Johnson says seven titles unlikely

Nov 10, 2009 | Posted by: The New Twenty | Full story: www.canada.com

Jimmie Johnson, driver of the #48 Lowe's Chevrolet, celebrates in victory lane after winning the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series AAA 400 at Dover International Speedway on September 27, 2009 in Dover, Delaware.

Comments
1 - 11 of 11 Comments Last updated Nov 12, 2009

“Bull Ship”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 10, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Under the classic point system, he would only have two titles and would of lost the top spot as of last week.
The Fat and the Furious

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 10, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Under the classic point system, no one knows what the standings would be right now. Drivers and teams would approach the season differently than they currently do, so determining what the standings would be is an effort in futility.

Why people want to talk about the way it used to be is beyond me. There's no way to determine who would have approached this race or that race in a different way if we had the old point system. For example, the first race at Michigan this year. Maybe if we used the old point system, Jimmie doesn't stay out and try to make it on fuel. He could have pitted and still had a good shot to win the race, even if not a win, probably a top 5 finish. Because, in the old point system, winning at Michigan held less bearing on the overall picture. Your not racing for those 10 bonus points which can be vital when the chase starts. Another example could be Tony Stewart. Maybe in the old point system, they don't do some of the things they did after they were locked into the chase. Juan Montoya could also be another example. Maybe he tries harder to win (especially some of those last 8-10 races) instead of just worrying about making it in the chase.

There's just no way to determine what the point standing would be right now. Guys racing with a different goal in mind could have an effect on how many races turned out. People race in the system that is in place and everyone out there employs some kind of strategy because of it, especially the guys racing around the top 10-15.

“IN GOD WE TRUST”

Since: Jun 07

Raleigh

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 11, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Fat and the Furious wrote:
Under the classic point system, no one knows what the standings would be right now. Drivers and teams would approach the season differently than they currently do, so determining what the standings would be is an effort in futility.
Why people want to talk about the way it used to be is beyond me. There's no way to determine who would have approached this race or that race in a different way if we had the old point system. For example, the first race at Michigan this year. Maybe if we used the old point system, Jimmie doesn't stay out and try to make it on fuel. He could have pitted and still had a good shot to win the race, even if not a win, probably a top 5 finish. Because, in the old point system, winning at Michigan held less bearing on the overall picture. Your not racing for those 10 bonus points which can be vital when the chase starts. Another example could be Tony Stewart. Maybe in the old point system, they don't do some of the things they did after they were locked into the chase. Juan Montoya could also be another example. Maybe he tries harder to win (especially some of those last 8-10 races) instead of just worrying about making it in the chase.
There's just no way to determine what the point standing would be right now. Guys racing with a different goal in mind could have an effect on how many races turned out. People race in the system that is in place and everyone out there employs some kind of strategy because of it, especially the guys racing around the top 10-15.
Right on, Fats. An excellent post. I fully agree.

“Bull Ship”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 11, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

The Fat and the Furious wrote:
Under the classic point system, no one knows what the standings would be right now. Drivers and teams would approach the season differently than they currently do, so determining what the standings would be is an effort in futility.
Why people want to talk about the way it used to be is beyond me. There's no way to determine who would have approached this race or that race in a different way if we had the old point system. For example, the first race at Michigan this year. Maybe if we used the old point system, Jimmie doesn't stay out and try to make it on fuel. He could have pitted and still had a good shot to win the race, even if not a win, probably a top 5 finish. Because, in the old point system, winning at Michigan held less bearing on the overall picture. Your not racing for those 10 bonus points which can be vital when the chase starts. Another example could be Tony Stewart. Maybe in the old point system, they don't do some of the things they did after they were locked into the chase. Juan Montoya could also be another example. Maybe he tries harder to win (especially some of those last 8-10 races) instead of just worrying about making it in the chase.
There's just no way to determine what the point standing would be right now. Guys racing with a different goal in mind could have an effect on how many races turned out. People race in the system that is in place and everyone out there employs some kind of strategy because of it, especially the guys racing around the top 10-15.
The last time I checked, drivers still race to win no matter if they're in the chase or not so to point out all different goals certain drivers might have or how they would use certain strategies is like trying to tell the future. The bottom line is I don't think #48 would be as good as he seems to be right now under the classic point system.
The Fat and the Furious

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 11, 2009
 
Grogan wrote:
<quoted text>The last time I checked, drivers still race to win no matter if they're in the chase or not so to point out all different goals certain drivers might have or how they would use certain strategies is like trying to tell the future. The bottom line is I don't think #48 would be as good as he seems to be right now under the classic point system.
That's great and all, but I don't see your reasoning. There's a lot more evidence to support that he'd be just as good than there is to support that he'd do worse. For example: He has more wins than anyone over his 8 years in cup and the margin is pretty significant over everyone except Tony Stewart and Jeff Gordon. He holds a decent lead over those 2 also. He is 2nd in top 10's to Tony Stewart over the last 8 years also, by a small margin. I'm sorry, but those kind of results point to being very successful.

No, drivers don't race to win always. That is a fallacy that seems to float around in some people's minds. They always want to win, but sometimes you just don't have the car and you race to get what you can get. That has been the case since Nascar's inception. That's how drivers win championships, by realizing that you can't win them all and being smart on those days when you struggle for a decent finish.

I'm sorry that you think me pointing out how the chase changes strategies is trying to predict the future. If anything, my post was to counter those who were trying to predict a future in the old point system. My post was pointing out to those people that there is no way to predict who the points leader would be right now. I'm not trying to predict anything, because I accept that the system is what is right now. In that system, Jimmie is the points leader and that's the pure fact. No prediction, no what ifs, no wondering. He races in this system just like every team out there and they all have an equal opportunity to do what he has done. You trying to point out that what I said is, predicting the future, but to than state that you don't believe that Jimmie would have this success in the old point system, is hypocritical. Aren't you pretty much saying what the future would have been in a scenario, just as you claim that I did?

Anyway, I still stand by my statement that the chase changes how teams approach the season. That has nothing to do with predicting the future, it's a pure face as far as I'm concerned. The ones trying to predict the future, are the ones always talking about who the champ would have been. I talk about who the champ is.
Larry D

Lexington, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 12, 2009
 
It has become too much of a business. Money drives everything now and when that happens the passion for the sport is gutted. I went to my first race in the 1960’s and the sport has changed so much now that it does not resemble the original. I have heard some of the talk about TV ratings and why they are down. This is my take on it, when I hear Mark M. talk I still hear the passion in his voice I still believe that money is not the sole motivation for Mark and he does it because he loves it, win or lose he loves it. Too many of the current “stars” only like it or love it when they are winning. I miss the Harry Gants and the Ricky Rudd, we have a few left out there, Dale Jr and Carl Edwards and Matt K Tony S They remind me of the Allisons, Dale Sr, and the Cale but they seem to be the exception. When it becomes about the money it takes the passion out of the players it is not a sport any more it is a business. I remember a Quote I believe it was from Bill Jr. when Toyota was getting into the sport and the concern was that Toyota would spend huge amount of money to win, he told them they were welcome to race and that he hoped they would win but only by that much as he held his finger and thumb about a half inch apart. I am not a Toyota hater, I have worked in in the automotive industry for thirty years and I know that Toyotas are as much of an American Vehicle as any of the others. Money buys speed and money drives the sport I will continue to watch but I am losing my passion for the sport and I did not think I would ever hear myself say that. The sad thing is that both NASCAR and I lose.

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 12, 2009
 
The Fat and the Furious wrote:
Under the classic point system, no one knows what the standings would be right now. Drivers and teams would approach the season differently than they currently do, so determining what the standings would be is an effort in futility.
Why people want to talk about the way it used to be is beyond me. There's no way to determine who would have approached this race or that race in a different way if we had the old point system. For example, the first race at Michigan this year. Maybe if we used the old point system, Jimmie doesn't stay out and try to make it on fuel. He could have pitted and still had a good shot to win the race, even if not a win, probably a top 5 finish. Because, in the old point system, winning at Michigan held less bearing on the overall picture. Your not racing for those 10 bonus points which can be vital when the chase starts. Another example could be Tony Stewart. Maybe in the old point system, they don't do some of the things they did after they were locked into the chase. Juan Montoya could also be another example. Maybe he tries harder to win (especially some of those last 8-10 races) instead of just worrying about making it in the chase.
There's just no way to determine what the point standing would be right now. Guys racing with a different goal in mind could have an effect on how many races turned out. People race in the system that is in place and everyone out there employs some kind of strategy because of it, especially the guys racing around the top 10-15.
the old points system becomes significant when it is brought up how many titles richard has.

richard's were under the old points system. to alot of people if you are going to compare drivers of the past to drivers of today, it has to be with the same points system.

if the points system were still the same, jeff gordon would have 6 titles.

the conspiracy theory is that nascar changed the system to keep hendrick from becoming the owner with the most championships. kinda failed huh!

TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE.
Larry D

Lexington, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 12, 2009
 
love_spell wrote:
<quoted text>
the old points system becomes significant when it is brought up how many titles richard has.
richard's were under the old points system. to alot of people if you are going to compare drivers of the past to drivers of today, it has to be with the same points system.
if the points system were still the same, jeff gordon would have 6 titles.
the conspiracy theory is that nascar changed the system to keep hendrick from becoming the owner with the most championships. kinda failed huh!
TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE.
I agree JJ will have an * beside his titles because how can you compare him to the others without using the old system.

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 12, 2009
 
Larry D wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree JJ will have an * beside his titles because how can you compare him to the others without using the old system.
exactly!

“"drive for five in'10"”

Since: Jan 07

Your the Man!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 12, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well, we're not running under the old system and thats what will be looked at. The old system is gone and thats the way it is. This is the 21st century Nascar. New drivers, new cars, new era.
The Fat and the Furious

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 12, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

love_spell wrote:
<quoted text>
the old points system becomes significant when it is brought up how many titles richard has.
richard's were under the old points system. to alot of people if you are going to compare drivers of the past to drivers of today, it has to be with the same points system.
if the points system were still the same, jeff gordon would have 6 titles.
the conspiracy theory is that nascar changed the system to keep hendrick from becoming the owner with the most championships. kinda failed huh!
TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE.
Sorry, but I don't agree at all. There have been many changes in Nascar over the years and no driver from a different era had things the same. You have to compare a driver's legacy based on what he did in his time, not how things are different from another time. No sport's rules and format goes without changes over time, so trying to say one guy wasn't as good as another because of those changes, is a bit ridiculous.

We don't say that Earnhardt wasn't as good as people from the previous era, despite the fact that there were many changes in between those 2 eras. So, why than, should Jimmie not get the same credit based on what he's done within the rules and regulations of his time? This applies to every sport out there. We don't say that Mickey Mantle wasn't a great baseball player because he didn't play in Ty Cobbs time, despite the many changes that happened for the sport. We don't say that Emmitt Smith wasn't a great running back because he didn't play in Jim Brown's time, despite the many changes in football over those eras.

There's never any real way to compare eras in any sport. Some will prefer the old and some the new and some may prefer a mix of old/new. That doesn't make one person right and another wrong, it just makes multiple ways of viewing the matter. In the future there will be yet another driver with a lot of success and some will say he's not as good as someone else from a different era. There are always going to be the naysayers, but that doesn't make them right/wrong, it's just there perspective on the matter.

What I try to do is not compare the differences between eras, but compare the successes. That's my point of view. That why I can state that Petty, Jarrett, Pearson, Waltrip, Earnhardt, Gordon, Johnson, etc..... were all in the top tier of drivers who ever raced in Nascar. I can put aside changes in format, rules, tracks and how racing in general is approached, and judge the top drivers based on the success they've had as opposed to the era they've raced in. If others can't do that, that's fine and good, but I personally feel that there missing out on enjoying a historical part of Nascar by doing so. Because, being able to look back and say you watched a great in any sport compete, is a great cherished memory for many people. I wasn't a Dale Sr. fan, but I have no qualms in telling anyone I can, that I had the privilege of watching a legend in person and I'll have the same feeling toward Jimmie and many others who I've watched over the years.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••