The 33 Greatest

[chuck34]

Certainly, it seems odd to me to include any current drivers or anyone who has competed in the event within the last, say, ten or twelve years, if not twenty years -- which would be my benchmark -- since it does take time to assess "greatness." That would slice the grid down a bit right there I would imagine.

100% agree. There needs to be some time to assess how much of an impact someone really had. As strange as it may sound, I don't think that Helio will rank very high on many people's lists 20-30 years from now, despite being a 3 time winner. Same probably goes for the two time winner, Dario. I just don't think that this "era" will have much impact in the long run I guess. But I don't know, and that's why I agree that 15-20 years or so should go by before admission to any "great list".

Some of the choices are quite easy (in no particular order since I refuse to play that game): Wilbur Shaw, Louis Meyer, AJ Foyt, Parnelli Jones, Bill Vukovich, Al Unser Senior, Tommy Milton, Ralph De Palma, Mauri Rose, Ted Horn, Rick Mears, Rex Mays, Dario Resta, Mark Donohue, and Mario Andretti, with there being on the cusp, Billy Arnold, Jim Clark, and Lloyd Ruby as personal choices. There might be one or even two or three that might also be on the cusp, but that would mean looking outside their efforts at the IMS for several of them. I simply cannot get to thirty-three.

I like all of these guys. I do somewhat wonder about Clark though. I had him on my list, and I think he's a great driver. But one of the greatest at Indy ....... ?

Having both a day job and being behind on my writing for the next editon of Rear View Mirror (shameless plug), I will not provide anything on my suggestions at the moment, but I will say that I do not think that too many of them are what I would consider to be as anything but Blinding Flashes of the Obvious types of choices. I think that it is obvious that Mays, Horn, and Resta are also choices based upon my personal assessment of their impact.

I will suggest that one could go through the final list -- with some additions and appropriate changes to reflect the suggested criteria regarding the timing, of course -- and consider each one on his/her merits and place them in the "great" category in the sense that each one was a remarkable driver and worthy and deserving of attention.

Do you think that it may be more useful to go through by decades or "eras" and pick 3 or 4? Would that make this any easier/better, or just come back to the same issues?

[Don Capps]

I do somewhat wonder about Clark though. I had him on my list, and I think he's a great driver. But one of the greatest at Indy ....... ?

Do you think that it may be more useful to go through by decades or "eras" and pick 3 or 4? Would that make this any easier/better, or just come back to the same issues?

Clark was a personal choice -- meaning that it is one influenced by a bit more subjectivity than the others, hence, being on the cusp or the point of going either way -- because he took to the track almost instantly and for four years was a major factor in the event, the 1967 outing being a bit of a shambles and the prospects for 1968 looking very good with the Type 56. I think that Clark was completely capable of winning three of the Memorial Day events, 1964 thru 1966. At the least, he is "great" in the sense I use the term.

Decades tend to be artificial lumps of time when it comes to automobile racing and there is always the usual brouhaha regarding how eras determined, so the defense rests on the notion that it does not matter how you do it, there are problems, issues. There are better uses of one's time, at least mine, than fretting over this sort of thing. I have an article or two from Speed Age in the mid-Fifties and the selections that were made for their racing hall of fame, which included E.V. Rickenbacher (nee Rickenbacker). Nothing is new regarding this sort of thing. Just as amateurs study tactics and the professionals study logistics, fans and automotive historians tend to focus their attention on very different aspects of the same thing.

[Chris R]

I vote for Tags!! (just kidding).....

[Will Rogers]

Where Danica Fan is concerned we have to remember that the word "fan" derives from "fanatic", which is defined as "someone with extreme or uncritical zeal or enthusiasm." Danica Fan's zeal is indeed extreme and uncritical, in that he/she has no idea about the real talent or capability of Danica Patrick--in fact would be held back by any connection to reality--so it's up to us to be the bigger, wiser person and not expect anything approaching rational thought.

[Don Capps]

A wise person once stated that lists were for shopping. In another part of the cyber-forum world, an agreement with that statement got this response: "At minimum, it's an index of public opinion--and to some extent--knowledge of the '500' right now. How much this list says about the drivers who participated in the '500' is debatable, but it definitely says something about the fans. And insofar as there is no racing without fan support, this subject is fit for (a certain well-known forum that was brought to life on 13 November 1999 and shall remain nameless). If you are convinced otherwise, then by all means rendezvous with H. Donald Capps and pound sand." Ah, it is wonderful to respected and admired. Any one now question why I tend to think that such lists are a delightful means to have meaningful discussions. At least Joe Yeager, not that I would dare mention his name, of course, spelled my name correctly. At any rate, this is the sort of thing that makes it very easy for automotive historians to give these sorts of place a very wide berth. But, as usual, I digress....

[SarahFan]

I have to disagree with the need for time to Assess greatness


Thats a cop out....

Take usain bolt and the Olympics a few years back..... You knew while it was happening you witnessing greatness ..... Same with micheal phelps

Or montoyas run

If helio wins a fourth and is leading a fifth and coming out of turn 4....and you are in the stands or watching on tv you know damn well your witnessing greatness

Just my opinion of coarse

[Chris R]

I have to disagree with the need for time to Assess greatness


Thats a cop out....

Take usain bolt and the Olympics a few years back..... You knew while it was happening you witnessing greatness ..... Same with micheal phelps

Or montoyas run

If helio wins a fourth and is leading a fifth and coming out of turn 4....and you are in the stands or watching on tv you know damn well your witnessing greatness

Just my opinion of coarse

good thoughts and I agree with you - in some ways time is a foe in assessing "great" events - who is left to say how great Frank Lockhart was?? Was Montoya's drive great? yeah, nothing else he does or does not do takes away from the "veni, vidi, vici" of it all...... sure he only raced once - but he made it count like no one before or since.... if that is not great it is at least cool....

As to some of the other points on this thread (not from SarahFan) I think all of this high mindedness about "the list" and lists in general misses the point.... There is NO WAY to objectively rank greatness. In and of itself, it is a non-emphirical and subjective exercise. Stats can serve as a guide but in the end it is the gut feeling and passion of the fan(S) who decide who is great and who isn't.... If you have great knowledge of the sport and have an opinion about who is the greatest than share it, it is all good and all interesting.... Sure Danica Fan is a bit caught up in Danica mania and sure Don Capps has a boatload greater depth of knowledge than most of us but I bet they both think AJ and Mario belong on "the list".....

So, it is all good. Greatness is in the eyes of the beholders (fans). I am quite certain there is no great list in the sky ranking the greatest drivers at the 500 so anything we come up with is both valid and entertaining - and that is all it is supposed to be......

As far as what the list says about the drivers etc. who participated in the 500, it says there are at least a crowd of us who give a damn - and that is all that matters.... Without people who are into the sport enough to make up a list of 33 and give good reasons for their list, there would be no sport, no future, no next 100 years.... So don't get so hung up on getting it right - there is nothing to get right - it is each of our opinions and there is nothing wrong with that.....

Finally, for those who do want some measure of objectivity, my best guess is that if we compared all of our "lists" there would be a huge amount of overlap - that overlap probably does give you at least a glimpse into "greatness"(that all so wonderfully human and completely subjective measure of things)......

[Bob Riebe]

I have to disagree with the need for time to Assess greatness


Thats a cop out....

Take usain bolt and the Olympics a few years back..... You knew while it was happening you witnessing greatness ..... Same with micheal phelps

Or montoyas run

If helio wins a fourth and is leading a fifth and coming out of turn 4....and you are in the stands or watching on tv you know damn well your witnessing greatness

Just my opinion of coarse

Talent is not the same as greatness, and that is part of problem with such lists.

There were drivers who never won, that pushed ****-box cars higher than any "great" would even try, Sheldon Kinser being one example. Extreme talent and a great drive, does that make him great, to some yes and to some no.

[SarahFan]

Micheal had talent

Mears achieved greatness

[Don Capps]

I have to disagree with the need for time to Assess greatness

Thats a cop out....

Take usain bolt and the Olympics a few years back..... You knew while it was happening you witnessing greatness ..... Same with micheal phelps

Or montoyas run

If helio wins a fourth and is leading a fifth and coming out of turn 4....and you are in the stands or watching on tv you know damn well your witnessing greatness

Just my opinion of coarse

And a coarse opinion it is, of course..

As an "arrogant, elitist historan" -- one of many wonderful endearments spat in my direction over the years on these fora -- I do not live in the moment nor do I wield the words "great" and "greatest" with indiscriminate abandon and the resulting debasement of such terms. That is, naturally, a minority opinion here and elsewhere one may be assured. Personally, I could really care who the "33 Greatest" are since that does not interest me, is not a focus or even a concern in the research and work I do in the field of automotive history.

I think "Chris R" reiterates some of the many points that have been raised here and elsewhere regarding this and similar exercises, so no need to really re-plow that furrow. I could point out that modernity has largely diminished the role of the past in the eyes of many here, given that many more can witness events as they happen, so that the Frank Lockhart's of the past tend to continue to fade from since few bother to read about the past as well.

I will refrain from thinking aloud that it is doubtful "SarahFan" was a history major if there is a disagreement regarding the need for time to assess, even in a vague sense, what is considered "greatness."

Bob, on the hand, does raise a point that so often gets lost in the brouhaha and cheerleading that surrounds such lists: "Talent is not the same as greatness, and that is part of problem with such lists." The less one knows, the easier such lists are to create, participate in the voting, and, generally, agree with, an observation based upon what nudged me away from the disease of "list mania" -- as well as my lumping such things in the bin of "Lazy Journalist Tricks and other Assorted Public Relations Gimmacks." As A.J.P. Taylor expressed it: "Knowledge breeds doubt, not certainty, anf the more we know, the more uncertain we become." (*) Then again, Taylor obviously did not deal with race fans, merely other historians.

There are often grand efforts in automobile racing that go unrewarded for no end of reasons. Bob provides the basis for many of those -- a driver managing to wrestle a difficult machine into contention before retiring from the event or a driver bringing home a "twelfth-place" machine home in eleventh or tenth or even eighth place. Many times these sorts of lists are really not concerned with "greatest" or "best" but, rather, with the most "successful," which can be, in some cases, an entirely different proposition, but not necessarily.

We have serious problems agreeing upon the criteria for Measures of Performance and Measures of Evaluation for things that really are important, much something as trivial, unimportant, and picayune as that for the "33 Greatest" for the 500 Mile Race.

We will doubtless continue to flail at this dead horse until each and every gram of flesh that can be converted to glue is extracted.

(*) A.J.P. Taylor, "What Else, Indeed?", The New York Review of Books, 5 August 1965 (Vol. 5 No. 1).