NASCAR sucks.
The friggin' NASCAR men are advertisements that walk and talk.
It shouldn't even be CALLED a sport. You don't exercise. Wtf?
Ah this reminded me that the Grand Prix isn't coming to Montreal ever again.
:(
@SirPainsalot: Indeed, you TELL THEM. Fight the power! And those rednecks.
@Nass: Haha, it's okay. Just ask your little sister to drive Barbie cars with you. ^_^
Nah, Hot Wheels are better for that.
But, Hotwheels move faster than the relative speed of NASCARs, it'd be too unrealistic!
I'm not a fan of Nascar. Too much regulation, and it needs more road courses, but your argument is retarded. By that logic, ALL racing is stupid. You're oversimplifying the situation. The speed, while awesome, is not the draw in and of itself. It's the racing at that speed.
"You can argue that taking high speed turns and vying for position is strategically difficult and very demanding of the driver, but that doesn't do anything for the viewers."
Yes, actually, it does a lot for the viewers who watch it. I bet you find watching a Le Mans race just as boring, but I find it thrilling. I watched 5 hours of the 12 hours of Sebring before I had to go somewhere. That's right, five hours of cars going around this track:
And you know what? It rocked. Just because you don't understand racing doesn't mean it's stupid. Hating on it just makes you look ignorant.
@SirPainsalot: They excercise a lot actually. Why?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ten-hardest-splash.htm Take a look at #2:
"Skilled drivers encounter a host of problems, but rounding the corners of the track is equivalent to having three 300-pound linemen pushing you for three of the four hours it takes to conclude a race."
"In NASCAR, as opposed to the open-wheel cars of the Indy 500, Beckman says drivers experience 2-3 G's on turns. "Those (stock) cars, while they have aerodynamics, don't have quite the cornering capability of an open-wheel car."
But he says NASCAR drivers face another test: heat: "The insides of those race cars are well over 120 degrees, and they are encased inside five-layer, fireproof suits. It's not so hot in an Indy car, mostly because the engine is behind and they're open and they're small."
Through it all, Beckman says, drivers must balance smoothness and quickness. "As you begin to turn the steering wheel, you also begin to release the brake. As you come out of the corner, you begin to squeeze on the gas at the same time you're unwinding the steering wheel. Smoothness means anticipating, applying ... the controls before you need them."
Another element is ever present: danger. Beckman says during the worst crashes, drivers can, for a split-second, experience 20 to 50 G's. "They crash into those walls, and they just rebound from them and take a big spike" of G forces."
I have much more respect for F1 drivers or Le Mans drivers, but Nascar drivers are no chumps.
@Tarheel:
Before you get all huffy, look at my sig. It's there for a reason.
Now, I must say, that while Le Mans seems just as slow paced (I watched a few BEST ACTION OMG compilations online, from fans), that track at least appears to be much more interestingly designed. Compare to NASCAR:
I mean, if you can nerdgasm off of that, good for you man, but I still say for the above reasons, it's boring as hell to actually watch.
And just so you know, I understand racing plenty. I just don't like it. My favorite radio station plays an hour show that talks about how the scoring and rankings work, and I've studied the economics of the sponsorship-based team structure in my ECN 201 class. So don't just assume I'm ragging on something I don't know anything about. Irony: You, in calling me ignorant, were actually showing yourself to be ignorant to my lack of legitimate ignorance. In other words, you fail at being arrogant.
As for everything you say about what drivers have to go through to keep in the proper shape to race, their mental state, the dangers they face in crashes, I don't disagree with any of that. This blog is mainly intended to rag on NASCAR's fan base and its face entertainment value as something you'd see on TV or at the tracks.
I must say though, it's nice to see somebody come up to defend the sport. I didn't think my rants would attract angry zealots until I get around to blogs regarding religion, obesity, and the family structure. *lol*
I wub intense debates. Especially when one of the debaters is tarheel. :3
@Vicelin:
Well, I also prefer dictionary.com, but I used "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology" for a reason. Etymology is the study of where words come from. My meaning is truer to the original intent of 'rant'. Also, I think to show the tone of a truly angry rant in a blog would require alot! of! exclaimation! points! Which, quite frankly, would just make me sound stupid.
*lol* And how do you agree with Tarheel? The main thing he said was I must be ignorant, which I promptly disproved, and also that NASCAR drivers are hard asses, which I agree with, but pointed out is irrelevant to this blog.
@FunnyFroggy:
As of yet it's a little too one-sided to be a debate.
@Nass (below):
I think you missed the point of the blog. *lol*
Yeah, I saw a NASCAR race once.
It was pretty cool. One guy kept cutting off another guy. He was an ass.
As I said, I don't like it, but your argument is stupid. It's like someone saying baseball is boring because it's slow. Maybe to them, someone who's not into baseball. But to others, it's pretty exciting. Your argument asserts that finding Nascar slow is the only logical conclusion, and ignores all other views of it. It concludes that anyone who likes it must be a stupid redneck who's just as slow as Nascar. You're ignorant of the idea that people can find it exciting. Me, being into cars and being familiar with what the drivers are going through, can enjoy it much more than you who's probably less experienced or plain less interested in it.
Let me put it more concisely. Just because YOU THINK it's slow doesn't MAKE it slow. Consider the possibility that it can, in fact, be exciting from the right perspective and that that perspective is not better or worse than yours.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a redneck whose GPA is probably far above yours and is a fair bit smarter than you. (That's one of my pet peeves; why are country people inherently stupid?)
Edit: I'm no where near as "intense" as you guys think I am. I think the issue comes from the diction I use when debating. It's kind of formal, more prose than casual, and it comes off as intense.
Ugh.
@Tarheel:
Just because YOU THINK my argument is stupid doesn't MAKE it stupid. Kindly back some of your statements up. Like I did, when I wrote an entire blog about why NASCAR is slow.
And all that nonsense about perspective? What you're saying is essentially relativism. What's false for one person can be true for another. If you accept relativism, you have to apply that logic consistently: Pretty soon it becomes logical to say "Genocide is wrong for me but was right for the Nazis." So obviously relativism doesn't make logical sense for very long.
Anything I said about rednecks as a blatant stereotype was just that, a blatant stereotype, which I put in there for comedic value and very obviously implied that I don't actually believe. And just so you know, I got a 4.0 GPA last semester. (I.E. I don't care what your GPA is, mine just made yours its bitch. Unless you're one of those losers in an easy major with honors classes, in which case I have no respect for you. I'm a Computer Engineer and it's nothing but high level abstract math/science.) I qualify as a redneck because I live in the middle of nowhere with 5 family members and 6 pets. Again, I'm not being ignorant, you are. ^_^
Edit: Anyway, I'm going to bed now. If you want to squabble more it'll have to wait until tomorrow. And yeah, that kind of 'prose' mostly just makes you sound pissed. You might want to try for something a little more casual. Although it's less that and more the way you make personal attacks instead of valid points. Try and take me less seriously, I'm half joking about anything I write in these blogs anyway.
@Vicelin:
Happy now? People are angry! =D (By 'people', I mean pretty much just Tarheel. Har har.)
Well, that's why I said "modern context" earlier. It doesn't matter much where the word came from if we are using the modern definition, which doesn't have to strictly fit within the original roots of the word.
And actually, you don't need a lot of exclamation points. Read some Maddox :D
The part that I agreed with in Tarheel's first post was when he said "just because you don't understand racing doesn't mean it's stupid". Which I think we all agreed is true.
But this is getting a bit out of hand. Tar, it was just a silly rant. No need to get defensive over it. Remember how Applebomb reacted to my use of "communist faggot"? xD
(And no, I'm not happy that people are angry, that was a dumb question).
Permanent Link
Report
