JSngry Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 (edited) Let's say that there's these two race car drivers who began and finished their career at the same time, and who were also always in the same races - one never raced without the other one being in the field. At the end of 5000 races, they both decide to retire. Driver A has won 2500 races, a whopping 50%. But in those races he didn't win, he never finished higher than 10th, and often didn't finish at all due to a tendency to crash on certain turns at certain tracks. Driver B, on the other hand, never won a race. Not one! But he finished every race, and he never finished lower than 3rd, Never! So, after both drivers retire, the debate amongst racing fans rages for decades as to who was the better driver. So, what say you? Edited June 17, 2003 by JSngry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 One can win a rave??? They have judges and everything? I learn something every day! So, even you are a NASCAR fan? What'ya know! Interesting question, and I would have a tough time saying, but I think most people will always go with who wins the race...look at the Greg Norman in Golf.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 17, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 Driver B, on the other hand, never won a rave/ Not one! The above error has been corrected. Now, on with the show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.D. Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 The one who finished every race is probably the better driver ( bet he always fastened his seat belt and never, NEVER drank coffee or used his cell phone while driving.) The other guy was obviously the better racer (or is that raver) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pryan Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 Driver B, on the other hand, never won a rave/ Not one! The above error has been corrected. Now, on with the show! Jeez Jim, I'm surprised you didn't accuse Berigan of being "anal-retentive". (see Basie Columbia thread in re-issues for reference). As for the question, I choose the guy who finishes every race (no worse than 3rd). Consistency is a tough thing, in sports and other areas of life. That he finished no worse than 3rd every time out makes him a consistently excellent driver also. But ya gotta admire the other guy too for going balls out all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 Driver A by a long shot. Driver B is a loser who is afraid to take chances. He is the perpetual follower. Big deal he finished each race. That's because he never gambled in hopes of trying to win. He is the type that is just satisfied with finishing as apposed to winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 I didn't know Hank was a race driver! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Dye Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 What Mnytime said. The object of a race is to beat the other drivers to the checkered flag. To do that 50% of the time in over 5000 races is really an accomplishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Driver A may be the one to be immortialized but Driver B is probably loved by his car owner because he brings his equipment home in one piece,the owner doesn't have to endure endless bad publicity and pay large fines(Tony Stewart or Paul Tracy anyone?)and you don't have to win many or any races to win end of the season championships. Driving a race car IMO takes a lot of huevos no matter if you finish third or win the friggin race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Winning 50% of the races he entered? Driver A is the greatest race car driver who ever lived! Driver B is an interesting curiousity, and worthy of respect (finishing no lower than 3rd would be impossible if he wasn't a great driver), but Driver A gets the nod. Hey, this isn't jazz. I can enjoy Louis Armstrong and Roy Eldridge, but there's no second in sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slsmcgrew Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 My twisted logical conculsion picks Driver B. He was always in the money and by a point system he would have been driver of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 (edited) My twisted logical conculsion picks Driver B. He was always in the money and by a point system he would have been driver of the year. Twisted logic is an understatement. Become champion by never winning. Though I would be interested to know how you figured Driver A's points since you don't know how many of the 2500 races he didn't win he didn't finish. Also, without knowing what place he did come in when he did finish outside of knowing it is not above 10th. Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Driver A by a long shot. Driver B is a loser who is afraid to take chances. He is the perpetual follower. Big deal he finished each race. That's because he never gambled in hopes of trying to win. He is the type that is just satisfied with finishing as apposed to winning. Hard to put it better than this. Here's your answer. No doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Dye Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 (edited) Though I would be interested to know how you figured Driver A's points since you don't know how many of the 2500 races he didn't win he didn't finish. Also, without knowing what place he did come in when he did finish outside of knowing it is not above 10th. The NASCAR point system works like this: The winner of a NASCAR race pockets 175 points. From there the points given decline in five-point increments for places two through six, points awarded drop four points per driver for positions seven through 11 and three-point increments separate drivers' points for finishers in 12th place or lower. The best case scenario for Driver A (2500 first place finishes and 2500 tenth place finishes) would net him 772,500 career points. The worst case scenario for Driver B (3000 3rd place finishes) would net him 825,000 career points. Driver B wins for career points in any scenario. Plus I didn't even take in to consideration that Driver A often did not even finish some races. However, I still believe that Driver A is the better driver. It's all about the checkered flag. Edited June 18, 2003 by Jim Dye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 As hypothetical arguments go this is a pretty silly one.Any race car driver who has had a prolonged career has taken the checkered flag somewhere.If they weren't dedicated to winning somewhere they wouldn't bother because only a fool would risk his or her life week in or week out and be ok with being an also ran. Where I differ with mny and conn 500 is trying to see this thing over a prolonged period of time.Joe Hotshot may win a pile of races and make his owner happy but in those races where he dnf's because he drove like a pig there are few championship points and there are other consequences especially if a driver involves other drivers in any given wreck.I believe that it is possible for a driver to win a drivers title without taking the checkered flag as long as that driver finishes consistently in the top 10.Matt Kenseth is the current Nascar points leader and he's taken the checkered flag once this year. Every driver wants to win but it's just as important to finish well on a regular basis because even if Joe Hotshot wins more races than anybody else somebody else might be enjoying the championship because Joe while he might take more chances might be taking too many stupid chances and as a result may watch far too many races from the garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 It's clearly driver A. Driver B is at best a second-tier hall of famer. Driver A, winning half of his races, would likely go down as the greatest of all time. Which team is more dominant: the one that has the most playoff appearances, or the one with the most championships? Clearly, the team with the most championships. Who is the greater physicist: Einstein, for his three Nobel-prize worthy ideas (photoelectric effect, special relativity, general relativity), or T. Suzuki for his record of 1,312 published academic papers? Well, I sort of doubt many of you have even heard of Suzuki, which goes a long way towards answering my rhetorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 (edited) Here's another analogy. Say the Dodgers go 0-162, but they lose every game by only one run. The Giants go 110-52, but they get their 110 wins by only one run each and in all of their 52 loses they are blown out by at least 10 runs. Which team had the better season? Obviously it was the Giants. If you think of each game as a race, I think it's a decent analogy. Driver B (the Dodgers) barely loses on a consistent basis while Driver A (the Giants) wins a large portion of the time while losing badly the rest of the time. Okay, this is admittedly a totally lousy analogy, but as a lifelong Giants fan, it's fun to imagine the Dodgers going 0-162. Edited June 18, 2003 by J Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 (edited) It's clearly driver A. Driver B is at best a second-tier hall of famer. Driver A, winning half of his races, would likely go down as the greatest of all time. Which team is more dominant: the one that has the most playoff appearances, or the one with the most championships? Clearly, the team with the most championships. Who is the greater physicist: Einstein, for his three Nobel-prize worthy ideas (photoelectric effect, special relativity, general relativity), or T. Suzuki for his record of 1,312 published academic papers? Well, I sort of doubt many of you have even heard of Suzuki, which goes a long way towards answering my rhetorical question. Albert Einstein only won one Nobel Prize in 1921. The only multiple winner I know of is Linus Pauling. Einstein's Nobel wasn't for his more well known Relativity theories but for photoelectric effects. Since he was dead by the time his Relativity theories had been proven and Nobel's only go to living people he was never awarded a Nobel for that work. By the way, what's holding up the Nobel for Stephan Hawkins? Since his theories on Black Holes have been proven by Hubbel. Back to the question at hand. Jeff Gordon at one time was winning 42% of the races he ran in and was hated by everyone of the other racers who where jealous of his winning so much as I understand it. He was considered the best driver during that time. Since changing his mechanic he hasn't done anywhere as well as I understand it. Now we are talking about someone that wins 50% the whole of his career. Any owner would take the driver that wins 50% of his races over someone that never wins. With all those wins Racer A gets more endorsements than Driver B. Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 (edited) I said three Nobel-prize worthy ideas; I didn't mean to imply he won more than one. Yes, he won primarily for the photoelectric effect, but his work on special relativity was commended on the certificate accompanying his medal and check. General relativity wasn't published until eight years later (oops, make that 14 - I was thinking he won in 1927 for some reason). When he won his award, the experimental status of special relativity wasn't secure enough to merit a Nobel for the theory. I don't know that Hawkings ever will win a Nobel. All of the black hole data is in much more dispute than what you'd think from the popular press. The guy who REALLY should have a Nobel by now is JS Bell, for his theoretical proof (verified by experiment!) that quantum non-locality is an essential part of nature and that no local theory can accurately describe the universe! Actually, Alain Aspect should share in that award for the ingenious experiment he devised to decisively demonstrate the violation of the Bell inequalities. Edited June 18, 2003 by J Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Gordon was(is)hated because he is a "dirty" race car driver.Gordon has never been shy about putting his opponents in the wall if that person stood between him and the checkered flag. Gordon just doesn't play nice just ask his ex wife. However she has 15 million good reasons to think Jeff isn't such a scumbucket after all. On the other hand there was Dale Earnhardt-god bless him-who had the nickname of the intimidator and he didn't earn that nickname by playing nice but NASCAR fans who loved Earnhardt HATED Gordon. I guess it's just one of those oddities of race car driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 The only multiple winner I know of is Linus Pauling. I knew there was another multi-winner, and I just remembered who it was. Marie Curie won in physics for the discovery of radioactivity and in chemistry for the isolation of various isotopes of uranium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 The only multiple winner I know of is Linus Pauling. I knew there was another multi-winner, and I just remembered who it was. Marie Curie won in physics for the discovery of radioactivity and in chemistry for the isolation of various isotopes of uranium. Yes, you are correct. Forgot about her second on her own without her husband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Gordon was(is)hated because he is a "dirty" race car driver.Gordon has never been shy about putting his opponents in the wall if that person stood between him and the checkered flag. Gordon just doesn't play nice just ask his ex wife. However she has 15 million good reasons to think Jeff isn't such a scumbucket after all. On the other hand there was Dale Earnhardt-god bless him-who had the nickname of the intimidator and he didn't earn that nickname by playing nice but NASCAR fans who loved Earnhardt HATED Gordon. I guess it's just one of those oddities of race car driving. The majority of NASCAR drivers push the envelope on driving dirty. There is an easy explanation behind the reason Earnhardt is loved and Gordon hated though they both drove the same in terms of "dirty driving". Earnhardt is a good old boy from an average income family while Gordon is a pretty boy from a more affluent family if I am not mistaken. Gordon was winning at a very young age and making it look way to easy as well. In regards to Gordon's wife she got more than she deserved. IMHO He was an idiot for getting married without a Pre-Nup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 I said three Nobel-prize worthy ideas; I didn't mean to imply he won more than one. Yes, he won primarily for the photoelectric effect, but his work on special relativity was commended on the certificate accompanying his medal and check. General relativity wasn't published until eight years later. When he won his award, the experimental status of special relativity wasn't secure enough to merit a Nobel for the theory. I don't know that Hawkings ever will win a Nobel. All of the black hole data is in much more dispute than what you'd think from the popular press. The guy who REALLY should have a Nobel by now is JS Bell, for his theoretical proof (verified by experiment!) that quantum non-locality is an essential part of nature and that no local theory can accurately describe the universe! Actually, Alain Aspect should share in that award for the ingenious experiment he devised to decisively demonstrate the violation of the Bell inequalities. I really need to start keeping track of things in the Physics field again. You are talking about Alain Aspect using the measurement of polarization correlations between photons to prove JS Bell am I right? This was done in the early 80's if I am not mistaken? What do you mean that the Black Hole date is still in dispute? Are you saying that the information that the Hubbell is providing is being contested or the interpretation of that information? Also, do you not believe that Hawkins is deserving of a Nobel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 (edited) By the way, wasn't Einstein's famous quote of "God doesn't play dice" in relation to the original challange that Bell and Aspect later proved? I believe the orginal paper was known as EPR (from the names of the 3 people involved in writing it) from the mid 30's. Edited June 18, 2003 by Mnytime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts