People overrate champions like the Labonte brothers and Kenseth because you get the same good, not great performance every week, while people sell short guys like Irvan, G. Bodine, and Ky. Busch, who hit much higher peaks, were much more versatile, and are much more interesting to watch. I'm happy Terry won a title, but I think racing would be more interesting now with a more IRL-like points system. People wouldn't come back from 100 laps down to get a few bonus points which also annoys me...
Of course I wouldn't go back in time and retroactively change past champions, but 1996 was a perfect example of the FLAW in the points system that needed to be fixed. Jeff Gordon outperformed Terry Labonte in every regard except consistency by a large margin and got hosed here.
I do agree that the reason Labonte won is that his "bad" finishes were mid-pack while Gordon's bad finishes were DNFs. That's my problem with the traditional NASCAR philosophy. Mid-pack finishes are awarded way too much. Most other points systems in other racing series give 2nd place about 80% of the winner's points and 5th place about 50% of the winner's points. The current system, even more consistency-driven, leaves Kyle Busch as seemingly the one remaining driver who doesn't points race.
Disagree with UberAntisocialist. While I personally like T. Labonte more than J. Gordon, am happy he won, and enjoyed the Labonte brothers' victory lap, I think consistency has always mattered far too much in NASCAR points. I think performance - dominating, winning races, kicking ass, and taking names is better than stroking to seventh place finishes. Although I can understand a year like '85 when Waltrip was MUCH more consistent, Labonte and Gordon had the same number of top 5s and top 10s.
1996 epitomised what Bob Latford's point system was all about. Terry won just 2 races, but his 6 worst finishes were worse than 20th. Jeff Gordon won 10 races, but had 6 (non-)finishes worse than 30th. Terry's bad days in '96 were FAR better than Gordon's, and I think it's extremely disrespectful that Braindead France changed the system just after Latford's death in 2003.
And now the system has been completely scrapped for the benefit of channel surfers.
Final fall race anyway on the old configuration, rare emotional interview for Terry Labonte. It took a long time, Labonte bounced around a few teams before Rick Hendrick picked him up and a nice victory.
just a great classy victory, winning in style as Terry and bobby both win the race and the championship in the same day what a way to end the 1996 season.
Oops, were* much more interesting to watch. I still like Geoff Bodine but I think he should have retired after his 2000 truck wreck.
arenasnow 1 month ago
People overrate champions like the Labonte brothers and Kenseth because you get the same good, not great performance every week, while people sell short guys like Irvan, G. Bodine, and Ky. Busch, who hit much higher peaks, were much more versatile, and are much more interesting to watch. I'm happy Terry won a title, but I think racing would be more interesting now with a more IRL-like points system. People wouldn't come back from 100 laps down to get a few bonus points which also annoys me...
arenasnow 1 month ago
Of course I wouldn't go back in time and retroactively change past champions, but 1996 was a perfect example of the FLAW in the points system that needed to be fixed. Jeff Gordon outperformed Terry Labonte in every regard except consistency by a large margin and got hosed here.
arenasnow 1 month ago
I do agree that the reason Labonte won is that his "bad" finishes were mid-pack while Gordon's bad finishes were DNFs. That's my problem with the traditional NASCAR philosophy. Mid-pack finishes are awarded way too much. Most other points systems in other racing series give 2nd place about 80% of the winner's points and 5th place about 50% of the winner's points. The current system, even more consistency-driven, leaves Kyle Busch as seemingly the one remaining driver who doesn't points race.
arenasnow 1 month ago
Disagree with UberAntisocialist. While I personally like T. Labonte more than J. Gordon, am happy he won, and enjoyed the Labonte brothers' victory lap, I think consistency has always mattered far too much in NASCAR points. I think performance - dominating, winning races, kicking ass, and taking names is better than stroking to seventh place finishes. Although I can understand a year like '85 when Waltrip was MUCH more consistent, Labonte and Gordon had the same number of top 5s and top 10s.
arenasnow 1 month ago
1996 epitomised what Bob Latford's point system was all about. Terry won just 2 races, but his 6 worst finishes were worse than 20th. Jeff Gordon won 10 races, but had 6 (non-)finishes worse than 30th. Terry's bad days in '96 were FAR better than Gordon's, and I think it's extremely disrespectful that Braindead France changed the system just after Latford's death in 2003.
And now the system has been completely scrapped for the benefit of channel surfers.
UberAntisocialist 3 months ago
Final fall race anyway on the old configuration, rare emotional interview for Terry Labonte. It took a long time, Labonte bounced around a few teams before Rick Hendrick picked him up and a nice victory.
vidEvWill 4 months ago
just a great classy victory, winning in style as Terry and bobby both win the race and the championship in the same day what a way to end the 1996 season.
vidEvWill 4 months ago