# NASCAR point-scoring systems

111 replies to this topic

### #1 Don Capps

Don Capps
• Member

• 5,933 posts
• Joined: May 99

Posted 01 July 2002 - 01:31

Well, this is for those with a curiosity about such matters. I know this system was used during the 1952 to 1955 period.

```NASCAR Grand National Points Circa Mid-1950’s

Distance/ Miles

Pos.	100	150	150	250

1st	200	250	325	687.5

2nd	192	240	312	660

3rd	184	230	299	632.5

4th	176	220	286	605

5th	168	210	273	577.5

6th	160	200	260	550

7th	152	190	247	522.5

8th	144	180	234	495

9th	136	170	221	467.5

10th	128	160	208	440

11th	120	150	195	412.5

12th	112	140	182	385

13th	104	130	169	357.5

14th	096	120	156	330

15th	088	110	143	302.5

16th	080	100	130	275

17th	072	090	117	247.5

18th	064	080	104	220

19th	056	070	091	192.5

20th	048	060	078	165

21st	040	050	065	137.5

22nd	032	040	052	110

23rd	024	030	038	082.5

24th	016	020	026	055

25th	008	010	013	027.5

etc.	008	010	013	027.5```

The Speedway Division in 1952 (and presumably in 1953) used a system for 100-milers starting at 250 points and dropping by 10 each position; for 200-milers, 500 points and dropping 20 points each position.

The NASCAR system was based on the top 25 since 25th on down received the same points. I have no clue as to why there were two points systems for the 150-milers, but I am sure something will surface to explain it eventually. A few other anomalies like that pop up here and there.

The search continues....

### #2 Leif Snellman

Leif Snellman
• Member

• 1,081 posts
• Joined: February 00

Posted 01 July 2002 - 07:52

The last 027.7 should be 027.5 I guess.

Funny, the table its absolutely linear. Usually logarithms are used in such cases. See:
http://www.atlasf1.c...y=&pagenumber=2

Also funny how the 250 mile race is consided to be more "worthy" then the others. You get 2 points/mile for a victory in a 100 mile race but 2.780 points /mile in the 250 mile race. For the 150 mile race the points are ether 1.667 or 2.167 per mile.

A more natural formula could have been:
100 miles : 200, 192, 184, 176, 168, ....
150 miles: 300, 288, 276, 264, 252, ....
250 miles 500, 480, 460, 440, 420, ....

If I remember correctly in the early 70s USAC gave 200 points for a victory in a 100 mile race,
400 for a 200 mile race and 1000 for a 500 mile race. But I don't think their table was linear.

### #3 Don Capps

Don Capps
• Member

• 5,933 posts
• Joined: May 99

Posted 01 July 2002 - 23:58

```

More on the NASCAR Points System

Here is the system which was in use from probably the late 1950’s –

and was in use during the 1960’s until the 1971 season.

Distance/ Points

Position	100/125		250		400+

1st		50		100		150

2nd		49		098		147

3rd		48		096		144

4th		47		094		141

5th		46		092		138

etc.		-1		-2		-3

1972 System

Basic Points

1st	100

2nd	098

3rd	096

4th	094

5th	092

etc.	-2 per position

Bonus Points

Tracks under 1.0-mile			0.25 points/lap

One-mile tracks				0.50 points/lap

1.3-mile tracks 			0.70 points/lap

1.5-mile tracks				0.75 points/lap

2.0-mile tracks 			1.00 points/lap

2.5-mile & + tracks			 1.25 points/lap

Score = Basic points + (number of laps completed x coefficient)

1974 System

Money earned from track purses (not counting contingency and bonus monies) multiplied by the

number of races started  and divided by 1,000.

This system is similar to the one Bill France devised for the first several seasons of the Strictly

Stock and Grand National Division.

David Pearson ran 19 events of 30 run during the season, won \$252,828.92 and finished third in

the points with 2,389.250 points.

The current system has been in effect since the 1975 season.```

### #4 Don Capps

Don Capps
• Member

• 5,933 posts
• Joined: May 99

Posted 07 July 2002 - 16:17

Here is what I have found from the 1963 and 1964 seasons.....

```
[U]Pos	500 miles	400 miles[/U]

1st	3050		2550

2nd	2928		2448

3rd	2806		2346

4th	2648		2244

5th	2562		2142

6th	2440		2040

7th	2318		1938

8th	2196		1836

9th	2074		1734

10th	1952		1632

11th	1830		1530

12th	1708		1428

13th	1586		1326

14th	1464		1224

15th	1342		1122

16th	1220		1020

17th	1098		0918

18th	0976		0816

19th	0854		0714

20th	0732		0612

21st	0610		0510

22nd	0488		0408

23rd	0366		0306

24th	0244		0204

25th	0122		0102

etc.	0122		0102```

### #5 Don Capps

Don Capps
• Member

• 5,933 posts
• Joined: May 99

Posted 26 June 2003 - 21:09

In 1971, the points system for the Winston Cup was:

Up to 249 miles -- 1st) 50 points, 2nd) 49 points, 3rd) 48 points, and so forth with each subsequent position reduced by one point

250 to 399 miles -- 1st) 100 points, 2nd) 98 points, 3rd) 96 points, and so forth with each subsequent position reduced by two points

400 miles and over -- 1st) 150 points, 2nd) 147 points, 3rd) 144 points, and so forth with each subsequent position reduced by three points

### #6 ensign14

ensign14
• Member

• 39,790 posts
• Joined: December 01

Posted 26 June 2003 - 21:24

1953 Record Book suggests the following:

1st - 50
2nd - 48
3rd - 46
&c to 25th - 2 (all starters received 2)

...multiplied by:

2 for a race worth \$2000
3 for one worth \$3000
4 for \$4000
5 for \$5000
6 for \$6000
10 for \$10000
25 for \$25000

These were the examples given, so no idea if the multiplicand was 14 for a \$14000 purse. Also unclear whether the purse was taken to be the total purse or the winner's take.

### #7 Don Capps

Don Capps
• Member

• 5,933 posts
• Joined: May 99

Posted 26 June 2003 - 22:30

Originally posted by ensign14
1953 Record Book suggests the following:

1st - 50
2nd - 48
3rd - 46
&c to 25th - 2 (all starters received 2)

...multiplied by:

2 for a race worth \$2000
3 for one worth \$3000
4 for \$4000
5 for \$5000
6 for \$6000
10 for \$10000
25 for \$25000

These were the examples given, so no idea if the multiplicand was 14 for a \$14000 purse. Also unclear whether the purse was taken to be the total purse or the winner's take.

The purse was the promoter's stake, not the accessory and other monies. I meant to post something earlier, but I gave my 1953 (1952 Season) & 1954 (1953 Season) Record Books to the IMRRC.

### #8 gerrit stevens

gerrit stevens
• Member

• 248 posts
• Joined: December 03

Posted 27 December 2003 - 16:24

Originally posted by Leif Snellman
The last 027.7 should be 027.5 I guess.

Funny, the table its absolutely linear. Usually logarithms are used in such cases. See:
http://www.atlasf1.c...y=&pagenumber=2

Also funny how the 250 mile race is consided to be more "worthy" then the others. You get 2 points/mile for a victory in a 100 mile race but 2.780 points /mile in the 250 mile race. For the 150 mile race the points are ether 1.667 or 2.167 per mile.

A more natural formula could have been:
100 miles : 200, 192, 184, 176, 168, ....
150 miles: 300, 288, 276, 264, 252, ....
250 miles 500, 480, 460, 440, 420, ....

If I remember correctly in the early 70s USAC gave 200 points for a victory in a 100 mile race,
400 for a 200 mile race and 1000 for a 500 mile race. But I don't think their table was linear.

The USAC/AAA tables for a 100 miler were (first 12);
200-160-140-120-100-80-60-50-40-30-20-10
Points for a 200 miler had to be multiplied by 2 a.s.o.
You see the CART tables are practically the same. Except in CART every has the same weight wheter it will a 500 miler or a 200 miler.

At the end of the seventies (1978) the points schedule was extend.
13-16 got 4 points
17-20 got 3
21-24 got 2
and the rest got 1.
That is for a 100 miler.

CART also used this system in their first seasons. Later it was a bit simplified but basically the same.

Gerrit Stevens

### #9 Don Capps

Don Capps
• Member

• 5,933 posts
• Joined: May 99

Posted 24 January 2004 - 15:43

From USA Today, 23 January 2004:

Adding up the points through the years NASCAR's point systems since the series was established in 1949:

1949-51 — Points based on the amount of prize money paid. (Example: Race purse of \$1,000 paid 50 points for first place, 45 second, 40 third, 35 fourth, 30 fifth, etc. Race purse of \$3,500 paid 175 points for first place, 157.5 second, 140 third, 122.5 fourth, 105 fifth, etc.

1952-53 — Same formula, but purses rose. A minimum purse of \$4,000 paid 200 points for first place, 192 second, 184 third, 176 fourth, 168 fifth, etc. A minimum purse of \$25,000 paid 1,250 points for first, 1,200 second, 1,150 third, 1,100 fourth, 1,050 fifth, etc.

1954-62 — Competitors were awarded points per the old system, with additional points awarded per a separate schedule.

1963-65 — Events paying \$4,200-\$6,000 awarded the winner 400 points, with each succeeding position receiving 16 fewer points. Events paying \$7,000-\$10,000 awarded points per the point schedule listed in the 1963 NASCAR Rule Book. Events paying more than \$10,000 awarded points on the basis of 50 points per \$1,000 posted by promoter.

1966-67 — Events paying basic prize money in the \$5,000 and less than \$7,000 category awarded the winner 400 points, with each succeeding position receiving 16 fewer points. Events paying \$7,000-\$10,000 awarded the winner 500 points, with each succeeding position receiving 20 fewer points.

1968-71 — Events to 249 miles: 50 points to win, with one fewer point for each succeeding position. Events 250-399 miles: 100 points to win, with two fewer points for each succeeding position. Events 400 miles and more: 150 points to win, with three fewer points for each succeeding position.

1972 — Tracks under 1 mile, 0.25 points a lap; 1-mile tracks, 0.50; 1.3-mile track (Darlington), 0.70; 1.5-mile tracks, 0.75; 2-mile tracks (Michigan), 1.00; tracks 2.5 miles and over, 1.25.

1973 — 100 points to win, with two fewer points for each succeeding position, 100, 98, 96, etc. (Race winner received 25 points in addition to the first position points.) Additionally, lap points were awarded for the number of laps completed.

1974 — Money winnings from track purses (qualifying and contingency awards did not count), in dollars, multiplied by the number of races started, and the resulting figure divided by 1,000 determined the number of points earned.

1975— 175 points for winner and five points fewer for 2-6; four fewer for 7-11 and three fewer for 12-43; five bonus points for leading a lap, and five points for most laps led.

2004 — Five additional points for winner. Top 10 drivers and those within 400 points after 26 races qualify for 10-race shootout for championship. Points leader starts with five-point lead over second-place driver, 10-point lead on third-place driver and so on.

It omits a few minor (but important) details, but generally gives a good overview of the points systems used in GN racing and some of the philosophy on how they designed the various systems. As can be imagined, this is a real pain trying to accurately sort out without the official NASCAR records in front of you, but even the folks in Daytona Beach will admit to some confusion on some of this since Big Bill imitated the AAA Contest Board by docking points from those who dared to sin against NASCAR.

Oh, most systems stopped at 25th place and from there on down awarded the same number of points.

### #10 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
• Member

• 4,416 posts
• Joined: February 01

Posted 24 January 2004 - 23:48

Don,

The "Holy Grail" of NASCAR research. Researchers couldn't get ahold of it and yet somehow it's provided to USA Today and printed there of all places!

Thanks for posting them.

The systems from the 69-71 format I probably had around here (somewhere ). It was a matter of where exactly.

Jim Thurman

### #11 Agnis

Agnis
• Member

• 352 posts
• Joined: January 04

Posted 25 January 2004 - 10:19

From nascar.com past season recaps:

Hillsboro, NC - With five races remaining in the 1952 season, Tim Flock led 1951 champion Herb Thomas by 174 points coming into Occoneechee Speedway. Fonty Flock, who was once again caught in the thick of the points race, won the race in dominating fashion after taking the lead on lap 7 and leading the race of the way. Bill Blair, who started on the pole, finished third and Tim Flock kept Thomas at bay with his fourth place finish. Lee Petty, who was desperately trying to break through and win his first championship, helped his cause by finishing fifth, his fifth consecutive top five finish. Herb Thomas' car broke on lap 23 and his brother Donald gave him his in relief to help Thomas pick up valuable points. Thomas piloted his brother's car to a second place finish, which rewarded him 200 of the 240 points earned for a runner-up finish.

It means that relief drivers were awarded with points too in GN era. Racing-Reference which is the only source with full results of pre-75 races doesn't indicate shared drives

### #12 Don Capps

Don Capps
• Member

• 5,933 posts
• Joined: May 99

Posted 25 January 2004 - 13:33

Originally posted by Agnis
It means that relief drivers were awarded with points too in GN era. Racing-Reference which is the only source with full results of pre-75 races doesn't indicate shared drives

Everyone thought this GP/F1 stuff was a challenge! HA! GP/F1 is now a piece of cake! However, even with the incredible work done by Greg Fielden and those associated with him, there is still much to done in sorting out the early GNC (Grand National Circuit) material. The only season that Speed apparently carried the GNC results and stories in any detail was 1952.

The struggle continues.....

### #13 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
• Member

• 582 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 13 March 2007 - 20:35

Originally posted by Don Capps
From USA Today, 23 January 2004:

1968-71 — Events to 249 miles: 50 points to win, with one fewer point for each succeeding position. Events 250-399 miles: 100 points to win, with two fewer points for each succeeding position. Events 400 miles and more: 150 points to win, with three fewer points for each succeeding position.

Just tried this system for the 1970 season, and it works out - sort of! So far I have a points match for the top-11 and another 10 top-50 scores, but first after a few alterations to my first try.

Shortened races: Races shortened from their original scheduled distance had no effect on the amount of points distributed. I made that mistake on two occasions - Darlington and Martinsville both in May.

Post entries: I don't know how old this idea, but today an entry has to be received by NASCAR on thursday a week before the race. This could explain some quite large points differences for 1970. Benny Parsons finished 8th in points. If you subtract his 155 points from his Daytona 500 weekend, his points match. This was his only two race starts in a car entered by himself that year, while he drove for the DiGard team for the rest of the year.
Then there are some large diffs. like LeeRoy Yarbrough, who's only credited for 625 points of what should be 1807 points - a difference of 1182 points!
Likewise Cale Yarborough is 1016 points short, while Donnie Allison is only 967 points short. All top drivers on part time schedules for 1970.

Shared drives and points: don't know for how long this system was in operation.

So much for now
Jesper

### #14 RA Historian

RA Historian
• Member

• 3,529 posts
• Joined: October 06

Posted 14 March 2007 - 00:11

Oh, for the simplicity of the old 9-6-4-3-2-1 system!
Tom

### #15 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 14 March 2007 - 00:35

Okay, you are aware that there were two championships in 1971 -- the GN points championship and the Winston Cup points. Rarely have I seen a run down on the latter which differs from the GN championship by counting only those events 250 miles or more in length. And the points system idicated is the one that was used.

As for 1971's points, Post Entries (PE) were about as old as the series and apparently quite plentiful in 1971. The Rebel 400 at Darlington had post entries for the following: Jim Vandiver, Bobby Isaac, Richard Brown, David Pearson, and Charlie Glotzbach.

Plus, there is an interesting note (*) in the 1971 program for the Rebel 400 that Buddy Baker was "* Not competing for Winston Cup points." Whatever the case, he did pocket 150 points for winning the Rebel 400.

Also, keep in mind that during 1971 that Cale Yarborough ran using a USAC license so that might account for some of his points -- he reverted to a NASCAR license towards the end of the season as I recall.

At any rate, you will discover that without the official results listing post entries for each event that life will be tough trying to reconstruct how the points were earned....

### #16 FLB

FLB
• Member

• 2,167 posts
• Joined: February 01

Posted 14 March 2007 - 00:41

Originally posted by RA Historian
Oh, for the simplicity of the old 9-6-4-3-2-1 system!
Tom

Well, maybe, but even then you need to understand the rules as far as points fractions are concerned. The preceeding system (8-6-4-3-2-1 for fastest lap) could also be confusing at times, especially for the uninitiated. It took me a while to understand why and how certain drivers had scored 0.14 point. And if you want to study REALLY convoluted points tables, try to understand French national championships up to the late 1970s...

This also underlines the need to know the events that occured during the races themselves. We're lucky with the World Drivers' Championship, because there were relatively few races that were part of it per year. In NASCAR terms, you're talking about a minimum of 35 races per year, even more than that in the early days.

### #17 RA Historian

RA Historian
• Member

• 3,529 posts
• Joined: October 06

Posted 14 March 2007 - 03:33

Nope, I was just saying that the system in place for the period of time in which all races were counted (no best 4 of 8 in the first half, and 4 of 8 in the second half, for example) was perhaps the purest as far as simplicity of points were concerned. No points for fast lap either. (Recall that it could be said that this provision cost Moss the title in '58). Yes, I do recall the year that the timing in, what was it, the British GP saw 7 drivers share fast lap and as such 1/7th of a point; that was of course unnecessarily confusing.

As I said, oh for the simplicity of 9-6-4-3-2-1! and the K.I.S.S. principle.

### #18 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
• Member

• 9,962 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:06

Just count the wins, nothing else.

He who wins most is the champion, winning is what it is all about.

### #19 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
• Member

• 4,416 posts
• Joined: February 01

Posted 14 March 2007 - 05:32

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Just count the wins, nothing else.

He who wins most is the champion, winning is what it is all about.

Darrell Waltrip, it's nice to see you posting here

### #20 Frank Verplanken

Frank Verplanken
• Member

• 343 posts
• Joined: July 04

Posted 14 March 2007 - 06:20

Originally posted by Jim Thurman

Darrell Waltrip, it's nice to see you posting here

### #21 RA Historian

RA Historian
• Member

• 3,529 posts
• Joined: October 06

Posted 14 March 2007 - 13:13

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Just count the wins, nothing else.

He who wins most is the champion, winning is what it is all about.

Now THAT is even simpler!!

### #22 rateus

rateus
• Member

• 212 posts
• Joined: April 06

Posted 14 March 2007 - 18:23

Meanwhile, at the other end of the results sheet, does anyone know whether the points system adopted in 1975 carried on past P43 (31 pts for P44, 28 for P45, etc.)? It's a moot point in these days of standardised 43-car fields, but in days of yore grid sizes actually varied! Both races at Talladega in 1975 started 50 cars, for example.

Racing-reference and other sites always stop 'awarding' points at P43, which has always seemed to me one of those occasions where present assumption has been plastered over contemporary reality - in 1975 P43 would surely not have occurred as the obvious cut-off point.

Then again, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction...

### #23 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 14 March 2007 - 18:55

The points for events with more than 43 participants did continue past the 43rd position until they reached a single point. I will have to dig through some of the old record books to confirm this.

That Racing-Reference and others do not do so is scarcely a surprise.

I do have the complete results for that strange 1974 season and it always makes for interesting reading. One interesting example is Richard Petty getting 21,100 points for his win at the Daytona 500, the second race of the season, for which second-placed Cale Yarborough got 8,800 points. In fact, adding the points that Yarborough got for winning the Winston Western 500 at Riverside -- 11,025, with those he gained at Daytona did not put him in a tie with Petty who finished second at Riverside. Petty gained 6,525 points for second place, but the points for Daytona....

For the most part, the gap between first and second place that season was roughly about 2:1 on the average. Not quite, but close enough to give a race winner a substantial number of points over the second and lower placed finishers. Whatever its faults -- and the complexity meant that there were many -- this system put the emphasis on winning or being at the very front of the queue at the end.

### #24 Agnis

Agnis
• Member

• 352 posts
• Joined: January 04

Posted 15 March 2007 - 08:24

I just calculated the 1972 season using the race results from racing-reference. Top-4 is a perfect match and excluding the cases which could be explained with post entries, there are many 2 to 6 point differences with the official standings, I think they could've appeared because actual laps completed in some races may be just a little bit different from those from racing-reference. The decimal places always match, so I think I schould look at 2-mile tracks where 1,00 bonus points were given for each lap. The biggest problem is 13th place Raymond Williams who has actually scored 35,00 points more than I calculated.

### #25 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
• Member

• 582 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 15 March 2007 - 14:34

I have the same 2, 3 or 5 point differences for most of the regular drivers during 1971. Some diffs were cleared when I disregarded the results of the Grand American division cars, that raced alongside the Grand Nationals for six races. This might also explain why Bobby Allison and Tiny Lund is "cheated" by NASCAR on their number of victories, since they didn't get the GN points. Strangely enough though both Allison, Lund and other GA entries is credited in NASCAR GN statistics for starting those races!
Since points for most drivers still don't match, I haven't looked into the 1971 Winston Cup standings - that is a new one to me Mr. Capps. My guess would be that Richard Petty still wins, with Bobby Allison a close second, instead of a distant forth in the Grand National standings.

Jesper

### #26 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 15 March 2007 - 18:18

The whole issue of the GN and GA combined events is something that NASCAR has muddied the waters on any number of times, especially not recognizing Bobby Allison's win for his combined GN/GA event in 1971 -- and then giving it to him and then taking away again later on.

I have been working on getting around to this season for some time and finally beginning to get to the point where I will begin to seriously delve into it very shortly.

This is a year that somehow keeps falling through the cracks, usually being thought of only in the sense of being the last season prior to the advent of the "Modern Era" in 1972. It was the season that saw the participation of the factories -- Ford & MoPar -- essentially vanish with only the Petty operation receiving any level of direct support and even that was limited.

It does not surprise me that there is little mention of the separate competition for the inaugural Winston Cup, the same person -- Richard Petty -- winning both the GN and WC titles. Somewhere I used to have a listing of both the GN and WC points totals, but that was many moons ago and I have not come across it since my return while looking through my folders and files.

### #27 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
• Member

• 582 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 16 March 2007 - 19:54

Originally posted by Don Capps

```

1974 System

Money earned from track purses (not counting contingency and bonus monies) multiplied by the

number of races started  and divided by 1,000.```

With http://racing-refere...974-01&series=W as my ownly reference for I can not get how Cale Yarborough end up with 11,025 points and Richard Petty with 6,525 points for second for the opening round of '74 - unless the winnings on r-r is wrong or including contingency and bonus monies?
\$19,325 x 1 / 1,000 = 19.325 points?

Regardless of all these changes - Greg Fielden counts 4 different points systems over 8 season during this period - it strikes me that Richard Petty seemed to prevail whatever system was thrown at him. To be at all events and up front was obviously a winning formula, as it has been for many drivers before and after.

Jesper

### #28 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 16 March 2007 - 22:26

Originally posted by Jesper O. Hansen
With http://racing-refere...974-01&series=W as my ownly reference for I can not get how Cale Yarborough end up with 11,025 points and Richard Petty with 6,525 points for second for the opening round of '74 - unless the winnings on r-r is wrong or including contingency and bonus monies?
\$19,325 x 1 / 1,000 = 19.325 points?

Regardless of all these changes - Greg Fielden counts 4 different points systems over 8 season during this period - it strikes me that Richard Petty seemed to prevail whatever system was thrown at him. To be at all events and up front was obviously a winning formula, as it has been for many drivers before and after.

Jesper

Ah, how to put this delicately, the numbers in Racing Reference are, well, wrong....

The TOTAL money won by Yarborough at Riverside was \$16,325 -- of which only \$11,025 was from the purse.

I think that you are beginning to see the problem I alluded to earlier. In this case, they seem to have used information from some other source than the NASCAR Record Book .... the Greg Fielden book, "Forty Years of Stock Car Racing, Volume IV -- The Modern Era," to be exact because that is where you will find the \$19,325 figure.

No one ever said this was easy....

### #29 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
• Member

• 582 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 17 March 2007 - 00:10

I found the number in his "NASCAR Cronicle" (book I bought) as well, while I was searching for those "forty years of Stock Car Racing" (had a link to it at one point - is it deleated - it did have racepeports of all races?).

Regarding the 1974 points, I'm asking: what kind of planet did Homo sapiens originaly appeared on?

Jesper

### #30 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 19 March 2007 - 15:31

It is interesting that the data in the Fielden book and Racing-Reference -- which apparently just copied the data from Fielden, even when very close, sometimes by just a few hundred dollars, is consistently high for those placings at the top of the results which would have contingency or other monies added on top of the purse.

I have checked most of the contemporary sources and their numbers seem to agree with those in the 1975 edition of the NASCAR Record Book. So, I don't have much of an idea as to where Fielden's numbers are coming from other than he also added in whatever other monies were involved from the fund that was doled out as appearance money for those who were high in the previous year's standings to compete during the following season.

This scoring system was an effort to use something that could be easily related to by the fans, money earned on the track. That was why only the money earned from the race purse was included, to avoid the possibility of there being ways to pad the "score" through contingencies or other sources.

I have been contemplating doing something on the first five years of the Winston Cup Grand National championship, 1971-1975, and last night I finally began to work on it. Needless to say, it will be awhile before anything pops up on Case History, but I am plugging away at it.

To answer at least one question: yes, the Fielden books do have a brief race report and the results for each GN event. Given the impossibility of the enterprise that he undertook, the information in the volumes is, on the whole, quite good and usually accurate.

### #31 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
• Member

• 582 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 19 March 2007 - 17:59

So not much sense spending time on any of the money points years, for now, but will look out for Fieldens Forty Years of Stock Car Racing, to flesh out the bare results and point standings.

Then I have wondered for how long car owners have had their Cup. These days it's quite important to sit in the right seat and thus being guaranteed a spot on the grid come Sunday. Just ask the current Toyota drivers!

Looking forward to your finished work Mr. Capps.

Jesper

### #32 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 20 March 2007 - 00:24

Here are the top 25 in WCGN Owner points for 1974.

The Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of STP Corporation, John Jay Hooker, was listed as the car owner for the No. 43 Dodge Charger that Petty Enterprises fielded that season.

```
1974 Winston Cup Grand National Owner Points Standings

1st	5,037.750 points	No. 43, John Hooker

2nd	4,470.300 points	No. 11, Junior Johnson

3rd	2,389.250 points	No. 21, Glenn Wood

4th	2,019.195 points	No. 12, Judith Allison

5th	1,591.500 points	No. 15, Bud Moore

6th	1,378.200 points	No. 72, L.G. DeWitt

7th	1,016.880 points	No. 2, Dave Marcis

8th	1,009.470 points	No. 52, Allan Brooke

9th	1,000.650 points	No. 24, Cecil Gordon

10th	956.200 points		No. 48, James Hylton

11th	924.955 points		No. 70, J.D. McDuffie

12th	920.850 points		No. 05, David Sisco

13th	820.845 points		No. 79, Frank Warren

14th	755.440 points		No. 30, Victor Ballard

15th	748.440 points		No. 96, Thomas Garn

16th	735.440 points		No. 88, William J. Garner

17th	728.805 points		No. 54, Ron Elder

18th	723.250 points		No. 98, Ray Thornley

19th	609.975 points		No. 95, Stephanie Waltrip

20th	601.695 points		No. 90, W.C. Donlavey

21st	587.880 points		No. 14, H.B. Cunningham

22nd	581.670 points		No. 8, Ed Negre

23rd	534.300 points		No. 9, Gordon Vanliew

24th	445.000 points		No. 64, Elmo Langley

25th	433.780 points		No. 93, Ray Frederick```

### #33 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 21 March 2007 - 15:38

originally posted on another forum....

NASCAR revamped the system again for 1974.

Strangest points system I recall for sure. I reckon if ya figure the teams are racing for the money, might as well amke the points reflect the money. Thus was born the system used only for the 1974 season. It was simple, take teh number of dollars won by a driver in race purses (qualifying and contingency money not included) and multiply that number by the number of races the driver has started, then divide that number by 1000........voila that is the points a driver has. Richard and Cale finished first and second in the Daytona 500, the biggest money race of all, and the run for the crown was over. The problems of the system were dramatically illustrated in the fall of the season.

At Darlington in the Southern 500 Petty crashed early and ended up finishing 35th. Darell Waltrip on the other hand ran well and finished second, still Richard gained 65 points on Waltrip in the points race. As a matter of fact of the 34 drivers who finished ahead of Petty, 33 of them lost points to Richard in the standings. At Martinsville Petty again had problems and finished 29th, his closest pursuer in the points hunt, Cale, has some problems but finished much better in 11th. When the points were tallied up, Petty had gained 10 more points on Yarborough.

This a comment I found on some other forum ages ago, copied down, and finally found once more.

At Darlington, Petty early \$1,070 and earned 1.070 points for the eace, while Waltrip earned a total of \$10,500 of which \$5,900 was from the purse, so he earned 5.900 points. The kicker here was that Petty ran nearly twice the number of events as did Waltrip during the season, which skewed things a bit against those who did not run in nearly all of the events that season.

At Martinsville, Yarborough earned a total of \$5,900, of which only \$900 -- yes, \$900 -- came from the race purse, so he ended up 0.900 point for his efforts. Meanwhile, Petty earned a total of all of \$1,510, but since only \$510 was from the purse, he earned 0.510 point. Given that both Yarborogh and Petty ran the same number of events that season, it is difficult to see how Petty could gain that many points simply from a single event.

However, I am still working through everything concerning this season so no telling....

Postscript.
As I have been working on the transtition of things from Grand Nation to Winston Cup Grand National to Winston Cup to Nextel Cup, there was an accompanying shift in the importance of the seasonal championship from where winning races and earning money was the point of the exercise -- and the championship was simply a bonus of sorts at then end of the year. Few ran the entire seasons and most "cherry-picked" events that either paid more or were their local tracks. The advent of a very large pot of monry for the seasonal champion gradually changed all that over the years from where winning certain events -- the Southern 500, Daytina 500, World 600 -- was the focal point of a season to where the individual events fade into the woodwork and the payout at the end of the season is now the focal point.

### #34 ensign14

ensign14
• Member

• 39,790 posts
• Joined: December 01

Posted 21 March 2007 - 16:38

How important was the title considered at the time compared to the big races? You have someone like David Pearson as the quintessential cherry-picker, but of course he had 3 titles under his belt so at least he could argue he had proved his title-winning ability.

### #35 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 21 March 2007 - 18:35

Originally posted by ensign14
How important was the title considered at the time compared to the big races? You have someone like David Pearson as the quintessential cherry-picker, but of course he had 3 titles under his belt so at least he could argue he had proved his title-winning ability.

Basically, the title was always important, but in recent years it has seemingly become the entire focus or point of the exercise -- and with the massive amount of cash in the points fund, little wonder.

Essentially, David Pearson ran only three complete seasons in the Grand National division -- and won each time. On the other hand, Joe Weatherly did not have a full-time ride with a team during the 1963 season and he managed to win the championship. As an aside, had Curtis Turner and Weatherly not been assigned to the convertible series but instead to the GN series when they ran in the late 50s, things might have different when it came to who wound up as the GN season's champion during that period.

While my comments seem to not place much importance on winning the GN championship, this is far from the case. It was a true grind that had to be endured to emerge as the champion during the first two-plus decades of the GN division. A driver certainly earned the title.

However, the major problem was that promoters really did not have a stable "package" to present at each event. The larger events at Darlington, Daytona, Charlotte, Atlanta, and so forth could attract large field with all the headliners of the day making an appearance if at all possible. Part of the reason was simple: money. The purse for one of the big events could dwarf that of the smaller ones.

When R.J. Reynolds came on board for the 1971 season, it made it possible for NASCAR to begin to seriously consider that the number of teams running the entire schedule to expand to include most of the field each and every weekend, something not thought possible in the past.

When Winston took over beginning with the 1972 season and the series was adjusted to include only those events of 250 miles or longer, the number of teams competing the entire series did not change very much from previous seasons. However, over the next dozen or so years, the number of teams that did increased significantly and continued to do so right through the 80s and into the 90s until the situation you have today where there are few teams who do not run the entire series.

Money was, of course, the prime motivation in all this. It now paid to run the entire series, especially as the points fund kept increasing and the number of places receiving a payout in the final standings grew along with the amounts paid out.

Along the way, the importance of winning an event began to diminish, slowly but inevitably. Gone were the days when a team or a driver could concentrate on a relative handful of events each season to compete in and be successful -- the best known examples being David Pearson and the Wood Brothers Mercury during the 1970s and Fred Lorenzen for Holman-Moody in the 1960s. At one point, winning the Southern 500 or the Daytona 500 later on truly meant something. The former no longer exists and the latter is now thought of more as the begining of the season than anything else should anyone be honest.

### #36 Agnis

Agnis
• Member

• 352 posts
• Joined: January 04

Posted 22 March 2007 - 07:22

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
originally posted on another forum....

At Martinsville, Yarborough earned a total of \$5,900, of which only \$900 -- yes, \$900 -- came from the race purse, so he ended up 0.900 point for his efforts. Meanwhile, Petty earned a total of all of \$1,510, but since only \$510 was from the purse, he earned 0.510 point. Given that both Yarborogh and Petty ran the same number of events that season, it is difficult to see how Petty could gain that many points simply from a single event.

What's strange with 1974 season is that driver's point totals didn't increase by points earned in each race. The money totals (1/1000) were multiplied by number of races started. It's possible that after multiplying Petty increased his lead even in that particular race he earned less money.

Martinsville was 27th race of the season. So the equation looks like this:

x - total money earned by Petty after race 26.
y - total money earned by Yarborough after race 26.

(x*26/1000-y*26/1000)-((x+0.510)*27/1000-(y+0.900)*27/1000)=10

Btw. anybody knows a site where only money earned from track purses is showed? Or maybe just what the money distribution system looked like, was there any common formula?

### #37 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 22 March 2007 - 12:59

Originally posted by Agnis
Btw. anybody knows a site where only money earned from track purses is showed? Or maybe just what the money distribution system looked like, was there any common formula?

Not to my knowledge. Apparently no one bothered to look at the NASCAR Record Book and place that information, the figures for the race purses, in front of people; in addition, the numbers used for the total prize monies, purse + contingency monies, in the Fielden book and at the Racing Reference site are the same and are different from what is in the Record Book. I do have a breakdown of the purse, points fund, and contingency monies for the top 10 or 15 for the season.

Needless to say, there is not much of a surprise that the system was dropped, although the notion of basing it on the race purse and dividing that by a thousand was not such a bad idea in and of itself -- the idea was how to get as many drivers as possible to contest the entire series, hence the hard part that the points algorithm introduced which left nearly everyone scratching their heads. The concept was very clever, but not easily understood and had the potential for lots of unintended consequences.

Plus, there was a level of backlash from seveal of the promoters who clearly saw the disadvantages the system could place them at rather than any possible advantages of such a system.

For the most part, overall the system was simply not intuiative, that is, it was not easy to follow or calculate, a fatal flaw.

I clearly remember being a bit baffled by it at the time. The problem was usually not having the correct numbers for the race purse and basing it on the total earnings. After awhile, we all just accepted whatever the folks at Daytona Beach said the standings were since calculating them was a mess. I clearly recall talking with Joe Whitlock about this at the first Darlington race, the first chance I had to sit down with him for any length of time that season. It was crystal clear that I was scarcely the first person to do so....

As it turned out, Joe and Bob Latford -- who is generally given the credit with no mention of Joe -- hammered out a new points system for the 1975 season, which with a few changes is still being used today. It has always bothered me that Latford -- generally a nice guy -- has always gotten complete credit for the points system when Joe was part and parcel of its formulation. Of course, Joe was not around in later years, so when the sporting press begam to give NASCAR a bit more coverage, it was Latford who got the credit since most had no clue who Joe Whitlock was by then. But, I digress....

### #38 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 05 April 2007 - 15:58

Originally posted by ensign14
1953 Record Book suggests the following:

1st - 50
2nd - 48
3rd - 46
&c to 25th - 2 (all starters received 2)

...multiplied by:

2 for a race worth \$2000
3 for one worth \$3000
4 for \$4000
5 for \$5000
6 for \$6000
10 for \$10000
25 for \$25000

These were the examples given, so no idea if the multiplicand was 14 for a \$14000 purse. Also unclear whether the purse was taken to be the total purse or the winner's take.

```CHAMPIONSHIP POINT SCHEDULE

Position	\$2000	\$3000	\$4000	\$5000	\$6000	\$10,000		   \$25,00		Regular

1st		100	150	200	250	300	500		1250		50

2nd		96	144	192	240	288	480		1200		48

3rd		92	138	184	230	276	460		1150		46

4th		88	132	176	220	264	440		1100		44

5th		84	126	168	210	252	420		1050		42

6th		80	120	160	200	240	400		1000		40

7th		76	114	152	190	228	380		950		38

8th		72	108	144	180	216	360		900		36

9th		68	102	136	170	204	340		850		34

10th		64	96	128	160	192	320		800		32

11th		60	90	120	150	180	300		750		30

12th		56	84	112	140	168	280		700		28

13th		52	78	104	130	156	260		650		26

14th		48	72	96	120	144	240		600		24

15th		44	66	88	110	132	220		550		22

16th		40	60	80	100	120	200		500		20

17th		36	54	72	90	108	180		450		18

18th		32	48	64	80	96	160		400		16

19th		28	42	56	70	84	140		350		14

20th		24	36	48	60	72	120		300		12

21st		20	30	40	50	60	100		250		10

22nd		16	24	32	40	48	80		200		8

23rd		12	18	24	30	36	60		150		6

24th		8	12	16	20	24	40		100		4

25th		4	6	8	10	12	20		50		2

All Starters Receive Minimum as Per Schedule```

### #39 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 07 May 2007 - 18:46

Some examples of points awarded for events at the Daytona International Speedway (USAC/Post entries receive no points with full points going to next NASCAR driver) :

1954-62 — Competitors were awarded points per the old system, with additional points awarded per a separate schedule.

1959 "Firecracker 250"
1st place: 1000 points
2nd place: 1000 points
3rd place: 960 points
4th place: 920 points
each additional place drops 40 points until 25th place and lower at 40 points; combined GN and Convertible race with separate points for each.

1960 "Firecracker 250"
1st place: 1000 points
2nd place: 960 points
3rd place: 920 points
each additional place drops 40 points until 25th place and lower at 40 points.

1961 "Firecracker 250"
1st place: 1350 points
2nd place: 1296 points
3rd place: 1242
each additional place drops 54 points until 25th place and lower at 54 points.

1962 "Firecracker 250"
1st place: 1500 points
2nd place: 1440 points
3rd place: 1380 points
each additional place drops 60 points until 25th place and lower at 40 points.

1963-65 — Events paying \$4,200-\$6,000 awarded the winner 400 points, with each succeeding position receiving 16 fewer points. Events paying \$7,000-\$10,000 awarded points per the point schedule listed in the 1963 NASCAR Rule Book. Events paying more than \$10,000 awarded points on the basis of 50 points per \$1,000 posted by promoter.

1963 "Firecracker 400"
1st place: 2500 points
2nd place: 2400 points
3rd place: 2300 points
each additional place drops 100 points until 25th place and lower at 100 points.

1964 "Firecracker 400"
1st place: 2550 points
2nd place: 2448 points
3rd place: 2346 points
each additional place drops 102 points until 25th place and lower at 102 points.

1965 "Firecracker 400"
1st place: 2350 points
2nd place: 2256 points
3rd place: 2162 points
each additional place drops 94 points until 25th place and lower at 94 points.

1966-67 — Events paying basic prize money in the \$5,000 and less than \$7,000 category awarded the winner 400 points, with each succeeding position receiving 16 fewer points. Events paying \$7,000-\$10,000 awarded the winner 500 points, with each succeeding position receiving 20 fewer points.

1966 "Firecracker 400"
1st place: 2500 points
2nd place: 2400 points
3rd place: 2300 points
each addtional place drops 100 points until 25th place and lower at 100 points.

1967 "Firecracker 400" at Daytona:
1st place: 2500 points
2nd place: 2400 points
3rd place: 2300 points
each additional place drops 100 points until 25th place and lower at 100 points.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Interesting that the points schedule in the posting above, no. 38, was the same as in 1964 NASCAR Official Program.

### #40 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 29 August 2007 - 23:39

Thanks to Suzanne Wise at Appalachian State University who created its Stock Racing Collection in the Special Collections of the Belk Library for allowing me use of the issues of Southern Motorsports Journal and Southern Motoracing in the collection.

During the 1964 Grand National season, there were 16 different ways points were distributed, the base number always being the 25th position and working upward; 26th and below earned the base points.

Here are the points schemes for the 1964 GN season:

Points = # of events
194 = 1 Daytona 500

176 = 1 Charlotte 600

126 = 1 Darlington 500

102 = 1 Daytona 400

100 = 2 Augusta '510' and Riverside 500

98 = 1 Atlanta (April)

92 =1 Atlanta (June)

88 = 1 Charlotte (October)

70 = 1 Darlington 300

42 = 2 Bristol (March & July)

36 = 2 Martinsville (April & Spetember)

30 = 2 No. Wilkesboro (April & October)

28 = 1 Huntington

26 = 1 Weaversville (August)

20 = 9 Richmond (March), Hillsboro (April), Bridgehampton, Watkins Glen, Nashville (August), Richmond (September), Manassas (September), Hillsboro (September), Augusta (November)

16 = 35 (The Rest)

I now have all the points for each position in each race for the entire 1964 GN season.

### #41 ensign14

ensign14
• Member

• 39,790 posts
• Joined: December 01

Posted 02 September 2007 - 19:45

You'd need a degree in economics to follow NASCAR points systems.

### #42 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 02 September 2007 - 22:54

Originally posted by ensign14
You'd need a degree in economics to follow NASCAR points systems.

Actually, it seems to be worse than you realize..... I was caught flat-footed by what I ran into.

App State has Southern Motorsports Journal beginning with March or April 1962, which is part of Volume 2 (SMJ began in April 1962), and Southern Motoracing from the beginning, August 1964.

In the future, I plan to work my way through the seasons until the Latford System was introduced. It is unfortunate that there seems to so little available to work out the points for anything prior to the 1964 regarding a complete GN season until the folks in Daytona Beach finally begin to either allow researchers access or provide this information.

A complete breakdown on the 1964 points system will be posted at Case History within a few days.

This makes whatever the formula one stats nerds do look like squat.....

### #43 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 04 September 2007 - 00:17

There is now a short paper outlining the 1964 GN points schedules at Case History Files for the one or two who might be interested.

### #44 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 05 September 2007 - 00:21

```
Table 1: NASCAR 1964 Grand National Championship Point Schedule

Position

1st	400	500	650	700	750	900	1,050	1,750	2,200	2,300	2,450	2,500	2,550	3,150	4,400	4,850

2nd	384	480	624	672	720	864	1,008	1,680	2,112	2,208	2,352	2,400	2,448	3,024	4,224	4,656

3rd	368	460	598	644	690	828	966	1,610	2,024	2,116	2,254	2,300	2,346	2,898	4,048	4,462

4th	352	440	572	616	660	792	924	1,540	1,936	2,024	2,156	2,200	2,244	2,772	3,872	4,268

5th	336	420	546	588	630	756	882	1,470	1,848	1,932	2,058	2,100	2,142	2,646	3,696	4,077

6th	320	400	520	560	600	720	840	1,400	1,760	1,840	1,960	2,000	2,040	2,520	3,520	3,880

7th	304	380	494	532	570	684	798	1,330	1,672	1,748	1,862	1,900	1,938	2,394	3,344	3,686

8th	288	360	468	504	540	648	756	1,260	1,584	1,656	1,764	1,800	1,836	2,268	3,168	3,492

9th	272	340	442	476	510	612	714	1,190	1,496	1,564	1,666	1,700	1,734	2,142	2,992	3,298

10th	256	320	416	448	480	576	672	1,120	1,408	1,472	1,568	1,600	1,632	2,016	2,816	3,104

11th	240	300	390	420	450	540	630	1,050	1,320	1,380	1,470	1,500	1,530	1,890	2,640	2,910

12th	224	280	364	392	420	504	588	980	1,232	1,288	1,372	1,400	1,428	1,764	2,464	2,716

13th	208	260	338	364	390	468	546	910	1,144	1,196	1,274	1,300	1,326	1,638	2,288	2,522

14th	192	240	312	336	360	432	504	840	1,056	1,104	1,176	1,200	1,224	1,512	2,112	2,328

15th	176	220	286	308	330	396	462	770	968	1,012	1,078	1,100	1,122	1,386	1,936	2,134

16th	160	200	260	280	300	360	420	700	880	920	980	1,000	1,020	1,260	1,760	1,940

17th	144	180	234	252	270	324	378	630	792	828	882	900	918	1,134	1,584	1,746

18th	120	160	208	224	240	288	336	560	704	736	784	800	816	1,008	1,408	1,552

19th	112	140	182	196	210	252	294	490	616	644	686	700	714	882	1,232	1,358

20th	96	120	156	168	180	216	252	420	528	552	588	600	612	756	1,056	1,164

21st	80	100	130	140	150	180	210	350	440	460	490	500	510	630	880	970

22nd	64	80	104	112	120	144	168	280	352	368	392	400	408	504	704	776

23rd	48	60	78	84	90	108	126	210	264	276	294	300	306	378	528	582

24th	32	40	52	56	60	72	84	140	176	184	196	200	204	252	352	388

25th	16	20	26	28	30	36	42	70	88	92	98	100	102	126	176	194

26th +	16	20	26	28	30	36	42	70	88	92	98	100	102	126	176	194

Events	35	9	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	1```

### #45 Frank Verplanken

Frank Verplanken
• Member

• 343 posts
• Joined: July 04

Posted 05 September 2007 - 07:19

Thanks for this Don ! Does this mean there were no bonus points for pole, laps led, consecutive starts, nicest paint scheme or any other crucial sporting achievements ?

### #46 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 05 September 2007 - 13:44

Ignoring the obvious sarcasm, points were awarded strictly for results on the track.

### #47 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
• Member

• 582 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 08 September 2007 - 17:53

I will take a stab at the 1964 season in the near future and let you know how it pans out. Checking up on 1964 I learned that the year yealded Richard Pettys first cup win (without the moustashe), Bristol was flat for another few years and that the Mopar vs. FoMoCo battle was in full swing, while GM was on the side. Also the season of African-American driver Wendell Scotts only victory - although that it actually happened in 1963!

Jesper

### #48 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 08 September 2007 - 21:28

Originally posted by Jesper O. Hansen
I will take a stab at the 1964 season in the near future and let you know how it pans out. Checking up on 1964 I learned that the year yealded Richard Pettys first cup win (without the moustashe), Bristol was flat for another few years and that the Mopar vs. FoMoCo battle was in full swing, while GM was on the side. Also the season of African-American driver Wendell Scotts only victory - although that it actually happened in 1963!

Jesper

It was not unusual at that time for the NASCAR Grand National Division to operate on the racing eqivalent of a Fiscal Year, seasons often spanning two calendar years, often beginning in November and ending during October or Novemeber of the year. The 1964 GN season began on 10 November 1963 that season. Bristol was not quite flat, but certainly nothing like the banking of today. I thought that Richard Petty won his first Winston Cup the same season that he won the 1971 Grand National championship, so I am a bit puzzled regarding the reference to "Petty's first cup win."

Not reflected in most results or commentary on the 1964 GN events are those not receiving points because of a Post Entry, which I managed to find by combing the issues of SMJ and SMR.

Often forgotten is that Scott entered the Bel Air we won with in Jacksonville for Earl Brooks later in the season after a deal was made with Holman-Moody for a former 1963 HM team car.

### #49 Jesper O. Hansen

Jesper O. Hansen
• Member

• 582 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 09 September 2007 - 02:50

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps

I thought that Richard Petty won his first Winston Cup the same season that he won the 1971 Grand National championship, so I am a bit puzzled regarding the reference to "Petty's first cup win."

So was Petty the 1964 champion, but the 1971 cup winner? A few years back, writing about my contemporary Danish scene I learned that only the local ASN can crown a champion, while "outlaws" can recognise a cup or challenge winner.

Jesper

### #50 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
• Member

• 2,482 posts
• Joined: April 05

Posted 09 September 2007 - 03:59

Originally posted by Jesper O. Hansen
So was Petty the 1964 champion, but the 1971 cup winner? A few years back, writing about my contemporary Danish scene I learned that only the local ASN can crown a champion, while "outlaws" can recognise a cup or challenge winner.

Jesper

Well, that might the way they do things there Denmark or Europe, but is complete nonsense when it comes to the American scene. The FIA might be able to bully the European clubs, but rarely gets very far with such stuff when it comes to the American scene. To a large extent the FIA is pretty much irrelevant in America except when it is becomes convenient. Also, there is no single "American" national club, the ACN being the ACCUS which is composed of individual clubs.

In 1971, there was a "championship within a championship" -- there was the Grand National Division championship which was won by Richard Petty and then there was the competition for the "Winston Cup" which included only those GN events 250 miles or longer which was also won by Richard Petty. So, there was no Winston Cup awarded for the 1964 season to the GN champion. Beginning with the 1972 season, the champion of the Grand National Division was awarded the Winston Cup.