do you think NASCAR would achieve a little more respect and prestige...
03-04-2002 | 05:42 PM
#25
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
From: Cape Girardeau
Sorry Bieg, Russ...I was in a bad mood 'cause I was havin' a bad day, ever had one of those?
Look, here's all I'm saying. I don't believe that it takes the same kind of skill to pilot a NASCAR to a finish line as it does an F1 or WRC car. I also don't consider NASCAR true "racing" just like I don't consider a Camaro a true "Sports Car", but more truly a Muscle Car. Now before I get off on some tangent that ticks everyone off, I simply mean that NASCAR and F1 are in the same arena of sport driving (like an S2000 and a Camaro are in cars), but I don't believe that they are anywhere close to the same thing or should be treated the same, or given the same amount of credibility.
Warhol was a painter, so was Monet, were their talents comparable? No. They both did quality work, but the technical facility is far greater in Monet, very simple to see. Beyond the fact that they are both art, there is a very clear indication of who could manipulate a paintbrush better.
The NASCAR guys are a bunch of Good 'Ol Boys applying aerodynamic physics to a V8 and an attitude, that's all, they will never be on par with Ferrari/Schumi etc.. Just my opinion.
Andrew
Look, here's all I'm saying. I don't believe that it takes the same kind of skill to pilot a NASCAR to a finish line as it does an F1 or WRC car. I also don't consider NASCAR true "racing" just like I don't consider a Camaro a true "Sports Car", but more truly a Muscle Car. Now before I get off on some tangent that ticks everyone off, I simply mean that NASCAR and F1 are in the same arena of sport driving (like an S2000 and a Camaro are in cars), but I don't believe that they are anywhere close to the same thing or should be treated the same, or given the same amount of credibility.
Warhol was a painter, so was Monet, were their talents comparable? No. They both did quality work, but the technical facility is far greater in Monet, very simple to see. Beyond the fact that they are both art, there is a very clear indication of who could manipulate a paintbrush better.
The NASCAR guys are a bunch of Good 'Ol Boys applying aerodynamic physics to a V8 and an attitude, that's all, they will never be on par with Ferrari/Schumi etc.. Just my opinion.
Andrew
03-04-2002 | 05:57 PM
#26
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 851
Likes: 1
From: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
the warhol/monet was not a good example (imho). never even get into comparisons of artists. i'm married to an artist and learned long ago how subjective art is
i do get your drift on the other message and would like to pass along how impressed i am by the class of the folks who post on this board. it was great to see folks comment on the tone of the earlier messages, and also to see you make amends. too cool.
i do get your drift on the other message and would like to pass along how impressed i am by the class of the folks who post on this board. it was great to see folks comment on the tone of the earlier messages, and also to see you make amends. too cool.
03-05-2002 | 06:04 AM
#28
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
From: Cape Girardeau
Originally posted by jss2k
the warhol/monet was not a good example (imho). never even get into comparisons of artists. i'm married to an artist and learned long ago how subjective art is
i do get your drift on the other message and would like to pass along how impressed i am by the class of the folks who post on this board. it was great to see folks comment on the tone of the earlier messages, and also to see you make amends. too cool.
the warhol/monet was not a good example (imho). never even get into comparisons of artists. i'm married to an artist and learned long ago how subjective art is
i do get your drift on the other message and would like to pass along how impressed i am by the class of the folks who post on this board. it was great to see folks comment on the tone of the earlier messages, and also to see you make amends. too cool.
Hey, I can admit when I'm being an A$$, no big deal, it's not like everyone doesn't have those moments.
I agree with you on Art, I should have never said the word better . Better itself is a subjective term, not an objective one, it's up to the person seeing the Art to determine if they think it's better or worse than something. Having said that, I still don't think anyone would argue that Warhol had the technical painting facility of Monet, maybe I'm wrong.
Andrew
03-05-2002 | 06:32 AM
#29
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,397
Likes: 0
From: Cape Girardeau
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystic_350
Put someone like Montoya or Coulthard MS's car and see what happens. Better yet, put Shumacher in an Arrows or Minardi car and you know he won't win a race.
So, Schu never won with Benetton?
Does this mean that my Camaro should not be given the same amount of credibility as your S2000 as a sports car?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
What is the definition of a sports car anyway? Would you consider a ZO6 a sports car?
Main Entry: sports car
Function: noun
Date: 1928
: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving
I'd consider the Z06 closer to being a "sports-car" than a Camaro, but no true purist can see a heavy car like the Corvette as being a true sports-car, not like a Lotus Elise. These cars descend from ground-pounding torque, not finesse. Sports-car's are light, do you consider 3,600 lbs light? The Corvette has very impressive everything, but I still think it muscles it's way around and that in itself deletes it from being a purists sports car (IMHO).
How many times have you actually watched a Winston Cup race? I'm sure you'll say that you "used to watch it all the time" and have logged many hours in front of the t.v. on Sundays watching NASCAR.
Haha, no, not logged those hours...sorry. Bristol was my favorite because I like the night race late in the season. I figured Watkins-Glen or Sears Point would be my favorites, but that turned out to be not the case. I don't watch it at all anymore, waste of my time (IMHO).
D.W. is one of the best race announcers around because he has so much emotion and so much insight. Yes he talks like a good 'ole boy, but that adds charactor in my opinion. Fox has done a great job with the coverage trying to make it more user friendly, sometimes they dumb it down too much for me, then again sometimes I learn some of the most basic things about racing. BTW, the new F1 announcer on Speed Channel is TERRIBLE. Rick or Dick, something like that. I love F1 but he butchered that broadcast in my opinion.
A race is not it's announcer, you must be thinking football.
I understand where you are coming from with the Warhol/Monet argument, but art is so subjective that I'm sure some will tell you that Monet was an idiot and shouldn't have ever touched a brush. Not my argument at all, just trying to point out how radical opinions can be. I guess that's what we are discussing in this thread so the art argument might actually apply after all.
You're right, it can be argued such, but the facility itself cannot, one had more, one had less, weather or not we like it is personal opinion.
I'd be willing to bet you'd get lost in the first 30 seconds of a conversation between two of those Good 'ole Boy engine builders (and it won't be due to the southern drawl either). If you can't respect the fact that those stupid rednecks squeeze 750 hp out of a NA 355 cid small block under 9,000 rpm... well then you are just blinding yourself to some rather impressive engineering.
And I'd be willing to bet you're right, I'm not in that field. However, put those same Good 'Ole Boys in the ring with the guys at Ferrari and we will truly see who's lost and who shouldn't be. I never meant to attack the engineers, just the driving in comparison to F1 and Rally. Your reference to the 9,000 rpm redline was funny, don't even compare in ANY way the engineers for the big 3 in NASCAR to Honda, big mistake.
Andrew
Put someone like Montoya or Coulthard MS's car and see what happens. Better yet, put Shumacher in an Arrows or Minardi car and you know he won't win a race.
So, Schu never won with Benetton?
Does this mean that my Camaro should not be given the same amount of credibility as your S2000 as a sports car?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
What is the definition of a sports car anyway? Would you consider a ZO6 a sports car?
Main Entry: sports car
Function: noun
Date: 1928
: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving
I'd consider the Z06 closer to being a "sports-car" than a Camaro, but no true purist can see a heavy car like the Corvette as being a true sports-car, not like a Lotus Elise. These cars descend from ground-pounding torque, not finesse. Sports-car's are light, do you consider 3,600 lbs light? The Corvette has very impressive everything, but I still think it muscles it's way around and that in itself deletes it from being a purists sports car (IMHO).
How many times have you actually watched a Winston Cup race? I'm sure you'll say that you "used to watch it all the time" and have logged many hours in front of the t.v. on Sundays watching NASCAR.
Haha, no, not logged those hours...sorry. Bristol was my favorite because I like the night race late in the season. I figured Watkins-Glen or Sears Point would be my favorites, but that turned out to be not the case. I don't watch it at all anymore, waste of my time (IMHO).
D.W. is one of the best race announcers around because he has so much emotion and so much insight. Yes he talks like a good 'ole boy, but that adds charactor in my opinion. Fox has done a great job with the coverage trying to make it more user friendly, sometimes they dumb it down too much for me, then again sometimes I learn some of the most basic things about racing. BTW, the new F1 announcer on Speed Channel is TERRIBLE. Rick or Dick, something like that. I love F1 but he butchered that broadcast in my opinion.
A race is not it's announcer, you must be thinking football.
I understand where you are coming from with the Warhol/Monet argument, but art is so subjective that I'm sure some will tell you that Monet was an idiot and shouldn't have ever touched a brush. Not my argument at all, just trying to point out how radical opinions can be. I guess that's what we are discussing in this thread so the art argument might actually apply after all.
You're right, it can be argued such, but the facility itself cannot, one had more, one had less, weather or not we like it is personal opinion.
I'd be willing to bet you'd get lost in the first 30 seconds of a conversation between two of those Good 'ole Boy engine builders (and it won't be due to the southern drawl either). If you can't respect the fact that those stupid rednecks squeeze 750 hp out of a NA 355 cid small block under 9,000 rpm... well then you are just blinding yourself to some rather impressive engineering.
And I'd be willing to bet you're right, I'm not in that field. However, put those same Good 'Ole Boys in the ring with the guys at Ferrari and we will truly see who's lost and who shouldn't be. I never meant to attack the engineers, just the driving in comparison to F1 and Rally. Your reference to the 9,000 rpm redline was funny, don't even compare in ANY way the engineers for the big 3 in NASCAR to Honda, big mistake.
Andrew
03-05-2002 | 06:38 AM
#30
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
From: :spam:u
Eddie Cheever was a Formula-1 driver as well as CART and an IRL Driver (Currently). Dale Earnhardt still kicked his Ass on a regular basis in the IROC (International Race Of Champions) series. Cheever even commented on what an amazing driver Dale was. Jeff Gordon could race in ANY series including F-1 and kick ass because he has incredible car control and a natural born racer. He has TALENT and that is what counts. He chooses to race NASCAR because that is where the money and career longevity is.