Jump to content


Photo

The Berggren-Vukovich hypothesis


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Flat Black 84

Flat Black 84
  • Member

  • 739 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 May 2011 - 15:13

In the foreword to Bob Gates' Vukovich, Dick Berggren states, and I paraphrase, "Vukovich's death was chosen by AAA as the reason to stop sanctioning auto racing. In so doing, Vukovich's death may have created an opening for NASCAR to dominate American auto racing."

Berggen doesn't elaborate at all, but I thought it an interesting statement. What he's saying, essentially, is that Vuky's death sparked the slow, steady descent of American OW racing and the concomitant ascent of NASCAR.

Anybody buying this?

Advertisement

#2 RStock

RStock
  • Member

  • 2,276 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 23 May 2011 - 16:08

Could well be as USAC pretty much took over after AAA and they have never been adept at keeping up with what is needed to stay on top.

Then there's the story about Big Bill France visiting Indy to offer NASCAR sanctioning, but being somewhat rudely escorted off the grounds.

I can see Big Bill then taking a personal interest in destroying Indy car racing. If that's all true, it took him awhile to supplant them, but it did happen. Another factor must be taken into consideration, that NASCAR has been a much more open door for American drivers, who bring a built in fan base with them. The move to rear-engine cars can't be over-looked as well.

It's my opinion that these multiple factors are what led to NASCAR's dominance moreso than AAA dropping their sanction.

#3 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 23 May 2011 - 16:30

And, approaching the question from the other angle, I thought it was the Le Mans disaster more than the Vukovich crash that caused the AAA to pull out

#4 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 7,242 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 23 May 2011 - 17:31

And, approaching the question from the other angle, I thought it was the Le Mans disaster more than the Vukovich crash that caused the AAA to pull out

Some contemporary accounts featured comments that the AAA's true reason was concern over damage awards given to spectators injured in racing accidents. The public statement given by the AAA cited Le Mans.

In a word, do I support Berggren's hypothesis?, no.

There were a multitude of factors. These combinations of events make it hard to define a true moment to the point I don't feel there was "a" moment.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 23 May 2011 - 17:34.


#5 Flat Black 84

Flat Black 84
  • Member

  • 739 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 23 May 2011 - 18:07

AAA's official statement might make for interesting reading.

#6 sbrinley

sbrinley
  • Member

  • 48 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 23 May 2011 - 20:42

AAA's official statement might make for interesting reading.


While in the '50s AAA was still sanctioning racing events, it probably already saw the future selling travel and other road services instead of being a real automobile club. By the '80s it clearly had little to do with automobiles as compared with the 50s, having become a multi-billion $ travel service organization.

#7 thatguy0101

thatguy0101
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 24 May 2011 - 22:50

AAA wanted out of sanctioning. The Contest Board was a nuisance, from their perspective. They walked away from it, and the same people reorganized as USAC. Even used the same mailing list plates.

From a service perspective, the only unique product that AAA had was the national championship, which was a few fairground tracks and Indy in 1955. The AAA stock, sprint, and midget circuits were regional, not true national championships.



#8 ZOOOM

ZOOOM
  • Member

  • 522 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 25 May 2011 - 16:15

Also remember that at that time auto racing was being critically looked at by the whole world.
The Pope called for a ban on racing, Switzerland DID ban it, and in the States, there was Congressional action to ban it too.
Given the bad press, public opinion and the congressional action, I think the AAA just thought they really didn't NEED another headache.

ZOOOM

#9 Flat Black 84

Flat Black 84
  • Member

  • 739 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 May 2011 - 17:31

Thanks, ZOOOM. I was not aware of the Papal and Swiss bans. Most interesting, indeed.

#10 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 3,365 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 26 May 2011 - 02:35

Thanks, ZOOOM. I was not aware of the Papal and Swiss bans. Most interesting, indeed.

The Swiss ban still stands AFAIK