Johnson’s Championships Without Honor?

by Steve Wronkowicz

I am co-host of the syndicated radio show: ON PIT ROW. Charlie likes to call me an "idiot". I'm not an "idiot"; I just prefer not to let the facts get in the way of my opinions.

10 Responses to “Johnson’s Championships Without Honor?”

1. The Old Guy on November 18th, 2008 10:01 am

   Jimmie Johnsons three cups will never carry the same honor as Cale’s. Only 2006 and 2008 are legitimate title for Johnson. 2007 was as legitimate as Kurt Busch’s 2004 title. IOW, it was not.

2. Callaway on November 18th, 2008 12:08 pm

   Say all you want about the “old days” and yes I lived through them as well a win is a win and a Championship is a Championship he won against who he was running against and the system the series put forth. To try and diminish current accomplishment does not make one more impressive than the other just because it happened in the past. One could say the same thing about some of the Kings 200 wins coming against much less competitive cars does that make them less of a win? All they had to do to was beat him on the track which they didn’t do and there was as much “honor” winning it this year as in any year. Trying to make someone look smaller doesn’t necessarily make others look larger. I’m not a Jimmy Johnson fan either but for the focus he and his team showed deserves as much praise as any other Championship team regardless of era.

3. Robin on November 18th, 2008 3:08 pm

   Winning the championships under the old system means more. Jimmy would not have 3 consecutive championships if we were under the traditional point system.
   He would only have one. Jeff Gordon and Carl Edwards would have the other two championships.

4. Rich o on November 18th, 2008 4:10 pm

   Forget championships without honor, not enough mention of qualifing being rained out, J.J. PASSED MORE CARS ON PIT ROAD THEN ON THE TRACK. Being handed the choice of the 1st pit stall was huge being anybody, backmarker or not who took off in clean air could strech it out. Just look at Gordon when he finally could get track position and clean air. Under the old system J.J. HAS 1, AND WOULD HAVE TO RACE THE WHOLE FIELD, and again he is nothing without his crew chief, a great tactition. I hate the chase but what the heck I`m only a race fan, its boring and predictable, it also crowns a champion who has mastered the 10 week season and a resetting of the points, this guy was 400 behind last year when they reset, Nascar is driving fans away, we want hard chargers like Edwards and Busch and not guys who will settle for a 15th if their starting position wasn`t set by owner points. I`m turned off, BORING.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5. Steve Wronkowicz on November 18th, 2008 9:36 pm

   Thanks for the comments everyone. I guess my question hit a nerve–and amazingly enough there are good arguments on each side.

   I am not a huge Chase fan but i do like the excitement that it gives to the long boring summer months; as the “race to the chase” does add interest during what would otherwise be a terribly long stretch of less than exciting races.

   With that said–Jimmy has a huge amount of talent and he and Chad work so well together. JJ’s championships are in large part due to the ability of the two to work together. I have never seen a team of any type be able to “make” their own luck like these guys.

   Jimmy would never be able to drive in Cale’s era. Likewise Cale would be lost in a CoT. Both great champions–but I still will take Cale in a close shootout.

6. Charlie Turner on November 19th, 2008 10:05 am

   I’m surprised that Steve didn’t jump on Rich’s coat-tails with the complaint about the qualifying rain outs. Jimmie did have a great advantage in those races where the fields were set by points - at least over the drivers who had not made the Chase.

   It’s my belief that Chase championships are tougher to win. Kyle Busch this year and Jeff Gordon in 2007 help to prove it for me. Those guys dominated the pre-Chase season - as did Jimmie in 2004 - but they couldn’t sustain it for the final ten, when they had to race against a re-set field of the best 10-12 cars of the year.

   These are terrific comments and I don’t think there is any right or wrong answer. That’s what makes this stuff fun to discuss. Thanks for the comments everyone. Oh, and nice post Steve-O.

7. Steve Wronkowicz on November 19th, 2008 1:53 pm

   I have railed on the rain out situation enough–so I wasn’t going to go there again. But seeing as it has been put on the board again–NASCAr has to do something about rained out qualifying. Especially in the Chase; it is a huge advantage to get placed in the top 12 starting positions and changes, more than anything else, the complexion of the entire event.

   So many things in NASCAR are inter-twined. Suggestions by Eddie D’Hondt on our radio show one week ago called for the shortening and compaction of the race weekend to save money and increase time off for crew members. Two practices on Friday, another practice and/or qualifying on Saturday and racing on Sunday. If weather affects qualifying; it needs to be moved up to and includeing just before pre-race.

8. Marc on November 19th, 2008 4:09 pm

   Rich - “I hate the chase but what the heck I`m only a race fan, its boring and predictable, it also crowns a champion who has mastered the 10 week season and a resetting of the points,”

   It’s predictable Rich? So… can you point to the occasion where you predicted Kyle Busch would meltdown prior to race 27?

   As for the rest… how do you even make the chase if you haven’t “mastered” the first 26 events of the season?

   As for qual rainouts.. I would agree every effort should be made to have a legit qual session for all teams.

   However, to use a rainout and subsequent pole position “gift” as the crux of an argument that someone has a huge advantage during a 400-500 mile long event is beyond silly.

   In fact it’s not a valid argument at all… it’s grasping at a very small straw.

9. Callaway on November 19th, 2008 4:44 pm

   As for the Chase I really don’t like it either but that being said it is the game being played by Nascar at this time not 20 years not even 10 years ago. Regardless of who thinks Cale was better or Dale was better you must adapt your racing style to the type of system being run by the sanctioning body. Kenseth was one to adapt to the new points points points system when he won his Championship versus wins it might not suit everyone but the trophy is still on his mantle. At least Johnson won multiple races this year which is more than can be said about some of the previous winners. Running a comparison between Cale and Johnson remind me of when the networks around Masters time compare Bobby Jones with Tiger Woods, the game as has racing changed so much other than cocktail hour chatter you really can’t even do a honest comparison. But the point was about honor, well I’ve had the privilege of knowing some of the older guys in the sport and they would beat you any way they could on or off the track and honor had very little to do with it most had come up hard scrabble and racing tough and hard was the only way they knew how to do it to eat. Stock car racing in those days was not for the meek or timid sometimes the race was won by the last hard guy standing and winning meant being able to race the next week, guys today don’t have those type pressures. Different eras different types of pressure more money but maybe more headaches in the long run.

10. 2008 OPeR Award: Worst Post Race Interview | On Pit Row on January 3rd, 2009 8:22 pm

    [...] Jimmie Johnson deserves better. But hell, we’ve even been spelling his name incorrectly for the last three years. Who are we to change now? [...]

Got something to say?

Did you know you can log in with your Thunder Lounge account, and have your personal avatar and site link available when you comment at On Pit Row?

Don't have an account yet? Sign-up for free.