Forum Counterpoint
By Dale Calkins
January 19 2007
SuperNjuwaitza, I am hiding nothing, that is really my point. Freedom of speach and to express one's opinions/ideas are the most important rights in a person's life. Not being able to express one's self due to religious, social or political oppresion is the greatest travesty which can befall an individual. My being Canadian or my living in the United Kingdom have really no relevance here.
355 Lives On, thank you for actually formulating a proper response, something Andy still can not seem to do. One last point to Andy though before I respond to your post. I never stated that anyone who does not share my opinion is a "slack-jawed, booger-eating moron" (largely because I never actually used those terms) rather that the majority of followers of NASCAR are rednecks, two very different points. If I am to set one example on this website, it is for people to be able to express their opinions in an open environment. I would not restrict what you say, nor would I want you to restrict what I say. I would much rather engage in a proper debate, which again you have avoided.
Right, 355 Lives On, thank you again for your rebuttal, I like to see proper debates launched by members.
First when I stated that: "NASCAR is as Michael states tin pieces of 1960's technology in shiny colors (to appeal to simple minded redneck Americans) running around in circles never changing gears or turning right."
That was obviously a colorful exageration to greater exagerat the point. sorry I should have stated that: " Based on comments made previously, Juan Pablo Montoya seems to have surmised that Michael Schumacher thinks that NASCAR is a sport involving cars which seem as though they are built of tin and comprised of mid 1900's technology, painted in bright colors for the benefit of sponsors who are looking to attract audience members who are intrigued by this, who may or may not be redneck Americans and regardless of the fan's sociopolitical background they seem to enjoy the afore mentioned vehicles driving in eliptical shaped circuits which do not comprise of right turns (unless it is one of the series' two road courses) and many of these tracks do not require gear changing."
Now I am sure you can agree that this is not only a run on sentance, but that it is far less interesting and provoking of comments (which I want to do) from readers. As Cale24 pointed out things become exagerated, that is just a matter of life and of more interesting journalism. Now, my exageration does not mean that Michael does not think that, in fact he probably does, based on his condescending tone to the attractiveness of the sport.
Michael very much implied that NASCAR requires little skill by what he stated and there should be little doubt that Schumacher does think that NASCAR is less intensive than Formula 1. I can not stress enough that my entire article was a comparisson between NASCAR and Formula 1. If we were comparing NASCAR to a demolition derby (regardless of the ironic similarities) then it would be perfectly logical to state that demolition derby racing requires less skill than NASCAR. NASCAR is comprised almost exclusively of driving around in a big circle (oval) with little action being taken by the driver other than to turn left and avoid walls and other cars, which the later two points are "no brainers." I just do not see how you could possibly believe that this requires more skill than to race on a twisty road (or street) circuit and sbstantially higher speeds through out in machines far mor advanced and with much greater control being required. Then there is a completely new element of racing in the rain. NASCAR completely stops all activities when even a little rain comes out, Formula 1 will only stop when the rain is so intense that it has completely flooded the circuit and the drivers can not see 10 feet in front of them. Now of course NASCAR is not set up for wet weather racing (no tyres for wet waether) but that means the drivers are not exposed to it and are there for less skilled in driving in difficult conditions. If you can control a racecar at 200 mp/h in the wet, you are far more likely to be able to control a car at 200 mp/h in the dry (like a baseball player swinging with a weight to improve their swing for when the weight comes off) than a driver that does not deal with rain. Obviously a series which requires wet weather driving is going to be more demanding of its drivers and require more skill than one that does not. Yes NASCAR is difficult, but in comparisson to Formula 1, it is less of a challenge.
Your point about me being unfamiliar with racing is rather pointless, largely as you know nothing about my racing knowledge. Following racing (Formula 1, MotoGP, sports cars, raid racing, endurance racing, WRC and to an extent NASCAR as well) for over 7 years of my 18 year life has given me quite a good idea of the comparissons between the different series. I do not simply follow Formula 1, that was a poor assumption on your part. I do not even enjoy the racing as much (not to say that I do not enjoy it, rather the opposite) as I enjoy the technology and all of the work and passion that goes into a winning machine. I would definitely not say that I am a racing expert but being involved in motorsports for years, especially as a journalist I have been able to learn quite a fair bit. Therefore your point is rather superfluous.
If anything I would say that Formula 1 is not the racing series which requires the most skill, in fact I would put it behind motorcycle racing (especially races like the Paris-Dakar) and rally racing. Where drivers race on completely unpredictable surfaces at high speeds through non-racing facilities with little or no technology to aid them. In comparisson to NASCAR rally cars are similar in their more basic aproach to vehicle design, but they are too very different series. Still it would not be unreasonable to compare NASCAR to the WRC and state that NASCAR requires less skill. Comparing two or more series and being able to state things about one that are better or worse than the other does not necesarilly mean that the series have to be similar. We could compare airplane racing with boat racing and still be able to draw logical conclusions. Which is what has been done here.
Juan Pablo Montoya is a good racing driver (not great) though in comparrison to other Formula 1 drivers (again we are comparing Formula 1 with other things, not just things on their own) he is not as good. I would think that Montoya (as one of the best racers in the world) would be able to dominate in NASCAR, after he became used to the driving style, car characteristics and getting used to what it takes to win. If this happens, it will look poorly on NASCAR racers and good on Juan Pablo. If it does not, it will look poorly on Montoya and not necessarily have any impact on judgement of NASCAR drivers.
If anything I am the least blind Ferrari/Formula 1 fan. I often criticize Ferrari, Formula 1 and even Michael Schumacher. As I stated above I am a motorsports fan and just because Ferrari, Formula 1 and Michael Schumacher are my favorite aspects of motorsports in no way makes me blind to other series.
Your point about the cost and prize winnings of NASCAR versus European racing series is a most certainly a non sequitur and has no relevance to this conversation. If you believe it does, please elaborate.
Again, you know nothing of me if you think I am a "racist, bigoted fool" as I am either of those things, in fact far from it. I am an extremely tolerant people, I simply have not tolerance for intolerant people. Ironic I know. Rednecks are the most intolerant people in the world, and their intolerance is never supported by facts. Criticism based on evidence is not intolerance. If I observe a legitimate point, you make think it racist, though racism is based on nothing other than misunderstanding, ignorance and unfounded hate. I understand rednecks, (born and raised in Western Canada) I am not ignorant of NASCAR (ask me about it, I will tell) and if I do hate rednecks (which I do not, I simply despise them) then my belief is based on facts about them.
My understanding of the world is not to be pulled into question here. If you choose to do so, then you shall be rather regretful. I understand much of the world as I have travelled much of my life, study (and enjoy studying) world history, politics, religions, etc. and love to gain knowledge of the world. You are mistake in thinking that I am intolerant of people who think differently than I as I always encourage people to form their own opinions based on facts and for them to express their opinions. I may not agree and I shall debate to the bitter end (which does result in my being wrong at times) but I shall always emplore them to think. If I am intolerant of anyone, it is those who do not think logically or in any matter not based on evidence, like extremely religious people, people who are just closed minded and in relation to this article, rednecks.
I do not see who my living in Windsor has any influence on my dealing with other cultures. If anything living in Windsor has exposed me to many different cultures (people of African, Asian and Arabic decent specifically) that I would never experience in Canada. This has been very good for me as I hae experienced cultural aspects and have been able to increase my knowledge of the world and formulate better and more informed opinions on their cultures and the world in general. I love to learn about others cultures (the majority of rednecks do not) either through interacting with them or reading (I do so enjoy reading about religions and cultures) and this I believe demonstrates that you know nothing about me and can not formulate any comments on my character. That is other than that I am opinionated and like to speak my mind, which is not a bad thing.
If I offend people with what I think then that is too bad and in most cases I would apoligize. I will never apoligize for thinking what I do or expressing what I think. Nor would I expect people to apoligize for what they think.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall (stolen from old Volty himself)
Again thank you for your response and I look forward to your response to this.