stp43

An annoying habit in racing is it's habit of elevating parts of its history above what they actually were. In NASCAR since Dale Earnhardt's death his life has been elevated beyond what it was, portrayed as a beloved figure of enormous import - "When Earnhardt spoke, NASCAR listened" is the standard statement - this against all actual evidence.

We get a similar treatment in the "rivalry" with Jeff Gordon, who rose almost immediately in 1993 after a controversial signing by Hendrick Motorsports in 1992. Gordon stormed to lead his first Daytona 500 and won twice in 1994. When Earnhardt won the 1993 and 94 titles he'd become the second driver to win seven Winston Cup titles and the assumption was he would glide to a historic eighth title.

But Gordon in 1995 stormed to seven wins and the championship. Earnhardt finished a distant second despite five wins, and so entering 1996 there was belief that Earnhardt would still win an eighth title but would have to beat upstart Gordon.

It didn't happen. Gordon won 33 races and two more titles the next three years while Earnhardt in 1996 began faltering starting at Pocono. It was serious injury at Talladega in July that year that ended an Earnhardt challenge for the championship as a winless and periodically uncompetitive string ensued. Even when he won the Daytona 500 in 1998 he would not challenge for any title until he won five races 1999-2000 and finished a surprising second in 2000 points.

There simply was no rivalry. Gordon won 40 races over six seasons and three championships to 20 wins by Earnhardt in that same span. Yet here it is treated as though it were the kind of nose to nose running confrontation seen in Richard Petty vs David Pearson or Bobby Allison vs Darrell Waltrip.

NASCAR can do its fans better by being more objective about periods if its history.