JSngry

Good to see you here, Shrdlu! P.S. I avoid the word "fundamentalist", as it has been used by the media in conection with various religious and political crackpots over the years. Duly noted.

6th

Should I change my avitar to this?

It's always unfortunate when a serious discussion turns personal, and such seems to have happened here. Let's everybody chill out, ok? I would like to say, and in no uncertain terms, that to suggest that anybody has the potential to be an abusive parent is an EXTREMELY provocative act whether the accuser intends it or not. As a parent myself, I would be extremely upset if somebody made such accusations towards me, and I think that the levelling of such charges against Mnytime are a step over the line of what I consider acceptable "tweaking". Giving and recieving personal insults are part and parcel of the on-line game, but child abuse is not a personal matter - it involves third parties, children at that, and that gives it a whole 'nother dimension of sensitivities. Mnytime is indeed a competitor, and by his own admission a fierce one, but to draw the conclusion that he might be an abusive parent just because of that is in no way justified. Abuse is not caused by competitiveness, not in any way that I've seen documented. There are other causes, and Mnytime hasn't shown any signs of those at all. So let's keep any and all insults and/or other expressions of disagreement above the belt, ok? This has been a really interesting thread to both read and participate in. Let's keep it that way.

Yeah, I wonder why Klitschko didn't go for the KO ASAP. Lewis was cleatly out of gas early and often, and with a cut like that, I'd think he had to know that a TKO against him was a distinct possibility. But maybe not. Or maybe he ws giving it all he had and it wasn't enough to get the KO. No mattter, he didn't close it out soon enough and lost the fight on what I thought was a totally justifiable TKO. Carpe diem, baby.

I heard it waaaaayyy back in the 70s when I was first discovering Afro-Cuban music and wasn't impressed at all. It seemed quite "American". I was hungry for the real Cuban/Perto Rican thing, and was having no problem finding it. But that was a loooong time ago, and I've broadened my appreciation a lot since then. I'd be interested in hearing it again with fresh ears.

Well to be honest, man, some of your statements seemed kinda strong at first glace to me too. But I tried to reconcile what I saw with what I knew, and I just figure that your a really, REALLY driven guy personally who can still deal with others who aren't as "successful" as long as they're not halfassing their way through life 24/7. I'm a lot like that myself. But I DO think that the same broader appreciation we can and do (should?) apply to music can and should be used in all areas of life, including athletic performance, if only after the fact. But that's just me.

You bought it WHERE????????? :D :D

If that is in fact hardbop's work at Amazon, the specific respect I had for him has been greatly reduced, if not withdrawn completely.

Wow... This thread has really gone off on some tangents, eh? It's gone off-track with greater regularity than NYC bettors... Let me say it again - the real intent of the hypothetical question that started http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...t=ST&f=8&t=1826 was not to compare music to sports or anything like that, although the detour into things quantum was really cool. The purpose was bring u[ the matter of appreciating unique accomplishments that fell outside the parameters of readily recognized "greatness". It's my opinion that out-of-hand dismissal of such accomplishments, relegating them to the category of out and out failure is inaccurate and myopic, and perhaps is indicative of a worldview that I would consider "imbalanced". But in my attempt to introduce an idea into discussion in such a backhanded fashion, if that idea never really gets established as the central topic, that's the fault of the presentation, so hey - my bad. I guess that using a sports analogy threw a lot of people off, maybe because music, the kind of music most of us like anyway, and sports have assumed significantly different roles in society in terms of things like image, attention, media priority, etc. But those are all "after the fact" realities that society has superimposed on the core activities themselves, 3rd party attempts to define and prioritize first-person activities, and I've got a hunch that quite a few athletes are as skeptical about the general public REALLY understanding what their whole trip is about as a lot of musicians do. But that's just a hunch. In truth, I don't see all that much difference in purely human terms between athletic and musical endeavors, at least not as it pertains to things like training, maintaining focus while performing, staying on task in the face of external distraction, etc. I think that's why sports of some sort has always played a role in pretty much all societies. Music, on the other hand, is in many cultures a "folk" tradition, not something to be approached with the intent of extending personal and cultural boundaries. There's a latent (or not so latent...) built-in cultural conflict between music and sports in this regard - sport has ALWAYS been used as a tool of personal betterment, whereas music has very often been used as a collective tool of general cultural cohesion, through either recreational or ritualistic application. But I choose to look beyond all that baggage and break it down to the individual because in the end, without the individual, nothing gets done (and in a delicious act of cosmic ironical balancing, the way that the individual most often gets thing done is by losing the ego and surrendering to a greater whole. Gotta love Creation, eh? Balance will not be denied!), and for an individual to develop his/her abilities to the max in ANY endeavor requires personal discipline and a constant series of tests to identify what's been adequately developed, what's working better than average, and what really sucks and needs to be fixed ASAP. The intents/results of competition are valid across the board, I think. They're in no way exclusive to sports nor are they in no way excluded from music, at least not any kind of music/musician that desires to serve anything more than a role of strict and total functionality. I know I'm far from alone in lamenting/grousing about the de-evolution of so much sport into a sensationalized method of cynical emotional manipulation to pick the pockets of those fans who seemingly lack the tools to acquire a sense of personal identity by any but vicarious means. Nor am I alone in lamenting/grousing about the shrinking number of jazz (or other, for that matter) musicians whose voices who less than distinct and personal. To me, that's a sign that these musicians have been either unaware of or unwilling to confront the very real challenges, personal and professional, of finding and developing one's "true self" and have instead "settled" for the alternative of somewhat faceless extreme competency, an alternative that is not without challenges, but challenges that are almost always met and conquered through repetitive exercises to develop muscle memory, not by digging into yourself to see what's really there. The resultant craftsmanship is certainly to be admired and respected, but if that's all there is... Most musicians I know, and know of through anecdotal evidence, do indeed possess quite a competitive streak. You have to. But that competitiveness is seldom utilized for purely destructive purposes. Of course, it's a given that the ultimate competition is with one's self, but it's also a given that most musicians play in groups, and that means challenging the people you play with, either professionally or socially, when the need arises. However, the goal of such challenges is not to defeat but to elevate both yourself and the people you love. It's not always a harmonious process, egos can get bruised and tempers can flare, but in the end the realization that "we're all in this for the same thing" prevails, and lessons are both taught and learned by all concerned, the net result being that both individuals and the collective musical culture is elevated in many different ways. That's what "cutting sessions" are ultimately all about (when they arise, anyway - the social milieu that produced such a musical culture has not exactly disappeared, but it has evolved so radically that these impulses are more often than not found in equally radically different expressions these days, and much more subtly than before. But they can still be found, especially if you go looking for them and aren't willing to take "no" for an answer the first time around. ) OTOH, the vast majority of jazz musicians I know have a real aversion to the "gunslinger as lifestyle" mentality. The few guys who are always looking to seek and destroy are not looked upon favorably personally or professionally. Quite often these are younger people who for whatever reason have not yet matured into an awareness and appreciation of the "deeper" realities of music. Also, many of those who practice music-as-destruction also have the same attitude about conducting their business and display a distinct lack of ethics, which only adds to their general disfavor within the community. Still, these people DO exist, always have and always will. One must have the tools at one's disposal to handle them unless one wants to always be handled BY them, and them's tools you don't learn in school, Sunday or otherwise, if you get my drift. "Don't mistake my kindness for weakness" is where it's at. Besides, playing music in a group (and even if when playing solo, if even one person is going to hear it, either at that moment or later, you have a group, like it or not) is very much an interpersonal relationship, a network of them actually, and as in all relationships, all take and no give wears out it's welcome AND it's usefulness sooner or later. Now as to Mnytime's espousal of the Lombardi philosophy, I must say that I am in agreement when it comes to personal preparation and actual performance. The refusal to accept a halfass effort in advance is imperative to excellence, I think, and without thorough mental and physical preparation, it's going to prove near impossible to reach that "zone" that musicians and athletes both reach where everything seems to click as a matter of instinct. But that preparation takes drive, it doesn't do it by itself. Where I back off this philosophy is after the fact, when one takes stock of what it is one has accomplished. It is important, crucial even, to not "settle" when practicing and/or performing, but a realistic evaluation after the fact requires acknowledging and taking some satisfaction in progress, even if the goal was not fully met. Too often, people seem to think that you either have to never be happy/satisfied or else that you should always look at the bright side and celebrate EVERY minor step forward. I think both extremes are bullshit - it's just as wack to never take any satisfaction when incremental progress is made as it is to make a big whoopiefest out of every little step forward. For example, our son has spent his adolescence dealing with some congenitally messed-up knee structures that he inherited from me. He's had 3 knee surgeries to rebuild restructure his knee muscles/tendons between ages 11 & 15. So, participation in recreational sports has been all but impossible for him, and he's missed that. Not varsity sports or anything like that, just the hanging-out and playing ball type of fun that most kids his age like to do in some form or fashion. Well, the last operation finally totally healed up, and this past winter he was invited to play basketball on a team. Having not participated in team sports since Little League (where a freak succession of about 6 beanings in the space of about 2 weeks pretty much ruined a very, VERY good talent - you can say "shake it off" & "get back up there" to an 8 year old until you're blue in the face, but unless you're willing to push him to the point of tears or beyond, you gotta respect the fact that at THAT age, that's a helluva lot of physical and emotional shock in a short period of time and accept that baseball might suddenly become MUCH less interesting for them...), we agreed to let him play. Well, the team was a joke, really, but it was good to see Charlie out there playing with enthusiasm and really, REALLY trying, even if he didn't have the skills, intuitive or developed, of the other kids. I considered it a personal triumph for him. But the team kept losing because, well, they sucked as basketball players, my son included. After their 3rd consecutive loss, Charlie was really, REALLY bummed, angry even. I told him that he should never be happy about a team loss, especially of the lopsided variety they had been repeatedly handed, but that when I saw him out there trying his hardest, running the court and playing aggressive defense, that I was filled with nothing but pride in him because I KNEW that HE was performing to his absolute BEST ability. As long as we both could honestly say that, I told him, the team defeats, as irritating and occasionally humiliating as they were, need not make him feel like a "loser". Well, the season finale came around, the team had won but 1 game, and like too many others, this one turned into a blowout. In the space of the 3rd quarter, the team went from futile effort to apathy to mocking buffoonery, and the younger Mr. Sangrey, having inherited not only bad knees but a propensity for absurdist humor from his old man, was an active participant. TOO active in fact. After the game, I reamed the boy out good. He didn't like it one bit, but he needed to hear it. As long as he was taking pride in his effort and was actually GIVING his best effort, I was cool and supported him no matter how dark the defeats were (and some were VERY dark), even if I was quietly seething inside at the lack of any coaching direction and such - this was HIS thing, not mine. But the second he took on the attitude of a REAL loser, somebody who doesn't even have the personal pride to TRY, somebody who would rather personally give up in collective disgrace than go to collective defeat with personal dignity, he WAS going to hear about it from me, and hear it long and hard. Which he did. Because I love him. If my experience with MY Dad is any indicator, the fact that he didn't want to hear it means nothing more than that it came in the backdoor of his mind, found a cozy little spot to take a nap for a cuppla years, and will wake up when it's time, ready to fully spring into action, much to the surprise of the host. God, I hope so... Now, does the Lombardian ethos accommodate scenarios like this? I mean, you know they're everywhere all the time - efforts being made that fall short in some form or fashion, personal bests that still aren't "good enough" in the larger arena. Are the people who do this REALLY "losers"? Are their lives really total failures? There are those hardcore individuals who will say yes, that you're either a winner or a loser, no in-between, and no qualifying circumstances or relativistic evaluations allowed. But I say bullshit - if a person is really, REALLY challenging themselves, then even if they "fail" at one level, then they have indeed triumphed at another. They might not be a champion of anything other than themselves, but by God, that's a helluva lot more than a LOT of people can say, and I think it's an accomplishment worthy of respect across the board. This holds true for any endeavor, including music AND athletics. Hey, don't believe the hype. Human activity is human activity, period. Removed from the distortions of and endowments by a society that's turned into one giant collective spectator that has seemingly bottomless pockets to pay for the "privilege" of constantly watching other people accomplish things and have successes, Trane & Michael Jordan probably have a lot, LOT more in common than not. I really do believe that. And don't automatically assume that what one demands of oneself under certain circumstances is what one demands of others in all circumstances, at least not in degree. T'aint necessarily so... As a closing sidenote, just let me say that I hope we can all see the irony in having an at times heated debate about the pros and cons of the varying degrees and conceptions of competitiveness. The passion and frequency with which we all state our positions here and elsewhere is incontrivable evidence of the intrinsic nature of the need to "leave a mark" that nearly all of us seem to possess.

Myself included! :D

Anybody catch hardbop's praise of Wynton for derailing a planned J@LC concert by George Russell because Russell planned on using electric bass? I mean, I've defended hardbop in the past on the grounds that even though a lot of us view his tastes as narrow, he likes what he likes with a passion, and I respect that immensely, even though I personally think that a little less passion and a little more openmindedness might be good for the man, if you know what I mean. Besides, our disagreements have always been civil, if irreconcilable, and I can defintely live with that. But THIS was just ridiculous. I tweaked him a very little bit on it, and was seemingly ignored. But if I had the time these days to maintain full-time multi-board citizenship, I believe I might have shown him my dark side in a way he would have found impossible to ignore. As much as I enjoy the various "eccentrics" of cyberspace, especially the ones I have just enough in common with to agree with on a few things every once in a while, this matter nearly had me ready to lock and load. Chris, otoh, stepped in and did what had to be done, and with a lot less of the "personal" stuff that goes on between him and hardbop (stuff that has "BAIT" written all over it, and stuff that hardbop goes ahead and bites into anyway. It's become an endearing part of the ongoing saga imo). Kudos, Chris!

I wonder what became of SHRDLU, the Hard Bop loving, tenor sax playing, apolitical Fundamentalist Baptist preacher who almost never allowed himself to be baited about his faith and beliefs in spite of some REALLY strong mockery and scorn. A very unique individual, the kind one may never meet in real-life but seems to pop up in cyberspace not infrequently. He never really came back after his wife passed. That seemed to really hit him where it hurt, as it would any of us. Hope he's doing well.

Oh, well then. This is nothing like the Debut stuff, which is heavy on Tristano and "classical" concepts. Mingus had long moved into a more, for lack of a better term, "earthy" concept by the time TOWN HALL was recorded. Even though there's ;ots of written parts, the feel is much "rawer" than the material from the Debut years. If you've heard EPITAPH, this is more in line with that. Actually, a great deal of EPITAPH comes from the music that was performed at Town Hall. EPITAPH is a lot cleaner in execution, TOO clean, if you ask me. TOWN HALL gets the feel right and has significantly better soloists, to put it mildly.

It's more "compositional" than his small group stuff, but there are also plenty of solos. The ensembles are pretty ragged in spots, but not so much that the details are lost. A little blurred, maybe, but they are such strong details that they can withstand some blurring! I'd not recommend this one to a Mingus newbie or somebody who is more interested in his soloists/small group concepts than his composing, but I do think it is a very worthwhile album for both the writing and the soloing, no matter how sloppy it gets in spots. If you like Mingus enough to have all the "essentials" and want to broaden your awareness/appreciation of his musical scope, I'd say go for it. Besides, the crowd booing when the stagehands lower the curtain, as per Union regulations, in the middle of "In A Mellotone" leaves an indellable impression, sorta like Ellington at Newport in reverse. It's the perversely perfect capper to the evening's festivities. I've seen snippets of silent footage from the actual concert, and to say that Mingus looked and acted frantic and that the whole scene seemed chaotic would be understating it. What a night it must have been for those present! The music is a LOT better than the day-after critical pans would suggest, but I can certainly imagine how objective criticism of the music must have been near impossible if you had been there in person witnessing all the disorganization as it unfolded.

If you don't know who he was, please find out.

Drink up!

Clora seems to be about 4-5 years older than Booker Ervin. I wonder if they knew each other in Dennison? On the one hand, that's a bit of an age gap in social terms, but Dennison ain't that big, and with the segregation of the time, families in towns like this all knew each other a lot of times. Maybe Booker had a secret crush on Clora! What if Booker's patented moans had their roots in an unrequited prepubescent love for Clora? Or what if Booker was the precocious type and actually DID knock boots with the young Miss Bryant, fell in everlasting love, and was crushed beyond repair when Bryant's family moved to L.A. in 1945? Somebody should investigate, maybe Toni Morrison could write a novel, a seqel to "Jazz" entiled "When Booker Met Clora". The mind reels at the possibilities... Shoot, Dennison is just up the road, why don't I just drive up there and ask somebody? Who's got gas money?

Dammit, I lied - can't go yet! :D Dude - the point is not the ultimate magnitude of their respective accomplishments. It's about being able to fully appreciate each of them on their own unique terms with an appreciation un(dis?)colored by comparison to anybody else. If anybody listens to Hank with a "cool, but he's no Trane" P.O.V., then they're not getting it. No matter how much they dig it, they're not getting what it is that goes into the creation of a personal voice, REAGARDLESS of the scale. Similarly, the person who listens to Trane and can ONLY obsess about how end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it brilliant-at-the-expense of everything else it is is not getting it either. By all accounts, Trane was the most genuinely humble man imaginable, and that's because he DID get it - that we ALL have our individual voices, and that even if a person has a limited message, if that message is somehow unique to that individual, then it is to be valued for that uniqueness, not pissed on because of its smaller magnitude. Trane was legendary for this attitude, and quite honestly, I think that THAT is what gives his music such a real human impact - that realization and pursuiance of the fundamental beauty of all of humanity, "big" and "small" alike. People are not for defeating (except as part of the learning process. Or in family sporting events ). Challenging and bettering, yes, and by some tough ways if need be. But people are not for destroying, at least not in music. People are for building up and celebrating as they bring forth whatever amount of the divine (or whatever the PC term-du-jour is ) they have, or can find, within them, in ALL walks of life, not just in music. To marginalize or otherwise not appreciate somebody who brings forth the divine in a smaller quantity or somehow less spectacular fashion than somebody else is to VERY MUCH miss the point, and flirts with a disrespect of that which creates the music in the first place! Respecting and appreciating the small(er) doesn't mean equating it with the gargantuan, it just means appreciating it in full for what it is, and being glad that it is what it is. It also doesn't mean celebrating mediocrity, which ALSO misses the point entirely. Like I said, we all got our envelopes, and they come in all sizes. But having a smaller envelope is no excuse for not pushing it! Touchy-feeley, ain't it? But you get my point, I hope. Now I really DO have to run. If I get a sec tomorrow, we can talk about cutting contests and the whole matter of competition in music. It's not as simple as "win or die", not by a long shot! Although that DOES factor into it...

Of course, the majority is wrong (or at the least, uninspired and limite in vision) at least as often as it is right, doncha know. It's not like the majority of cavemen were bold MFs who discovered fire as a matter of consensus... And let's not even talk about the eating of oysters! Sometimes the loon who goes solo ends up being more righter than what's already right. (just tweakin', my friend, just tweakin' ) And on that, I gotta run. Hasta manana, y vaya con Dios.

Here we differ - I say that everybody has their own envelopes, and that in his world, Hank pushed his as hard as Trane did his. BREAKTHROUGH is a painful, bloody record in its best cuts - its not a Mobley record per se, so there are pieces in which he is either secondary or absent altogether - that is every bit as intense IN ITS OWN WAY as anything Trane did, and DIPPIN' is as boldly a fully personal statement as, say, CRESCENT. Again, in its own way and on its own scale. They were both very special, and if it's important to recognize that in the grand scheme of things one was more "very special" than the other, then that should not necessitate denying that the other one, though less "very special", in fact WAS "very special" to a degree that many, MANY musicians aren't. Now, of course, Trane's envelope was much bigger than Hank's, so it could withstand a proportionally harder pushing. When it got pushed, and indeed it did, as hard as was possible for him to push it, more people couldn't help but notice. But that's not the point, not at all. THAT point will be stipulated to, and anybody who objects will be declared incompetent! THIS point is that if all one can see and appreciate is the big things, then one has a viewpoint that is really just a magnified version of one which can only see and appreciate the small things. Doesn't matter if all you have is a left eye or a right eye if all you have is one eye, dig? It takes an appreciation of the full scale to be balanced, I think, and I also think that most of us would agree that balance is a good thing, right? That's my point, and nothing more. PS - kudos to the omnisicient Chuck Nessa for sniffing this puppy out from jumpstreet. But its not just Hank, its music as a whole. Actually even more than just music, but that's as far as I'm going with it. All this talk of "overrated" this and that lately, although definitely within the legitiamte domain of personal opinion, was beginning to too often strike me as either arrogant or clueless. Not anything in particular, mind you, just the accumulated pile of "I don't think that "$%$^" is all it's cracked up to be". After a while, it's just too much - none of us can ever get ALL of it, but a little humility, a little willingness to admit that there might be more things going on than we can grasp at the present time in terms of both scale and substance is in order. Music is bigger than ANY of us, doncha' know. Just remember that. Again, not directed at any one person or idea, honestly. Just an honest reaction to cumulative stimuli. And btw - I am not a NASCAR fan AT ALL! But I liked the analogy anyway as a conversation starter.

Well, your opinion is your own, and perfectly valid. I would agree with you up as well, at least up to a point. But these questions remain - is a career of otherwise sustained excellence ultimately meaningless if it is not accompanied by that moment or two of shining glory? And, from whence does that shining emanate? In other words, is the notion that there is only one form of "real" success an arbitrary one, and one that has been distorted/perverted by vainglorious means to life-defeating ends by and to society at that? Have we become so intent on celebrating one, and ONLY one, form of success that other forms, less glamourous and more personal in nature, have not just been overlooked, but have actually been devalued? Is this a good thing? Does it devalue the notion of a champion in any form to celebrate the accomplishnments of the near-champions, not in place of, but AS WELL AS, those who come close but never quite get there? And - if the notion of what makes a champion is so fragile that it cannot withstand sharing the glory, how worthy, how desireable, how correct in the deeper sense is that particular manifestation of the concept? Of course, none of this has ANYTHING to do with music.... :D :D

In the matter of who was the better driver between the two, one could look at the facts and say that when Driver A was the winner of a race that he was the better driver, but that when he didn't win Driver B was. Considering that Driver A won 50% of his races, that means that in the other 50%, Driver B was better. A perfectly even split. Consider also that the difference between 1st & 3rd place is much smaller than that between 2nd/3rd and, at best, 10th, and the case could easily be made that Driver B was the better driver in the races he lost than was Driver A. Any way you look at it, an objective reading of the statistics indicates that 50% of the time, Driver B was a better driver than Driver A. Also, in the 50% of the time when he wasn't, he was a better driver than all but one or two drivers on the course, which cannot be said about Driver A under similar circumstances. I'd also think that both drivers' peers would have great respect for both. Driver B automatically reduced their odds (in retrospect, of course) of finishing in the top ten to 1-in-9, and that could not be said of Driver A. Driver B's mere presence on the track made it a tougher race 100% of the time. The same could not be said of Driver A. although Driver A's mere presence GREATLY reduced their odds of actually winning. But as some have stated, there are more ways to win the money than by winning the race. So I'd think that both Driver A and Driver B were greatly, and possibly equally, respected by their peers, albeit for totally different reasons. Clearly, Driver A is a "champion", something that Driver B never was. But - is Driver B's talent worthy of total dismissal, or was his a talent that was every bit as special IN ITS OWN WAY as Driver A's? Even if Driver B never reached the highest heights of Driver A, did he not sustain a high level of performance that Driver A was unable to? Does "mediocre" accurately describe such a talent? Is such a designation realistic or arbitray? Some simple questions follow from this - If appreciation (sincere appreciation, not the glancing blows of condescension) by others of one's effort and achievement is considered a reward for any worthy endeavor, and if said appreciation is witheld or otherwise denied on the grounds that one's unique accomplishments do not measure up to somebody else's, that "success" comes in one form and one form only, is the implication then that being the best you can be is an ultimately worthless pursuit if that absolute triumph never comes? If one never reaches that highest goal and is viewed by others as a "lesser" talent because of it, is taking pride in whatever one DOES accomplish merely a matter of self-delusion? If it is, why should anything less than the "win at any cost" ideology be adopted by any and everybody? And if it's NOT, then what are the implications to the specatators of the world who perhaps value the glory of the winner more than his/her actual feat? Are they responsible for both creating and sustaining a hype based on a false set of values? Is that a good thing? Is it at times possible to OVERvalue being a champion? And then, possibly the most intriguing question of all - how many spectators would be "losers" if they applied the same standards of success to THEIR lives' endeavors as they did to the efforts of those whom they so enjoy watching compete?

The above error has been corrected. Now, on with the show!

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?