, would wonder why Jeff Gordon wasn't on the list and it would likely degenerate into America vs. Europe or CART vs. IRL with a lot of "that guy sux" thrown in.

But, I kid the RCers ;)

And to amend my post, I mentioned Leon Duray. He didn't even make the cut for the 100.

Joe Dawson, Gaston Chevrolet, Louie Schneider, Kelly Petillo, Floyd Roberts and George Robson didn't make the cut despite being '500' winners. Note that Kenny Brack is the only race winner since 1946 not included and that all others save for Robson were pre-WWII (one pre-WWI). They were the only winners not in the 100.

[Flat Black 84]

I retract my earlier criticism of Danica's presence among the Top 100. Looking at her record, she has has finished in the top ten in five of her six starts, and nabbed a podium finish in '09. She also led a few laps. That's not an absolutely sterling resume, but it may well be Top 100 material.

Likewise, Marco's presence among the Top 100 looks more sober in light of his actual Indy record than it does in the context of his overall career as a driver.

That said, the presence of non-winners combined the absence of winners is absurd. It would be nice to know the exact criteria the "panel" used to arrive at their selections. Of course, publication of the criteria (if ever put to paper) might expose an agenda.

Edited by Flat Black 84, 16 May 2011 - 18:00.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

Frank, Donald Davidson was involved. If one clicks on the 100 drivers, a short audio file is available of Donald giving a brief about the driver. I would assume he was on the selection panel as well. I agree that his list alone would be more interesting.

I do find it interesting that I can't find who was involved in the selection process other than the description it was an "esteemed panel."

I am a member of the esteemed panel in question.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

I retract my earlier criticism of Danica's presence among the Top 100. Looking at her record, she has has finished in the top ten in five of her six starts, and nabbed a podium finish in '09. She also led a few laps. That's not an absolutely sterling resume, but it may well be Top 100 material.

Likewise, Marco's presence among the Top 100 looks more sober in light of his actual Indy record than it does in the context of his overall career as a driver.

That said, the presence of non-winners combined the absence of winners is absurd. It would be nice to know the exact criteria the "panel" used to arrive at their selections. Of course, publication of the criteria (if ever put to paper) might expose an agenda.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the process.

[Flat Black 84]

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the process.

I suppose my first questions would be, what are your credentials for being on the panel, and who exactly solicited your participation? A PM response is fine.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

I suppose my first questions would be, what are your credentials for being on the panel, and who exactly solicited your participation? A PM response is fine.

I've been a 500 "historian" my whole life.

I've covered the 500 as a television producer for 24 years.

Donald Davidson was the one who solicited my participation.

[Jim Thurman]

That said, the presence of non-winners combined the absence of winners is absurd.

That in a nutshell is the problem with compiling these sort of lists, and why its such an unenviable task. Some always get left out and don't make the cut. Many non-winners are clearly more worthy than some winners, so there's no hard and fast rule.

[Flat Black 84]

Thank you.

Did Mr. Davidson provide any guidelines or criteria for making your selections, or was "greatest" (however defined) your only signpost?

[Jim Thurman]

I am a member of the esteemed panel in question.

I used "esteemed panel" not out of sarcasm, but as a direct quote. I was simply curious who all, by name, was involved. Other lists of this sort generally have had full disclosure of all panelists. I recall the MotorSport 100 Greatest Drives and 100 Greatest Drivers. MS published the selecters, including Don Capps on the former, who posted here of his difficulties and disappointment in the selections.

I would like to know who all of the panelists were, not to criticize or critique (unlike others), but simply out of curiousity and as full disclosure.

As I wrote in the last post, its an unenviable task. And why I don't participate in all the hand-wringing, whining and bickering over such lists.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

Thank you.

Did Mr. Davidson provide any guidelines or criteria for making your selections, or was "greatest" (however defined) your only signpost?

The guidelines as they were explained to me, were, to pick my selections of the 33 greatest drivers in Indianapolis 500 history.

Indianapolis 500 driving performance was the only thing to be considered as I understood the criteria, not racing in other series, etc.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

I used "esteemed panel" not out of sarcasm, but as a direct quote. I was simply curious who all, by name, was involved. Other lists of this sort generally have had full disclosure of all panelists. I recall the MotorSport 100 Greatest Drives and 100 Greatest Drivers. MS published the selecters, including Don Capps on the former, who posted here of his difficulties and disappointment in the selections.

I would like to know who all of the panelists were, not to criticize or critique (unlike others), but simply out of curiousity and as full disclosure.

As I wrote in the last post, its an unenviable task. And why I don't participate in all the hand-wringing, whining and bickering over such lists.

Jim,

No offense taken by me at all, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your knowledge.

I am just trying to be as forthcoming as I can, so people can understand how things went.

[Flat Black 84]

Many non-winners are clearly more worthy than some winners, so there's no hard and fast rule.

You can make the case that this is true, but many of the older winners had the slight disadvantage of getting killed before they could amass more Indy glory! Conversely, as racing became safer, the opportunities for victory and high finishes increased.

[E1pix]

You can make the case that this is true, but many of the older winners had the slight disadvantage of getting killed before they could amass more Indy glory! Conversely, as racing became safer, the opportunities for victory and high finishes increased.

That is a valid factor I also wondered about. What could Swede Savage and many others like him achieved with a dozen more starts....?

Edited by E1pix, 16 May 2011 - 20:26.

[Flat Black 84]

That is a valid factor I also wondered about. What could Swede Savage and many others like him achieved with a dozen more starts....?

And Vukie. Were it not for fickle fate he very well could have won '52 through '55, and then God know how many after that. Sweikert was another talented guy who was capable of winning a couple more. And Mike Nazaruk almost certainly would have won at least once had he not died at an early age.

Another question for the panel-member: do you know how many people were on the panel?

PS--I have the extended version of that Eddie Sachs quote on my desk bulletin board at work. Eloquent and poignant, and I think I know exactly how he felt, even though I've never been to the Speedway.

Edited by Flat Black 84, 16 May 2011 - 21:10.

[Lemnpiper]

Hi Folks ,


As i read the article i counted i think 12 drivers who were in the 1992 race alone.

There are only 3 non winners on the list Michael Andretti , Tony Bettenhausen Sr, and Dan Gurney.

As i said elsewhere i'd replace Montoya , Graham Hill and Mark Donohue with Jimmy Murphy (killed young) Ted Horn and Rex Mays (likewise killed racing)

Leaving Rathmann on the bubble just over Jimmy Bryan <--- very close call here



The sad part is while Ray Harroun did win the 1st 500 ,i suspect the 1st race winner was a lock no matter who had won and it was Harroun's fortune then to be the one.

All in all not a bad list , but the number of folks who actually saw a race pre world war 2 are becoming fewer with each passing day , and with them go help for the early drivers to ever make lists like this




Paul

[Henri Greuter]

With respect to the IMS list:

I have heard a rumor over here in town (yes, I am in Indy right now) that several of the still living drivers on this list had been involved in lobbying to get in....
Which might explain some unexpected high positions for some names as well as some names that made it at the expense of some that lost out because of that.

Henri

[Flat Black 84]

Lobbying could conceivably land one in the Top 100 list, but if I understand the process correctly, couldn't have made a difference in the 33 Greatest. Of course, you don't make the 33 if you don't make the 100.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

With respect to the IMS list:

I have heard a rumor over here in town (yes, I am in Indy right now) that several of the still living drivers on this list had been involved in lobbying to get in....
Which might explain some unexpected high positions for some names as well as some names that made it at the expense of some that lost out because of that.

Henri

Once the "top 100" was decided, it became up to the fan voting, and where the fans picked each driver.

For example, if you picked A.J. Foyt on the pole, he got "33 points" and if you picked Jacques Villeneuve 33rd he got "1 point", then the points were tallied.

No "lobbying".

[Flat Black 84]

How many people were on the panel, lotus?

[Calhoun]

A classic bench racing exercise, made more interesting with Donald Davidson’s comments.

No surprise that the top 100 list has “too many” modern drivers, but there are a few who should really have to pay to get into the track rather than being honored.

As far as the Greatest 33, surely Duke Nalon, Bill Holland, Ted Horn, Johnny Thomson & Eddie Sachs are more deserving than Scott Dixon, JP Montoya, Helio Castroneves, Graham Hill & Tom Sneva.

Graham Hill was a great GP driver, but certainly he was just lucky in ’66.
I cheered for Sneva from the NW Vista in ’83, but he isn’t one of the Greatest 33.

As for the rest, the prize money they picked up for lucky wins should be sufficient recognition. …and shouldn’t Helio be doing time for tax evasion?

[lotuspoweredbyford]

How many people were on the panel, lotus?

Not sure of an exact number, but I'd guess around 100.

I know several of those who were invited.

I will say that the day I got the letter was one of the best days of my life.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

A classic bench racing exercise, made more interesting with Donald Davidson’s comments.

No surprise that the top 100 list has “too many” modern drivers, but there are a few who should really have to pay to get into the track rather than being honored.

As far as the Greatest 33, surely Duke Nalon, Bill Holland, Ted Horn, Johnny Thomson & Eddie Sachs are more deserving than Scott Dixon, JP Montoya, Helio Castroneves, Graham Hill & Tom Sneva.

Graham Hill was a great GP driver, but certainly he was just lucky in ’66.
I cheered for Sneva from the NW Vista in ’83, but he isn’t one of the Greatest 33.

As for the rest, the prize money they picked up for lucky wins should be sufficient recognition. …and shouldn’t Helio be doing time for tax evasion?

I don't know, the Sneva of 1974-1984 belongs.

A win, 3 seconds, 3 poles, over 200 laps led, that's a top 33 guy to me.

It's just after 1984 was pretty much a mess for Sneva.

[Flat Black 84]

Well congratulations, lotus. It is indeed quite an honor to be recognized as one of the world's premier experts on the history of the Indy 500.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

Well congratulations, lotus. It is indeed quite an honor to be recognized as one of the world's premier experts on the history of the Indy 500.

Thank you Flat Black

I am not sure I'd call myself that.

I just love the Speedway, and I love the 500.

Donald Davidson is someone I've looked up to since I was 12 years old and the fact HE invited me, means the world to me.

I'll never be Donald Davidson, he's forgotten more than I'll ever know.

I'm just Mike.

But the cool part for me is, when I was 12, I heard Donald Davidson on WIBC talking about the 500 , and I thought that's the greatest job in the world.

Tonight from 7pm to 9pm, I will be on WIBC doing the exact same thing, as the station invited me on as a guest.

That's quite an honor for me.

[Flat Black 84]

I'd love to tune in and hear what you've got to say, Mike, but unfortunately I think I'm a bit out of WIBC's range--Lubbock, Texas to be specific.



At any rate, good luck with the show tonight. I'm sure you'll do a great job.

[E1pix]

I'd love to tune in and hear what you've got to say, Mike, but unfortunately I think I'm a bit out of WIBC's range--Lubbock, Texas to be specific.

Flat, we're missing all the fun here in Denver, too!

[lotuspoweredbyford]

I'd love to tune in and hear what you've got to say, Mike, but unfortunately I think I'm a bit out of WIBC's range--Lubbock, Texas to be specific.



At any rate, good luck with the show tonight. I'm sure you'll do a great job.

You can listen, www.wibc.com

They stream live ;)

[Flat Black 84]

You can listen, www.wibc.com

They stream live ;)

I'll catch as much as I'm able.

[Jim Thurman]

Jim,

No offense taken by me at all, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your knowledge.

I am just trying to be as forthcoming as I can, so people can understand how things went.

Thanks for both

I caught the latter part of this past Tuesday's show. Good job. I enjoyed it.

Per the last caller, I have some more on Dempsey Wilson. Probably more than anyone would need to know, but, since it doesn't look like I have anywhere for it, I might pm it to you

PM simply because I don't know that there's interest in it in this forum. It certainly isn't anything tawdry or unsuitable for a public forum, quite the opposite.

[thatguy0101]

Donald's show is available on iTunes and on the station web site:

http://www.indy500coverage.com/toga

Edited by thatguy0101, 22 May 2011 - 05:23.

[Zeroninety]

Here is an interesting exercise:

http://www.indianapo...atest-33and-39/

Whatdya make of the results?

And for further analysis--and probable evisceration--is the Top 100 from which the Greatest 33 were chosen:

http://thegreatest33...lt.aspx#drivers

Some of the name's on the Top 100 list strike me as just plain *odd*:

Robby Gordon--Could anyone argue he even among the Top 5 of his era prior to the split? Even the Top 10 would be a stretch.

Mike Mosley--Rarely in a top ride, but still, had only one top 5 in 15 starts.

Janet Guthrie--Of course, if Jackie Robinson had played for only a few years and averaged .240 at the plate, I'd consider it a joke to put him in the Baseball Hall of Fame, unless they made it clear it wasn't for his playing ability. Luckily, Jackie was a great baseball player--Janet was not a great Indycar driver.

Other posts have mentioned a few of the winners who weren't on the list, especially considering some of those who were. Pat Flaherty?! The epitome of a lucky winner who never showed anything remotely like his winning form in his other starts. Fred Frame as well, even though he also finished 2nd in '31 behind the equally average Louis Schneider.

I was going to mention Barney Oldfield, but I suprised to learn he took top 5's in both his Indy starts. He's still one of the most overhyped drivers of all time. (And one of those races was 1916, so it shouldn't *really* count).

[Michael Ferner]

I agree entirely with the first part of your post, but the last two paragraphs just show how difficult it is to make a judgement about a period of one hundred years, which by default cannot be "experienced" by a single mind in a way that most of us would define experience. So, what do we do? We go by stats, and their inherently deceiving qualities. Admittedly, there's not much choice for the "average" fan, given the time-consuming demands of research which has to be the basis of any qualified judgement. Personally, I feel privileged to have invested the time (and money!) into my very advanced research, but at times it simply hurts to read ignorant statements just as these, even with the knowledge about their innocent nature.

Pat Flaherty wasn't a "lucky" winner, even though the Indy yearbook of 1956 described him as just that - more a comment on some of the circumstances that year than a judgement about his ability and standing amongst his peers. He may not have had the most glamorous of careers at Indy and the National Championship, but he was a multiple winner at the latter, and a true contender in the 1959 '500' apart from completely dominating the 1956 event. Between those two appearances, he was held back by a very serious and lasting racing injury which effectively destroyed his "career". To come back and do well was an achievement in itself, all too often overlooked because stats don't tell us these things - you have to "drill" for this sort of information. It's definitely not the story of something falling into an unsuspecting lap. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Fred Frame and Louis Schneider were mainly dirt track drivers, and were supremely successful at that. On top of that, both won at Indy and had at least one other top three finish, and Frame led two more '500s' before retiring or losing time because of mechanical mishaps. I suppose you don't object to Bill Vukovich's presence in the "chosen 33", yet both Schneider and Frame had much, much better dirt track records, and for a bit of luck could've been two-time winners as well. I have not checked, but I suppose Tony Bettenhausen is on the list, without much of a record at Indy and with comparable success on the dirt tracks to both Schneider and Frame. Just goes to show that time is the big annihilator...

In a way, your judgement about Barney Oldfield is correct in that he was "hyped", but he was way more than that. For close to twenty years, in a time span when average speeds more than doubled, Barney was the epitome of a racing driver, and he wasn't that because he idled around once or twice a year and picked up some places. Oldfield survived more than two generations of his peers despite racing twelve months a year, often several times a week in what was arguably the most dangerous era of racing. It's true, during some of those years he did many "hippodromed" events, a form of circus entertainment with racing content, but most of his career and success was achieved in open, all-out competition against the best of his time. Many of the drivers who started to gain prominence long after Oldfield had already retired by the time of the first Indy 500 - that Barney was still around then was nothing short of a miracle. And he still had a number of very good years in him. It's hardly his "fault" that racing in his prime was different, and not much of it recorded to this day. His career very much resembled that of Ralph de Palma, for example, and he was almost as sucessful, but while the latter had the "luck" to peak in a time of many highly publicised events, much of Barney's career is still in the dark. His Indy record may not qualify him for a spot on the grid of the "greatest 33", but his overall record sure does!

[Flat Black 84]

Keep in mind that the only criterion for inclusion in the Greatest 33 was performance in the '500'. I suspect abstracting that performance from the drivers' overall careers was one of the most difficult tasks in making one's selections.

[Tim Murray]

No-one has yet mentioned Sam Hanks.

[lotuspoweredbyford]

Thanks for both

I caught the latter part of this past Tuesday's show. Good job. I enjoyed it.

Per the last caller, I have some more on Dempsey Wilson. Probably more than anyone would need to know, but, since it doesn't look like I have anywhere for it, I might pm it to you

PM simply because I don't know that there's interest in it in this forum. It certainly isn't anything tawdry or unsuitable for a public forum, quite the opposite.

Cool, I am so glad you enjoyed it.

Send me the info, I'd be interested.

I am going to do that show one more time next week, I'll let you know when.

Mike