76 replies to this topic

[RAP]

Don

 As you know, the Formula One Register has available records of entries, grids and results which, I believe, started with Paul Sheldon getting permission to use Phil Harms' records but have been, and continue, to add to them to since. Were you not doing some work on this with Paul when he so sadly passed away? 

 

Anyway, a really authoritative history is a great project and we are happy to help if we can.

 

Richard Page

www.formulaoneregister.com

[DCapps]

Richard,

 

Correct. I have a TON of stuff that we were working on regarding the topic, there were often being different angles of approach to the topic in play. We has some interesting conversations about "things" and what was what, to say the least.

 

Phil's work was little short of amazing. It is difficult NOT to use Phil's work as an important element in creating the framework of such an endeavor. It has its issues, but that is thanks to what was both available and known at the time. I regret that Phil died just as we were really beginning to shift the focus, if you will.

 

It was Paul who initially shoved me towards looking into both the US national championship and the early years of US racing in the early 90s. I was completely adrift for years given that as I have mentioned numerous times that my ignorance of the topic was only exceeded by my lack of knowledge of the topic. That I had a very demanding set of day jobs slowed things down considerably, but Paul kept nagging me to get on with it. While I did manage to begin conducting some serious research into the topic, it was slow and uneven. The fortuitous appearance of what is now the IMRRC in Watkins Glen, stumbling over both Phil Harms and John Glenn Printz, on top of finally beginning to become conversant enough to begin asking better questions all combined to make a serious difference. Not to mention the advent of TNF and several other fora.

 

The Gordon White (Atlantic Old-Timers Racing Association) microfilm was another big help, along with the Digital research revolution, the Horseless Carriage Foundation in Mesa, California, being a godsend.

 

But, to circle back, it all really began with Paul. Although I had some USAC and CART material on the bookshelves, I never gave the history of championship/Indy car racing all that much attention for some reason. His coverage of the 1966 USAC season in that year's FOR record book was a revelation. That it took me ages to finally begin to be that conversant regarding the topic would be an understatement. Although Jack Printz, Phil Harms, Gordon Kirby, and a very long list of people have been gracious and incredibly helpful over the years, it was Paul who originally pointed The Way.

 

Not to mention that we both LOVED Sprint Cars...

 

And, Richard, I just might just take you up on this.

 

A small shift of focus. To be clear as an azure sky in deepest summer, as clear as an unmuddied lake, an Historical Record combines the production of the information regarding the various racing contest/events within the period being considered with, well, a history of that era. You can do either one without the other, of course, but I have long felt that combining the two is the way to go for this topic. That makes it much more difficult, naturally, but it does provide both context and the ability, as mentioned, to revise and expand as necessary. Not to mention that an Historical Record is not simply a compilation of statistics (yes, I am looking at you, INDYCAR...) and the sort of nonsense. Amateurs deal with statistics, the pros struggle with narrative, as they say.

 

Regards,

 

Don

[Jim Thurman]

Don, sorry to hear about your reminder of your own mortality. As one who, as typing this, sits with a tube and draining blood from a "same day" surgery event that led to a 55 hour hospital stay, I can vigorously relate to your comment. I look forward to the project, and hope to see it, however much you manage.

 

As always, I have a few dissenting thoughts. Unlike some of those prats at the problematic forum though, these are sincere and aren't just trolling to get you (or Michael, or I) riled up.

 

Also, in looking back, I can't believe the embarrassing naivete of some of my earlier posts, though I clearly should not be alone in that. Worse is some of the regurgitated misinformation I passed along in earlier times, but hopefully, I've gone about setting things as right as possible by emphasizing the accurate information I've since learned.

[Jim Thurman]

Re: Footnoting 

 

 

The notion of footnotes being littered through the monographs was a no-brainer, of course. How in the world can you possibly produce a possible reference work and not provide sources? Well, "auto racing historians" generally avoid them, of course. Then again, as Henri suggest, writing motor sport history is certainly a chore given the plentitude of details to sort out. However, that is what historians do. Interpretations will fall short, factual errors will occur, and the dreaded editorial glitches will manifest themselves, and so on, but that is why I would hope that the volumes would be "living documents." That is, the Michaels of the world will revise and update as necessary and warranted: references added, along with footnotes, and topics reexamined and new interpretations suggested.

 

I only wish that I had JGP, Phil, David, Paul, and several others around to kick things around with as I slog through this.

It is a sad fact that articles in magazines and newspapers do not generally come with footnoting. You may disagree with it, but it just is how it is done. I know. I've tried. I was stunningly impressed with an article in a music magazine, on Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart, where the writer added footnotes and used many published interviews as well as interviews with colleagues as source material. He also noted how he always preferred to use fresh interviews with his subjects, but since they sadly had passed on, this was not possible. This too, I could relate to.

 

Limited space in newspapers or magazines should at least be understandable as reasons for lack of footnoting, particularly publications that aren't academia. There is academic writing and there is general writing. But, that still is no excuse for the utter lack of footnoting, or oft times even sourcing, in so many motorsport books. Which, as you've noted, is seriously lacking. Seriously lacking being a gross understatement. As we've discussed, some non-motorsport writers have done a far better job with footnoting in their books on motorsport. Which just further shows the different backgrounds.

 

Amen to your closing sentence 

Edited by Jim Thurman, 21 May 2022 - 19:12.

[Michael Ferner]

I'll be the dissenting voice regarding footnotes, then. I generally find them very annoying, especially when you have to page forth and back to find them (often only to see another "ibid" note ), and when they disrupt the flow of reading too much and too often. I get it that in academic research you have to flag other people's thoughts, and give the reader a chance to reflect on your line of reasoning, but outside of that it's become a plague that many writers seem to wallow in just in order to look smart, it seems to me. I find that you can name and specify sources within the main body of text, easily, and if you think you need to digress on a particular subject, why send your reader to the end of the paragraph/segment/chapter/book to learn about your digression and then command him back to where she/he started off in search of the supplement? If you didn't think it was important enough to include it in the main text, then why bother in the first place, and if it's important, then why have the reader jump through hoops to get to it? Footnotes are the most effficient deterrent for me to not want to read a book.

[DCapps]

I generally find them very annoying, especially when you have to page forth and back to find them (often only to see another "ibid" note  )

 

 

Michael, Those are called "Endnotes," because they come at The End of a chapter, section or even the work itself, rather than "Footnotes" which are, amazingly enough, found at the "foot" of a page.

 

I do Footnotes because I have the same issue with having to find out 300 pages later that it is simply another, "Ibid." Whenever forced to do endnotes, I really hate it...

 

One of the major reasons that motor sport history tends to be seriously dicked up is the rather cavalier attitude regarding both citing sources and a rather vague idea as to what is "history" and what is "entertainment writing" -- to use a term a friend of mine referred to it as.

 

Oh, well, back to the slow slog of putting the words and the research down on "paper."

[Doug Nye]

I'm generally with Michael on this one.  I read many naval, military and aviation histories, the majority of which are replete with endnotes/footnotes, call them what you will.  

 

One of the most absorbing aspects of receiving a new volume like these is that I find myself immediately turning to the back of the book to read the often fascinating detail presented in those notes, before starting on the body text itself.

 

This leads me to the natural conclusion; why not in the first place just include the vast majority of the notes' 'additional' information within the body text?  So that's what I habitually will do - and have done - when constructing the old nonsense which has kept our family afloat for the past forty-plus years.

 

As far as I'm concerned, footnoting/endnoting has - too often in recent years - become a largely self-indulgent, and in some cases self-aggrandising, badge for faux academics seeking to elevate their work within the circles to which they aspire. Enthusiastic thoroughness is one thing - personal grandstanding is another.

 

I firmly believe it's better to smooth the reader's progress than repeatedly interrupt it .

 

DCN

[Jim Thurman]

 

One of the major reasons that motor sport history tends to be seriously dicked up is the rather cavalier attitude regarding both citing sources and a rather vague idea as to what is "history" and what is "entertainment writing" -- to use a term a friend of mine referred to it as.

 

That's the greater point though. I'm not of the belief that every comedic work must be either Shakespeare or Noel Coward. I believe there's room for works like "Animal House", "The Blues Brothers" and "National Lampoon's Vacation." Perhaps you disagree...

 

The same applies to academic writing vs. general or "entertainment" writing. There is room for both approaches, providing they are done well. What has truly dicked up motor sport history isn't so much a cavalier attitude citing sources, or writing for a general audience ("entertainment"), but rather the poor sources themselves, along with a general lack of effort by many of those doing same to do original research. As you, Michael and myself have often pointed out, just the simple, habitual recycling of previously printed incorrect information is the biggest issue.

 

What there isn't room for, and shouldn't be, is the kind of pure malarkey passed off as factual. This is down to individuals and their approach rather than a collective enemy that you often seem to see and call out perjoratively ("amateurs", "so-called historians", "enthusiasts", "entertainment writing", "auto racing historians", etc.). I've often felt several notable U.S. motorsport writers should be entered in the annual Bad Hemingway competition, where I feel they would place well, if not outright win, for their style.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 22 May 2022 - 20:45.

[Jim Thurman]

A few other things here...

 

 

The Gordon White (Atlantic Old-Timers Racing Association) microfilm was another big help, along with the Digital research revolution, the Horseless Carriage Foundation in Mesa, California, being a godsend.

    [snip]

 Amateurs deal with statistics, the pros struggle with narrative, as they say.

 

That should that be La Mesa, California, not to be confused with Costa Mesa, California or Mira Mesa, California. Stunningly, the Horseless Carriage Foundation is located less than 4 miles from my teenage home in an area I rode my bicycle around many times. The nearby shopping center was a regular stop.

 

Don, I guess I just must be an "entertainment writing" hack and rank "amateur" then, as my projects of late have me compiling race winners/results and track histories. So far, I've been concentrating on short-lived early midget tracks (Santa Monica Municipal Stadium, Rose Bowl, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, etc.). Along with the rather more comprehensive Southern (Ascot) Speedway in South Gate, California, which operated from 1936-1942 and ran many "big car", early track roadster, jalopy and stock car races, in addition to some midget racing.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 23 May 2022 - 05:54.

[DCapps]

There is definitely a needed place in all this for this who perform the often difficult grunge work of compiling the data from the flotsam and jetsam of motor sport. Easy to overlook and easier to dismiss, this sort of work tends to be a real challenge. It rarely ceases to amaze me how much tends to be missing regarding race meetings. I have spent far, far, far, far more time on this sort of thing than I ever dreamed. 

 

I thought I had written La Mesa, but...

[Michael Ferner]

"Amateurs deal with statistics, the pros struggle with narrative, as they say."
 
I generally agree with, but even the pros need a good grasp of the statistics to not be led astray, and it can be a darn hard job to collect those 'low-hanging fruit'! The real difference, to me it seems, is that 'amateurs' are not interested in the narrative, they only use the statistics to win an argument, or to construct impressive lists and tables of data. I know, because I've been doing that all my life

[DCapps]

Under the hopeful assumption that I will somehow manage to survive this current bout with toxicity with enough energy to have something of an idea as to what I am slogging away on ready by early June, I plan to send out the very, very rough draft available at that moment for those few interested. Of course, it has footnotes, so that probably means no one, but I thought I would at least make the offer. Keep in mind, that this will be pretty much simply an outline with bits filled-in here and there. 

[ensign14]

I love a footnote.  The most staggering editorial decision which I can recall is when the Folio Society got Betty Radice to edit Gibbon's Decline and Fall (a work which one would expect would need no editing) - and she took out most of the footnotes.  "They're all abstruse academics."  YES THAT'S THE POINT!!!

[DCapps]

I love a footnote.  The most staggering editorial decision which I can recall is when the Folio Society got Betty Radice to edit Gibbon's Decline and Fall (a work which one would expect would need no editing) - and she took out most of the footnotes.  "They're all abstruse academics."  YES THAT'S THE POINT!!!

 

I think that is one of the standard horror stories trotted out to graduate students in their research class these days. Alas, there are good examples, but that one is truly difficult to beat.

 

Okay, I stand corrected, maybe at least one person might be interested...

[Jim Thurman]

Catching up a bit here...

 

I thought I had written La Mesa, but...

 

Don, I do it all the time and, unfortunately, owing to aging and fading eyesight, I find myself doing it more all the time. If one needed further evidence, just note how many of my recent posts I've edited. Two in this thread were due to typos, another because I left a word out.

 

It's why I don't find myself raging over simple typos, something I've always held to, even back when I made relatively few. There's a huge difference between typos made due to massive volume of information, versus those that clearly due to lack of effort or research. Simple typos aren't worth being enraged over.

[Jim Thurman]

After spending another few days getting unplugged, unhooked and untethered and concurrent "recuperation",  I can finally catch up a bit...

 

Re: Footnotes. While my earlier message seems overwhelmingly supportive, I too find myself echoing Michael and Doug. While the example I cited from the music magazine was refreshing, and well done, I do not feel it needs to be the norm for commercial writing. I also don't feel it destroys otherwise good work, and definitely doesn't call for the author/writer to be berated.

 

Don, I share your great frustrations over where some of this stuff entered the historical record, and the lack of citing sources. As we've oft discussed, this has been the biggest issue in myths and malarkey being passed on down through motorsport history. But, thanks to the internet, we have easily tracked down many of these. Which brings me to the greater point (get to the point, will ya' Jim?)*

 

I'm all for calling out Scalzo's ridiculous malarkey and criticizing his fast and loose play with facts (like you, I question if he's ever noticed one), and Russ Catlin and Bob Russo's behavior towards John Glenn Printz, with their attempts to discredit Printz and Ken McMaken's work and remove those corrections to Catlin's "work", which was shocking and appalling, along with pointing out/calling out similar cases. Or for calling out the errors in "historical faction" (ugh!). But beyond this, berating folks beyond the grave, setting their bones or ashes on fire and then drawing and quartering what is left of that. what exactly does this accomplish? Does it change the historical record? This is where you lost some folks over at Track Forum. And considering the draconian nature and harshness of many folks there, that is truly an accomplishment! 

 

*this an obscure reference to a sound bite comedian Tim Conway recorded that was often used in sportscaster Jim Healy's humorous radio sports news segments on Los Angeles radio. Healy would start to explain a lengthy item, and he'd then play the Conway clip. Healy was quite a racing fan, hosted racing preview/review shows on Los Angeles radio and was always good about reporting on motorsports.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 26 May 2022 - 17:21.

[DCapps]

I'm all for calling out Scalzo's ridiculous malarkey and criticizing his fast and loose play with facts (like you, I question if he's ever noticed one), and Russ Catlin and Bob Russo's behavior towards John Glenn Printz, with their attempts to discredit Printz and Ken McMaken's work and remove those corrections to Catlin's "work", which was shocking and appalling, along with pointing out/calling out similar cases. Or for calling out the errors in "historical faction" (ugh!). But beyond this, berating folks beyond the grave, setting their bones or ashes on fire and then drawing and quartering what is left of that. what exactly does this accomplish? Does it change the historical record? This is where you lost some folks over at Track Forum. And considering the draconian nature and harshness of many folks there, that is truly an accomplishment!

What or perhaps rather which "historical record?"

[Jim Thurman]

What or perhaps rather which "historical record?"

 

It was meant in general, as in all encompassing. I should have added an 's' to have it as historical records. Scalzo's exaggerations to outright fabrications becoming "fact" applies equally as the "work" of Catlin inserted. Any and all errors that become "fact."

 

Or that an unfortunate person that attempted to rescue another driver in an accident, only to be struck down, can still have his name - nearly 90 years on - misreported and misspelled as "Hafferly" when simply looking at any other record, or that most newspapers corrected their error a day or two later, would clear it up.

[Jim Thurman]

A couple of points here...

A more worthwhile approach to this great period of American auto racing would be to relate these races to the type of permit issued at the time by the AAA and re-integrate them with the "non-championship" races sanctioned with the same permit, of which there may have been many. This is where I need the advice of the knowledgeable. Could the races be sensibly classified as "invitational", "open", "co-sanctioned" and/or "national trail" or what, and if so, which were which!?

 

I've long felt one of the greatest issues, and confusion, stems from the simple semantics of AAA Championship racing. That it was called "Championship racing", "Championship trail", etc. causes issues when races for Championship cars weren't Championship races.

 

There were non-Championship races for these cars and drivers, oft times sanctioned by the AAA. To me, this has caused no end of problems. And is something that is easily separated. Or, at least, should be.

[Jim Thurman]

Don, I have long hoped greater public awareness of the mess made of U.S. Championship racing history could be made. This could only be accomplished by getting an article some place like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or, perhaps even the Indianapolis Star, where it might shine a bright light on the situation. The same story in a racing publication, might shine a bit of light, but it would likely wind up a cul-de-sac.

 

Unfortunately, one has to have people to talk to. I could speak to, or communicate with you for this sort of thing, but an effort to reach out to Gordon Kirby for his input over the CART Record Book controversy went nowhere. Sadly, John Glenn Printz, Ken McMaken and Jan Shaffer, the other principals are no longer around, as are Mssrs. Catlin and Russo.

 

One also has to appeal to editors to get a green light on this sort of story. That many other sports have had to deal with these sort of issues, and had articles appear about their records and statistics, would seem at least slightly encouraging.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 27 May 2022 - 15:54.

[DCapps]

Well, one of the great gifts regarding the hallowed groves of the Academe where the unicorns roam is that you can pursue a topic that almost literally no one really gives a rat's patootie about and produce work that challenges the established historical record.

 

Until something truly major changes at INDYCAR which is HIGHLY unlikely regarding that what they have inscribed on the base of the Astor Challenge Cup, THEY don't care what you or I or Jack Printz or whoever says or writes.

 

However, there is a professional obligation to provide as accurate an account as possible of a topic whether or not anyone likes it or not.

[DCapps]

I doubt many of you were aware that Automobile Quarterly published fiction pieces from time to time. Two pieces in particular were easily worthy of Pulitzer attention, the first appearing in 1969 and the second in 1982. Both, "Who Really Won the First Indy 500?" from 1969 (AQ  Vol. VII, No. 4, Spring 1969) and the second, "54 Bittersweet Years of the AAA Contest -- American motorsport Goes Big Time" (AQ Vol. XX, No. 4, Fourth Quarter 1982), were written by Russ Catlin, of course, and both just re-read by yours truly, doing my health little good it would seem. Both are utter twaddle and pretty much on the level of bat guano historically. Both were prefaced by a another re-reading, this of the Russ Catlin thread entitled interestingly enough, "Russ Catlin," that was launched back in July 2008. The thread is still out there somewhere in the ether of TNF and well worth reading. Closely.

 

That the Contest Board article got published at all has long raised questions on my part, but looking at the masthead one easily understands how Catlin could submit an obviously substandard piece of whatever and it get published. That some real fluff pieces appeared in AQ is understandable to a degree, of course. People tended to lap it all up regardless given its sense of importance. Fortunately, there were some truly remarkable pieces on motor sport that found its way onto the pages of AQ along with some bits that even calling it "fluff" is over-rating it. But, I digress....

 

Over the past several days I have seriously endangered my already marginal health by reviewing the Russ Catlin catalogue of motor racing misinformation. The more one knows, the more dismal that catalogue becomes.

 

Lingering question that I have regarding Catlin is just exactly when did he work for the AAA? Did he begin in: 1949? 1950? Or, 1951? It does seem that he left in 1954, apparently after the International Sweepstakes race. This is of interest because it seems that he was hired by the AAA and then assigned to the Contest Board at some date after that, which strongly suggests that he had a hand in the 1951 through 1953 Contest Board season summaries. 

 

The more that I think about INDYCAR and its Astor Challenge Cup and the names inscribed upon its base that shouldn't be there (as worthy as they might be, it must be said), the more doubts that I have that it will ever see the error of its ways. Not that I ever stop beating it up until either I croak or it finally succumbs -- with the betting line on the former it would seem...

 

End of Update.

[DCapps]

Although progress has slowed to a pace that makes a snail look like Speedy Gonzales, I have found something that has definitely grabbed my attention regarding the entrant offered for a number of drivers in AAA events.

 

Duesenberg Brothers is given as the entrant for a rather wide -- and often bewildering -- number of entries in 1921 and 1922 (and later) by Jack Fox (et. al.), Phil Harms, Paul Sheldon, and probably others as well.

 

I somehow managed to overlook (groan...) something from the 16 June 1921 issue of Motor Age ("Duesenbergs Leave Racing for Stock Car Production," page 22) that states after the upcoming Uniontown AAA event and the Grand Prix de l'ACF that the company, Duesenberg Automobile Company, "was abandoning racing," and focusing on production cars. Although I knew that Duesenberg dropped out of racing in 1921, I was somehow unaware of the exact timeframe, making the assumption that it was somewhere at the end of the 1921 AAA season rather after the June Uniontown meeting. 

 

I mention Jack Fox (et. al.) since that seems to be the primary source for the "Duesenberg Brothers" being the entrant for a slew of drivers in Duesenberg machines. However, compare what is in Fox with contemporary entrants for the International Sweepstakes and you see a significant difference regarding the entrants listed.

 

Also, I think that I can understand the issues regarding Car Names versus the chassis maker & engine maker in modern race data, but I also think that it often smacks of a bit of presentistism given that it tends to deemphasize the Car Name which is how the car was identified at that time (like it or not); John Glenn Printz and I had several go-rounds on this topic over time. It also brings up the point I had with JGP as to when does a Miller become a Miller when it is probably actually a Leach?

 

At this point in time, I had anticipated having just about all the results as well as a majority of the entries and time trials information done -- with the possible exception of the 1946 season. Thanks to health issues I am scarcely into the 1922 and 1923 seasons with some other odds and ends done in later seasons. 

 

What I am suggesting is that we may have some legitimate difference/quibbles with what we have been offered regarding a good number of events.

 

Sorry, Michael, Richard, Jim, and any interested others that might be interested that I offered to send the outline of the project to at some point this month. It looks as if it will be taking much longer than I anticipated.

 

HDC

[Michael Ferner]

No probs, Don. Take your time. There are things more important than the history of US motor racing. Take care of yourself!

[DCapps]

As an aside, it is items such as this problem with the naming the entrants for events that makes things such as footnotes or citations of where the information being offered came from rather important.

 

The more you dig, the more problems with previous offerings one tends to find, alas. 

 

As well-intended as these educated guesses might be, too often it not until you begin the sifting and sorting that you discover that they are often just that: guess, educated or otherwise.

 

Mea culpa, of course, which is why I tend to make my guesses and hedges as apparent as possible, usually in the -- you guessed it -- footnotes.

 

By the way, the value of notes: it was finding a note from a conversation with JGP form ages ago that led me to the Motor Age notice. All it said was that MA had something in June 1921 about the withdrawal from racing, it being before the end of the season, rather after it as I somehow got into my head.

 

The problem, of course, that much (well, most or some at least...) of this information is Out There Somewhere, the problem being finding it.

 

HDC

[Jim Thurman]

Don, as someone undergoing similar, though much lesser, circumstances, let me echo Michael's comments.

 

Try to not let rage over Catlin's misappropriation of history distract you from the greater goal, tough as that is. I don't rage over his actions, though I find them greatly frustrating and his (and Bob Russo's) behavior toward John Glenn Printz, Ken McMaken and those who found - and attempted to correct - the errors, is still jaw-dropping to me.

 

Again, as someone who can also personally relate to that snail's pace, most importantly, take care Don.

[DCapps]

Actually, Catlin is pretty much off the hook regarding this, given this is an issue that I am really encountering in the Twenties, an era that I am not as read into as the pre-1921 years.

 

I regret that we lost Phil Harms just as I getting to the point to beginning to be able to ask better questions.

 

Not to mention not asking JGP for at least some of the boxscores that Ken McMaken had generated to see how they compared with first Phil's and then second sorting out the differences and the gaps.

 

Of course, the root of all this is the obsession with the International Sweepstakes races that basically said the hell with all that other stuff. That is a topic Paul and I exchanged many a viewpoint regarding the frustrations dealing with that issue.

 

Even though Paul did a quite decent job piecing together his version of all this -- I dissented regarding much of the pre-1921 work, but it was his work and not mine -- and used the best info available, lots of holes to be plugged and items to be changed. Which reflects my earlier forays into this era pretty much to a Tee. I groan and cringe at what I did years ago on the 20s and 30s of AAA racing. No wonder I shelved it.

 

As JGP used to always say, What A Mess...