Showing posts with label Daytona 500. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daytona 500. Show all posts

Friday, February 18, 2011

Remembering Dale Earnhardt



There are many interests, many tastes that I share with others in my native region.

But, in some ways, I guess I am out of step with the majority of my fellow Southerners. I have never particularly cared for iced tea, for example, and I have never been a fan of NASCAR.

That doesn't mean, however, that I don't respect those who do like iced tea or watch NASCAR.

My friend Phyllis, who died last year, became a NASCAR fan in the last years of her life, and she tried — with little success — to educate me in the finer points of the sport. We had lost touch, then got back in touch a year before she died. We communicated frequently by e–mail and via "chats" on Facebook during that final year.

It was like old times. I often thought, when Phyllis and I wrapped up one of our Facebook chats, that we were kind of like Forrest and Jenny in "Forrest Gump" after they were reunited as adults.

Phyllis and I were like peas and carrots. And it was over far too soon.

Considering how much I have written about Phyllis in the months since she died, there should be no doubt about my admiration for her. And, if she had lived, I probably would have tried to watch some races — if only to be able to discuss them intelligently with her.

But I doubt that she could have persuaded me to become any kind of regular NASCAR follower.

(Now, let me remind my readers that I worked for many years on newspaper sports copy desks, but I have never regarded auto racing as a sport. In my mind, "sport" implies athletic ability, and I see nothing particularly athletic about sitting behind the wheel of a car.

(It is a competition, but it is not athletic.

(I recall saying that once to Phyllis, and she vehemently disagreed with me — but she preferred to use the word "skill," not "athletic ability.")

I have missed Phyllis frequently in the six months since she died, and today is one occasion when I would have liked to have heard her thoughts.

Today is the 10th anniversary of the death of Dale Earnhardt Sr. in a crash at the Daytona 500, and I honestly wish I could ask Phyllis for her thoughts about an article by Liz Clarke in yesterday's Washington Post.

Not long before Phyllis died, she started a blog about NASCAR. She only made one entry — she may have been in a lot of pain when she wrote it, and I know she went into the hospital for what turned out to be the final time a few weeks later — but I had the distinct impression when I discovered the blog sometime after her death that she always intended to do much more with it. She just ran out of time.

But if she hadn't died, I imagine Phyllis would have had some interesting things to say about this anniversary.

At the end of her life, she liked to joke about herself. She called herself a "redneck," for example, even though those closest to her always knew that would never be true.

And I would have been the first to stand up and argue with anyone, even (or perhaps that should be "especially") Phyllis herself, who suggested that she might be "ignorant."

Phyllis was one of the most intelligent people I have ever known. Any competition that could capture her attention and retain her interest couldn't be as simple and dumb as some people contend.

Clarke writes that "for many, stock–car racing's soul died that day" in 2001 and asserts that NASCAR hasn't recovered.

"Attendance and TV ratings have slipped," Clarke writes, "a product of the malaise affecting the economy at large but also, in the minds of some, the result of a number of missteps made by the sport in reaction to Earnhardt's death."

That seems like an awful lot to pin on the influence of a single event — or a single death — but Earnhardt's death was a seismic experience for many people.

And, lest we forget the kind of impact a single event — or a single death — can have on people, let's remember things like the celebrations that followed the rescue of baby Jessica from the well in Texas more than 20 years ago — or the global grief after Princess Diana died in a car crash a decade later.

"[T]o millions of sports fans, NASCAR is simply an annoyance," writes Clarke. "They stumble on a stock–car race on TV and see nothing but cars going around and around to nowhere.

"But to Dale Earnhardt, NASCAR led past the textile mill's gates and farther than he ever dreamed. And with every high–banked, hair–raising turn he made in that black No. 3, he took legions of fans along for the wild ride."


Roy Lang III of the Shreveport Times says kind of the same thing. Lang observes that Earnhardt's crash led to some revolutionary safety changes in NASCAR, but his loss has hurt NASCAR in other ways.

"NASCAR has learned how to make the sport safer," Lang writes. "And the benefits are immeasurable. However, in the same period of time, we've learned Earnhardt was irreplaceable."

I don't know if Phyllis became a NASCAR fan before or after this day in 2001. Consequently, I don't know how much influence Earnhardt may have had on her.

I do know she was a fan of Jimmie Johnson, and, while I know little about stock–car racing, I know that Johnson was about half Earnhardt's age 10 years ago. His career was just getting started when Earnhardt's life was ending.

But, even if Phyllis became a NASCAR fan after Earnhardt died, I'm sure she would have had an opinion on where it was and where it was going. She just might not have had the perspective that came with watching Earnhardt compete in the years before his fatal crash.

I think Phyllis would agree, though, that Johnson, as successful as he has been, hasn't been able to fill the void that was left by Earnhardt.

Just as I doubt that anyone will ever be able to fill the void that was left by Phyllis. She was irreplaceable, too.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Some Thoughts on the Eve of Daytona 500



I grew up in the South.

Regional stereotypes suggest that I should be a hunter, a fisherman, a devotee of auto racing.

Well, I guess I defy pigeonholes, but I have never owned a gun, I used to fish occasionally but it was never a burning passion of mine, and I have never been a fan of auto racing.

But I have an old childhood friend who tells me she has become quite a NASCAR fan. She admits she had her reservations initially, knowing NASCAR's reputation as a redneck activity.

And I can assure you, if you grew up in Arkansas (or, probably, any other place in the American South), you didn't need Jeff Foxworthy to come along to give you instructions in redneck culture. You already knew.

As I told my friend recently, I have always been proud of my Southern heritage. I may not embrace some Southern pastimes — like hunting or fishing or stock car racing — with the enthusiasm of many of my fellow Southerners, but I have always believed that there is a lot more "there" there than folks in other parts of the country would have you believe.

I've always resisted regional stereotypes, like the general impression that Southerners are ignorant. I don't think anyone would think my friend was ignorant. She was probably the most intelligent person in my high school class.

And, when we knew each other in high school, she wasn't a NASCAR fan. But it's been a taste that she has acquired as an adult. And now she tells me that she enjoys the "ins and outs" of the sport.

I don't know if I would call it a "sport." I live in a densely populated area, where seeing many cars on the road at the same time is nothing special. And "sport," to me, has always suggested some sort of athletic skill. I see no athleticism involved in sitting behind a wheel and pressing an accelerator with your right foot.

Now, I will admit that I've always enjoyed horse racing. Some people might argue that there is little difference between auto racing and horse racing, but I disagree. I think there is an element of athleticism involved in riding an animal, even if it is mostly a matter of being shorter and lighter than most people. And, at a time when there are heightened concerns about fuel efficiency and climate change, auto racing strikes me as being an almost unconscionable waste of nonrenewable natural resources whereas the energy that is used in a horse race comes from the crops that are raised to feed the horses.

Nevertheless, NASCAR certainly has a lot more followers now than it did when I was a child. It has its own website, which seems to be a sure sign that it has "arrived."

But it seems to me that auto racing needs something to put it on the sports map, to make it palatable for casual observers who typically may watch it for a few minutes while they wait for something else to come on.

I don't think auto racing, even in an abbreviated form, will ever be an Olympic sport.

But I think it needs a persona whose appeal can transcend its boundaries.

Like Tiger Woods in golf. Or Muhammad Ali in boxing.

Even major sports need a jolt from time to time. After the strike in the mid–1990s, major league baseball, long recognized as America's pastime, had no shortage of personalities, but it needed something special to attract alienated fans. It got that in the form of the single–season home run record duel between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.

McGwire's recent admission that he used steroids during his career may taint that memory and lead to new problems for major league baseball. But, really, it isn't unusual for a boom in popularity for a given sport to disappear. It often happens when a big name leaves the scene. Clearly, boxing struggled after Ali retired.

But an appealing personality will bring in new followers, some of whom may stay even after that personality is gone. At least, that's the hope — kind of like the 1992 presidential election, when many people expressed their hope that Ross Perot's independent candidacy, although not successful, had brought millions of people into the political process who would continue to participate even after Perot left the scene.

So who can fill that role for NASCAR?

Today, I have been reading Bruce Martin's Sports Illustrated preview to tomorrow's Daytona 500, and he writes about many aspects of the race that my friend probably knows about but about which I am ignorant. However, he kind of touches on my point when he asserts that viewers will probably get tired of hearing about Danica Patrick.

My friend talks to me of Jimmie Johnson, who is the defending NASCAR champion. She is an admirer of his, and I have heard — largely through my friend — of his accomplishments, but, truth be told, the only person with whom I am familiar who has that name has silver hair and made his name as a football coach (and he also spells his first name differently).

As successful as he is, Jimmie Johnson's not the one to make NASCAR America's new pastime. In my opinion, anyway.

Other than Patrick, the only NASCAR driver I have known much about in the last couple of decades, Dale Earnhardt Sr., died in a wreck at Daytona nearly 10 years ago. Since Earnhardt's death, NASCAR seems to have existed in something of a vacuum. Its fan base knows about Jimmie Johnson. Folks outside of its fan base are familiar with some names but not necessarily their achievements.

I tend to agree with Mike Freeman of CBS Sports, who says, "It doesn't take a Venn diagram to see Patrick and NASCAR need each other."

David Newton of ESPN.com says Patrick has been preparing for this all her life.

I know there are people who don't believe women should be competing in auto racing. But, in an era when a woman came so close to winning her party's nomination for president and another woman was nominated for vice president by the other party, it seems hopelessly sexist and, frankly, out of touch to suggest that a woman can't compete in any sport that does not require her to share a dressing room with a bunch of guys.

Well, it seems that way to me, anyway.

So I say ...

If NASCAR wants to attract a new generation of fans, it is time to give Patrick her chance.