April 28, 2008 - Media Made A Mistake

It was exciting to see Danica Patrick win her first race last weekend in Japan, but it brought about some unsettling mistakes from many in the profession of writing about auto racing.

A number of people incorrectly stated that Danica is the first woman to win a major auto race in America. This is clearly wrong, as Shirley Muldowney was winning “major” races in NHRA some 30 years ago. In fact, Shirley is a three-time NHRA Top Fuel champion, which in my eyes is a vastly greater accomplishment than winning one race.

This is to take nothing away from Danica’s accomplishment; knowing that forever and ever you will be remembered as the first woman to win an IndyCar race is a great and historic honor. But I can’t help but feel a powerful frustration that too many in the motorsports press simply got it wrong on this one.

There are two explanations for their gaffe. The first is that they simply don’t know who Shirley Muldowney is. That, friends, is utterly and completely unforgiveable. If you’re going to write as a professional, you owe it to your readers to develop an understanding of motorsports history. This isn’t about an obscure footnote; Muldowney is probably one of the 25 most important drivers in the history of ALL motorsports, simply because she was a groundbreaking racer who changed both history and perceptions. To overlook her accomplishments is simply, well, outrageous.

But there is, I suspect, more to this. Some of those writers will explain themselves by saying, “Well, drag racing isn’t really a ‘national’ sport. You know…it’s just not as big as IndyCar.”

Rubbish. Pure and simple, rubbish.

What do we base “national” on? Number of TV viewers? Number of events? Number of large U.S. urban markets covered? Paid attendance? Do the math on any of these categories, and you’ll find that NHRA easily holds their own against IndyCar or anybody else. Again, this isn’t meant as a criticism of IndyCar; it’s simply a matter of being objective, and accurate.

The funny thing is, I’m sitting here defending the NHRA, and I’m not even a drag racing guy. I’m an oval racing guy, who deeply respects drag racing. Listen, if you’re willing to suit up and go 300 mph in front of a huge national audience with Fortune 500 sponsors on your car, that’s “major” enough for me.

What this reveals, I think, is that many of those who cover IndyCar secretly—or overtly, in some cases—disdain and ridicule any other form of racing. NASCAR? Tobacco-spittin’ hicks. Drag racing? Straight-line greasers. Short track racing? Backwater nobodies. Motorcycles? Uneducated thrill-seekers. And so forth. Only IndyCar—with perhaps a nod of acceptance toward sports car racing—is deemed civilized and “important” enough for consideration.

The sad fact is, even though she was sadly overlooked last weekend, Shirley Muldowney’s accomplishments are far more impressive than Danica’s simply because of the era in which they took place. Muldowney faced a vastly more hostile environment in the 1970s, when many would go out of their way to sabotage or short-circuit her efforts. The world was different then, and blatant sexism was not just accepted, but encouraged in many corners. But Muldowney succeeded because of two simple reasons: 1) she was as tough as nails, and refused to allow others to defeat her dreams; and 2) she was immensely talented behind the wheel. Almost single-handedly she changed the world, because she changed our perception. She forced us to give her her due, because she earned it.

Yet, some of my colleagues have either forgotten her or are ignorant of her. How sad, on either account.

We should celebrate Danica’s wonderful accomplishment, and allow her to bask in the glory of the moment. But as journalists, let’s get it right: She isn’t the first. And that’s a fact.

April 21, 2008 - Midget Greatness?

Last week I had a great conversation with NSSN Editor Mike Kerchner, and it really got my thoughts going on something: Who is the greatest driver in the history of midget racing?

Mike and I were discussing an upcoming special section in NSSN that will run in June, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the first official midget race back in 1933. A ton of racing has taken place since that historic day, with a tremendous number of great racers at the wheel.

But who is the best? That’s a very significant statement, to say that a driver is better than all who have come along. It’s something I’m going to mull over for a special column in that issue. I have my thoughts, but I want to think this through before I form a solid opinion.

Often somebody is called “the greatest.” For example, Steve Kinser is generally spoken of as the greatest sprint car driver in history. He certainly has the numbers, with 20 WoO titles, over 500 WoO wins, and a dozen Knoxville Nationals titles. But some, particularly senior observers from the east, might argue that Tommy Hinnershitz is the greatest. Others might say Jan Opperman. Still others would point to Pancho Carter.

A.J. Foyt is said to be the greatest Indy car driver in history. But what about Parnelli Jones? Mario Andretti? Al Unser? Rick Mears? And in stock cars, is Richard Petty the greatest ever? Or is it David Pearson, Cale Yarborough, or Dale Earnhardt?

It’s a very subjective topic, no doubt. And frankly, it’s a meaningless discussion. For example, Tony Stewart never raced against Tommy Hinnershitz or Bobby Grim. Who is to say which is better, since they could never prove it head-to-head?

There is also the matter of statistics, which shouldn’t be the only judging standard. Statistics can be quite misleading, because many racers moved on to championship racing or NASCAR and didn’t stick around long enough to post really big numbers in midgets and sprint cars. Foyt, Parnelli, Mario, and Johnny Rutherford, among others, are in this category, as well as a lot of contemporary guys. For example, how many midget and sprint car wins would Jeff Gordon, Stewart, Stevie Reeves, Ryan Newman, J.J. Yeley, Kenny Schrader, Jason Leffler, et al, have if they were still in the smaller cars? Here is the easy answer: A bunch.

I’m really looking forward to the special issue of NSSN. I’m proud the paper is making such an effort to recognize a truly historic occasion, and I think it will be a deserving honor for one of the most exciting forms of motorsports.

April 7, 2008 - USAC's New Man

Sunday afternoon was a beautiful day in Central Indiana, a perfect opportunity to open the “outdoor” season at Anderson Speedway. The USAC National and Kenyon midgets were on hand, and it was a great afternoon of sunshine and racing.

I had an enjoyable talk with Kevin Miller, the new USAC president. Whether it was in the press suite overlooking turn one or walking through the pit area, it was obvious he was carefully studying every aspect of the operation. Regardless of anything else at this early stage, I’ll give the guy high marks for being a hands-on leader. It’s clear he’s serious about imparting the change he says is needed within the organization, and the racing industry as a whole.

He has some interesting ideas, some of which, frankly, I think are overly ambitious. But that’s how it should be: Why not aim high, and set high goals for your organization? Even if you fall short, you’re raising the bar. If he tries some of the ideas he’ll get a few scrapes and bumps, but I’ll bet some will be winners. It will take some courage on his part, but he seems like a guy who isn’t afraid to take risks and try things. That’s good.

One of the subjects on his mind is how racing is currently presented to the audience. He feels the sport has a serious challenge in attracting young fans with our current format. Although I’m always a bit hesitant to change things, I think he’s onto something. Short track racing is kind of stuck in a rut: qualifying, heats, features. The next night, it’s qualifying, heats, features. Add in too many yellows, too many delays, too many classes, and it’s very obvious that if we want to attract young people —with very short attention spans — we probably have to think of new ways to present auto racing to make it more appealing.

I like the idea of trying some new formats. Let’s try something different! For example, if you’ve got enough cars, split the field and run two qualifying features. Then take the top 12 from each prelim and go right into a feature race, maybe 50 or 75 laps on a bullring. Hey, it might be a refreshing difference.

It will be interesting to watch Miller over the next year or two to see what he can accomplish. He’s got some good ideas, but he also faces some tough challenges and probably some unpopular and difficult decisions. Change won’t be easy. It never is. But it’s probably worth it.