Let's all root for the beautiful Danica Patrick to win ...

[GuyNblueJeans]

the Indy-500 on Sunday!!

She's not just beautiful and a talented driver, but she's got charisma and coolness coming out the tail pipes, what a lady!

[Least Original User Name Ever]

You had me at "beautiful".


You again had me at 'tail pipes'.

[GuyNblueJeans]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

You had me at "beautiful".


You again had me at 'tail pipes'.

Huh? You lost me. Where did I lose ya?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

"Let's".

[Ellis Dee]

I've already heard her dubbed the Anna Kournikova of racing. As in, she'll never win an event.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I don't get it. Even in the middle of their careers, they're among the top tenth of the percentile in their profession. Yet they get shit because they're pretty and "haven't won". I've no problem with Ana Kournikova, and if Danica never wins, I've got no problem with her.

[Ellis Dee]

Why did you put "haven't won" in irony quotes? Neither has (to date) ever won an individual competition. (AK was one of the best at doubles, especially when paired with Martina Hingis. Those matches were beyond hot...)

When it comes to professional athletes in individual sports, "you've never won anything" is a legitimate criticism.

[jacquilynne]

How about I root for whoever is actually the best driver to win, regardless of whether they're hawt or charismatic?

[Roland Orzabal]

Originally Posted by jacquilynne

How about I root for whoever is actually the best driver to win, regardless of whether they're hawt or charismatic?

So, how 'bout them Yankees?

[GuyNblueJeans]

Originally Posted by jacquilynne

How about I root for whoever is actually the best driver to win, regardless of whether they're hawt or charismatic?

Okay let me think about this for a moment.

Ah, NO.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

Why did you put "haven't won" in irony quotes? Neither has (to date) ever won an individual competition. (AK was one of the best at doubles, especially when paired with Martina Hingis. Those matches were beyond hot...)

When it comes to professional athletes in individual sports, "you've never won anything" is a legitimate criticism.

Sure they are among the most talented players in the world playing against the other superstars. How come they just don't win all the time. Real criticism there.
There are lots of tremendous athletes that do not win. They make a lot of money and have big careers.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

Why did you put "haven't won" in irony quotes? Neither has (to date) ever won an individual competition. (AK was one of the best at doubles, especially when paired with Martina Hingis. Those matches were beyond hot...)

When it comes to professional athletes in individual sports, "you've never won anything" is a legitimate criticism.

Fucking hamsters ate my post. It's not a legitimate criticism because they haven't beat the best. They're already better than virtually the rest of the planet in their sport. I've noticed that people that see it as a valid point of criticism are hyper-competitive, armchair quarterback types, or have simply never excelled at a sport endeavor on any upper level. Being able to make a living doing what they love doesn't make you a loser simply because you haven't won a tournament/race at the highest levels.

Those weren't irony quotes. That was a direct quote, although not necessarily from you. (I contemplated putting the words "irony quotes" in irony quotes, but we'd get all screwed up then.)

I saw Ana K. at the mall once. Yowza.

[Lamar Mundane]

Originally Posted by GuyNblueJeans

the Indy-500 on Sunday!!

She's not just beautiful and a talented driver, but she's got charisma and coolness coming out the tail pipes, what a lady!

Charisma? I've never seen her say an interesting thing. Plus, she talks without moving her lips.

The other woman in the field is much hotter.

Milka Duno

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

The other woman in the field is much hotter.

Actually, there are two other women in the field -- Sarah Fisher and Milka Duno.

[Capa84]

Well her finish of 2nd in the Formula Ford Festival out of a few hundred entries, which is the highest ever for ANY American, is pretty impressive.

I'm going to root for any of the women to win, because I think anything that empowers young girls to realize that they can compete in any field they choose is a good thing. There is no realistic way that Fisher or Duno have the equipment though. Patrick has been one of the fastest cars all month, and even lead one practice day, IIRC.

Let's also not forget that as a rookie, she 1)stalled exiting her pit, then 2)spun out 2/3 of the way through the race, and still led with a few laps left before she had to conserve gas to make it to the end. Had she not had any of those 3 issues arise, I'd say there is at least a 50/50 chance she would have won the race as a rookie.

[Yookeroo]

But she has an unfair advantage!

Go Danica!

[DKW]

Well, I hope she does win this thing, mainly because I'm sick of lazy dolts constantly dragging up Anna Kournikova without having the slightest understanding of how her career went or WHY her failure to win a singles tournament was so glaring*.

Why the hell not? She's been up there once. And it's not like this second-rate petty power trip of a league has much else to root for.

As for never winning, let's all please remember:
1. There are lots and lots of cars in the field. Statistically speaking, less than 3% of the field wins the race. So victories aren't exactly easy to come by.
2. She's young. If she's still winless in ten years, then I'll start worrying. For now, I'm more than happy to presume that win #1 is coming in due time and anticipate that moment.

* Someone can probably do this better than me, but in a nutshell: Shot to fame by drooling Internet fanboys (a once-in-history bonanza even without the WTH factor). Signed lots of lucrative deals, so she was never under any pressure to succeed on the WTA tour. Plenty of talent, but unfocused; all kinds of side projects and distractions. Went as high as #8 with more than a few runner-ups, so the potential was there. Suffered a rash of injuries, completely neglected training, and had a string of horrible tournaments before vanishing with no fanfare whatsoever in 2003.

[GuyNblueJeans]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Charisma? I've never seen her say an interesting thing. Plus, she talks without moving her lips.

The other woman in the field is much hotter.

Milka Duno

ALL women are beautiful in one way or another.

Everything Danica says is so spot-on. She's very amazing in how poised she is.

Don't have a clue about this lips not moving thing. Perhaps you need another cup of coffee.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Sure they are among the most talented players in the world playing against the other superstars. How come they just don't win all the time. Real criticism there.

Nobody said anything about not winning all the time. I said that neither had ever won, even once.

Originally Posted by LOUNE

It's not a legitimate criticism because they haven't beat the best. They're already better than virtually the rest of the planet in their sport. I've noticed that people that see it as a valid point of criticism are hyper-competitive, armchair quarterback types, or have simply never excelled at a sport endeavor on any upper level. Being able to make a living doing what they love doesn't make you a loser simply because you haven't won a tournament/race at the highest levels.

Heh, looks like I pissed off the whole family. First of all, it is beyond meaningless to point out that a professional athlete is better at their sport than people who aren't professional athletes. The end of this little rant is more applicable to Danica than Anna. At least I think it is. In tennis, there are something like 50+ individual events in a season, and a typical pro won't play even half of those. This means that pretty much everybody racks up a couple tournament wins here and there, simply because none of the tops seeds bother to enter the East Bumfuck Tennis Tourney & Cattle-Call Rodeo. I don't know IRL very well, but from what I can gather, most of the pros compete at most (or even all) the events, so it would be much less of a meaningful dig at Danica than it would at Kournikova.

Originally Posted by Capa84

Let's also not forget that as a rookie, she 1)stalled exiting her pit, then 2)spun out 2/3 of the way through the race, and still led with a few laps left before she had to conserve gas to make it to the end. Had she not had any of those 3 issues arise, I'd say there is at least a 50/50 chance she would have won the race as a rookie.

The only reason she was leading at the end is because she skipped the last pit stop, which is why she ended up coasting on fumes and ultimately losing. Most would classify that as a screw-up.

Originally Posted by Yookeroo

But she has an unfair advantage!

She does indeed have an unfair advantage, so every race she doesn't win tends to lend credibility to the theory that she is a mediocre driver at best.

Hopefully she'll prove me wrong later today. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[An Arky]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Charisma? I've never seen her say an interesting thing. Plus, she talks without moving her lips.

The other woman in the field is much hotter.

Milka Duno

I agree wholeheartedly. However, I feel you need an assist in making your case:

In case more proof is needed.

OK, drooling aside, I find it a bit ironic that after all the struggles and heartache women go through just trying to show that they can be equally adept at traditionally male professions (and they absolutely can be), having to fend off all the stupidity and sexism, what do you see when (some) women get in a position to attain equal greatness? You see them selling their T&A. That's progress for ya.

[Cyberhwk]

FESS UP!!!

You just want to see all that white milk run down her face.

[The Controvert]

Does being lighter convey a racing advantage? Because then, a short, horse-Jockey type body would have an awesome advantage.

As for beauty, I wonder if would you still root for her if there was a crash that ruined her looks?

[Wee Bairn]

The same media that is building her up now is about to start tearing her down if she doesn't get a win soon, same with Anna. K. There are hundreds of players like Anna K., but she got picked out by the media to be a star, for obvious reasons. Then same media that made her star for being hot tore her up for not being a star player, when no one ever said she was.

Same here. Danica P. is of about the same talent- consistently 8-10th with a typical race of 17-18 cars. There is no reason to think she a future star, but because she's hot, she's marketed.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by The Controvert

Does being lighter convey a racing advantage? Because then, a short, horse-Jockey type body would have an awesome advantage.

Yes, being lighter conveys an advantage if it isn't normalized out by adding weights. I've been told in other Danica threads that jockeys have to weigh in, and weights are added to the horse. (Possibly there is a maximum amount of weight added, which is why you don't ever see normal person sized jockeys, but I don't know.)

Of note is that NASCAR weigh-ins include the driver, while IRL weigh-ins do not. NASCAR cars weigh almost twice what IRL cars weigh, so clearly a 50 pound body weight difference is a tangible advantage to have on the IRL racing.

To put it simply, if the cars aren't weighed as-raced, (ie: including the driver,) then they aren't weighed fairly. During the heated pit discussion of this issue a couple years ago, most people seemd to be of the opinion that women should enjoy an advantage (from weight) in racing because women have had a rough time in general. Personally, I think that attitude is condescending toward women.

[Capa84]

Jesus Christ...if people still want to whine because she is 50 pounds lighter, then the other drivers should be forced to wear more restrictive clothing to make up for the fact that men are by nature physically stronger than women. Or, perhaps drivers who are the optimum height for aerodynamic head positioning/steering wheel clearance should have to put risers in their seats to make up for the taller drivers, or sit lower to make up for the shorter drivers. What about teams that spend more on R&D than others? Should they be forced to even up the playing field by sharing the results?

This entire problem is that certain men are threatened by beautiful women, or those perceived as such, and even more threatened by them if they attain success in a field normally dominated by men, because it means those men have to quit using the,"if she wasn't hot, she wouldn't be shit", or "beautiful women are airheads and otherwise talentless" lines.

And, Anna K was one of, if not the best doubles player for years. If she was dog faced ugly, she would still have been the best doubles player in the world, and one of the better pros. She somehow gets bagged on because she is too pretty? Do some people resent her because she was too pretty for her skill level?

[asterion]

How much of a difference does 50 pounds or so make? I mean, we're not talking jockeys and a less than 2 mile race here. Considering all the other variables, I find it hard to believe that driver weight could have that much of an effect over a 500 mile race.

[An Arky]

Originally Posted by asterion

How much of a difference does 50 pounds or so make? I mean, we're not talking jockeys and a less than 2 mile race here. Considering all the other variables, I find it hard to believe that driver weight could have that much of an effect over a 500 mile race.

Well, that's the thing...if it were a 2 mile race, then 50 lbs probably wouldn't make enough difference over that short of a duration. But over 500 miles, that little sliver of advantage adds up to a more significant one.

[asterion]

Originally Posted by An Arky

Well, that's the thing...if it were a 2 mile race, then 50 lbs probably wouldn't make enough difference over that short of a duration. But over 500 miles, that little sliver of advantage adds up to a more significant one.

But there's so many other things that can happen. Wrecks and resulting variable numbers of cautions, bad pit stops, mistakes in passing wasting fuel, and other things that can affect mileage. Sure, with the same power and less weight I agree that consumption should be less and speed slightly greater, but then again, the faster you go the more fuel you use and that difference in speed would need to be constant to really make an effect on actual lap speed difference.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

Nobody said anything about not winning all the time. I said that neither had ever won, even once.Heh, looks like I pissed off the whole family. First of all, it is beyond meaningless to point out that a professional athlete is better at their sport than people who aren't professional athletes. The end of this little rant is more applicable to Danica than Anna. At least I think it is. In tennis, there are something like 50+ individual events in a season, and a typical pro won't play even half of those. This means that pretty much everybody racks up a couple tournament wins here and there, simply because none of the tops seeds bother to enter the East Bumfuck Tennis Tourney & Cattle-Call Rodeo. I don't know IRL very well, but from what I can gather, most of the pros compete at most (or even all) the events, so it would be much less of a meaningful dig at Danica than it would at Kournikova.The only reason she was leading at the end is because she skipped the last pit stop, which is why she ended up coasting on fumes and ultimately losing. Most would classify that as a screw-up.She does indeed have an unfair advantage, so every race she doesn't win tends to lend credibility to the theory that she is a mediocre driver at best.

Hopefully she'll prove me wrong later today. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Nice. I didn't see my old man even post to this thread. I didn't say anything about winning multiple times either. If you professionally win a tournament in your career, that's better than virtually anyone else that's ever picked up a racquet/club/driven a car has. Not someone who is or isn't pro at their sport, but ever. Hell, even if you do count only professional players, that's still better than almost all of them has done as well. Ana came and went. She made gobs of money, and she's having a pretty comfortable life as a result. I don't see how that'd be a failure in any way. (You didn't call her a failure.)

I'd like to see the spread in a few sports. What percentage of events are won by what people. If what you're saying is correct, then at least 50% of the IRL racing will have a tournament victory. Let's take a look at tennis and golf while we're at it. What percentage of professional athletes in those sports have won a tournament? I'd hazard a guess and say that it'd range from 15% (in golf) to 20% (tennis?).

[Ellis Dee]

If driver weight doesn't make a difference, then why does NASCAR (with much heavier cars) weigh the cars with the drivers in them?

Originally Posted by Capa84

Jesus Christ...if people still want to whine because she is 50 pounds lighter, then the other drivers should be forced to wear more restrictive clothing to make up for the fact that men are by nature physically stronger than women. Or, perhaps drivers who are the optimum height for aerodynamic head positioning/steering wheel clearance should have to put risers in their seats to make up for the taller drivers, or sit lower to make up for the shorter drivers. What about teams that spend more on R&D than others? Should they be forced to even up the playing field by sharing the results?

This entire problem is that certain men are threatened by beautiful women, or those perceived as such, and even more threatened by them if they attain success in a field normally dominated by men, because it means those men have to quit using the,"if she wasn't hot, she wouldn't be shit", or "beautiful women are airheads and otherwise talentless" lines.

This is comically ridiculous. You're focusing on things that make it easier to get the car up to its maximum potential, but lighter weight doesn't make it easier to drive the car; it makes the car faster. That's what makes it an unfair advantage.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

If you professionally win a tournament in your career, that's better than virtually anyone else that's ever picked up a racquet/club/driven a car has. Not someone who is or isn't pro at their sport, but ever. Hell, even if you do count only professional players, that's still better than almost all of them has done as well. Ana came and went. She made gobs of money, and she's having a pretty comfortable life as a result. I don't see how that'd be a failure in any way. (You didn't call her a failure.)

I'd like to see the spread in a few sports. What percentage of events are won by what people. If what you're saying is correct, then at least 50% of the IRL racing will have a tournament victory. Let's take a look at tennis and golf while we're at it. What percentage of professional athletes in those sports have won a tournament? I'd hazard a guess and say that it'd range from 15% (in golf) to 20% (tennis?).

You seem to be unable to compare like with like.

The dig isn't that Anna was a pro who never won an individual event. The dig is that she was a very good pro who never won an individual event. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she is the only WTA player to ever attain a top-10 ranking without winning a single individual tournament. I'd bet a dollar than the vast majority of top-20 players have one at least one individual tournament.

To reiterate, though, if IRL works the way I think it does, then this logic wouldn't apply to Danica, since there wouldn't be any easy wins where none of the top drivers bother to show up.

[Capa84]

A number of things make a car faster, including information gained during R&D, the reaction times of the driver, and the setup of the car. Lighter weight helps in creating a greater top speed. Racing a car is more than creating the highest speed possible. Until you decide it's fair to level the playing field in every single aspect that affects handling, pit times, acceleration, and top speed, leave the weight issue alone.

How about if we require that all pit crew members to be the same height, weight, and speed on a shuttle run test so that no pit crew can gain an advantage by hiring stronger, faster tire changers?

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Capa84

A number of things make a car faster, including information gained during R&D, the reaction times of the driver, and the setup of the car. Lighter weight helps in creating a greater top speed. Racing a car is more than creating the highest speed possible. Until you decide it's fair to level the playing field in every single aspect that affects handling, pit times, acceleration, and top speed, leave the weight issue alone.

How about if we require that all pit crew members to be the same height, weight, and speed on a shuttle run test so that no pit crew can gain an advantage by hiring stronger, faster tire changers?

I wonder why you feel so strongly about this. Is it so that the poor widdle wimminfolk get an advantage over the big mean guys? If not, I can't follow your logic at all.

Are you against the NASCAR practice of weighing the driver and car together, or is it only in IRL where the weight issue should be left alone?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Crap. Hamsters hate me.

In the men and womens' tennis tours, there's 1500 and 1400 ranked players respectively. With 36 (I think) and 30 (I think) winners for 60 and 66 tournaments respectively, there's a miniscule chance that you'll win at random. Someone that would never win a tournament is in the VAST majority.

There are 40 IRL drivers. There are 14 races. There were only 6 winners of each of those 14 races last year. Your chances are best in IRL racing, but with those odds, you've got to have a fluke year.

In the PGA tour in 2007, the player rankings go to 1347. Last year, there were 40 different winners in 56 tournaments.

Seriously, there's no shame in being a professional tennis/golf/IRL racer and not having a win on your resume.

What's the lifespan of an IRL career anyways?

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

In the men and womens' tennis tours, there's 1500 and 1400 ranked players respectively. With 36 (I think) and 30 (I think) winners for 60 and 66 tournaments respectively, there's a miniscule chance that you'll win at random. Someone that would never win a tournament is in the VAST majority.

How many top 10 and top 20 players have never won an individual tournament?

ETA: Alternately, how many top 20 players can you find who never won an individual tournament, other than Anna Kournikova?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

You seem to be unable to compare like with like.

The dig isn't that Anna was a pro who never won an individual event. The dig is that she was a very good pro who never won an individual event. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she is the only WTA player to ever attain a top-10 ranking without winning a single individual tournament. I'd bet a dollar than the vast majority of top-20 players have one at least one individual tournament.

To reiterate, though, if IRL works the way I think it does, then this logic wouldn't apply to Danica, since there wouldn't be any easy wins where none of the top drivers bother to show up.

I'm perfectly capable of comparing. If you're arguing that Ana Kournikova might have been the only player to have ever been ranked in the top ten and never won a tournament, then that's a statistical anomaly. Not only that, but that's even a silly argument to make because everything you're fighting with has happened exactly once, if that's true. If that's your case, then you've got some numbers to crunch and some results to comb through throughout the years.

All I'm saying is that Ana Kournikova isn't a failure because she never won an individual title. Maybe we're fighting two different battles here.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

How many top 10 and top 20 players have never won an individual tournament?

ETA: Alternately, how many top 20 players can you find who never won an individual tournament, other than Anna Kournikova?

That's your case. I'm not making it for you.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

If you're arguing that Ana Kournikova might have been the only player to have ever been ranked in the top ten and never won a tournament, then that's a statistical anomaly.

That's it exactly.

This point was made explicitly in ESPN's episode of You Can't Blame: Anna Kournikova for Not Winning a Tournament. I mentioned that the haters are already starting to speak up. Wee Bairn explained the reason for it.

I still maintain that failing to ever win a WTA individual tournament is a legitimate criticism of a top player. The schmucks who never crack the top 100, but manage to eak out a brief career? Obviously their failure to win a tournament isn't a dig, since they aren't expected to win. But top players are expected to win something just by virtue of being a top player.

[Capa84]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

I wonder why you feel so strongly about this. Is it so that the poor widdle wimminfolk get an advantage over the big mean guys? If not, I can't follow your logic at all.

Are you against the NASCAR practice of weighing the driver and car together, or is it only in IRL where the weight issue should be left alone?

No, every sanctioning body is free to make rules as they allow. Nascar was also slow to adopt mandatory SAFER barriers and HANS type devices. Why is Nascar the golden authority for the correct way to administer a race?

I feel strongly that it is such a non factor that people who constantly harp on it must have a hidden agenda. Until you can produce numbers that show how much speed on every single course the IRL races on can be gained by a 50 pound weight advantage? How does the fact that some cars have an extra 50 pounds at the lowest point in the car and in the exact center affect cornering speeds, on speedways, and on road courses? Do you have any data to show that a 50 pound decrease in weight is any advantage in a race(except for drag races, obviously).

There are a million tiny little variables that can account for a .01 second difference in a lap time, I wonder why the fact that a particular racer is 50 pounds lighter is the one that people bitch about.


If weight IS such an issue, then why doesn't MotoGP have a weight requirement for the bike+rider instead of just the bike? There would be no racing league in the world where rider weight would have a greater affect than MotoGP.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Capa84

If weight IS such an issue, then why doesn't MotoGP have a weight requirement for the bike+rider instead of just the bike? There would be no racing league in the world where rider weight would have a greater affect than MotoGP.

Probably because it would be impractical.

IRL is the only major (car) racing organization that doesn't add ballast to offset driver weight disparities. (Many apply some sort of cutoff, for example 150. In other words, if you weigh more than 150 pounds, and want an even playing field, get your fat ass to the gym.)

As for whether or not 50 pounds makes a difference, a full gas tank is around 80 pounds. Cars clock faster lap times with a quarter tank than a full one.

No amount of handwaving negates the basics physics of racing. IRL is within their rights to give an advantage to the lighter drivers; hell, with Danica on the circuit it's in their best interest to do so. But it is a departure from standard (car) racing practices.

I personally am against unfair advantages just on general principle, and especially when it seems to target specific competitors. It would be like having an exception to steroids rules for players that have (dual) citizenship in a country where steroids are legal.

[The Controvert]

I notice there's not a lot of heavyset or downright obese racecar drivers. Most of them look rather trim.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

100 pounds is extremely light, even for a woman. You can't even get into the Army if you weigh less than 110 pounds, and even the tiniest grown women I know usually weigh no less than 115 pounds. 140 pounds is probably an average weight for healthy, adult women who are in good shape.

Danica Patrick isn't at an advantage because she's female, she's at an advantage because she's beyond tiny.

Really, if this weight advantage turns out to be that friggin' wonderful, it ought to lead to tinier men joining the ranks of NASCAR drivers. Is there something wrong with that?

The whole issue just reeks of men getting upset because they've done their level best to make sure that the only sports and events that are given any attention are the sports that men excel at due to their higher center of gravity, proportionally larger hearts and lungs, and superior upper-body strength, and now here's a woman sneaking in the back door, having an advantage because she's miniscule.

[commasense]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

IRL is the only major (car) racing organization that doesn't add ballast to offset driver weight disparities.

Cite? AFAIK, neither Formula 1 nor Champ Car (the two series most similar to IRL) add ballast to make up for driver weight. At least I've never heard any mention of the fact and I've been watching both for almost 20 years. I believe that all three series have minimum weights for the empty car, but that's it.

I haven't heard comparable numbers for IRL, but ISTR commentators in the F1 broadcasts saying (in the context of fuel loads) that a weight difference of 10 kilos equals a tenth of a second per lap. F1 cars are more powerful than IRL cars, so the difference would be less in an IRL car. But still at least potentially significant. And yet the sanctioning body has chosen not to address it in the rules. I have no big problem with this.

And I believe that Danica will win one this season. I think she has the talent.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

That's it exactly.

This point was made explicitly in ESPN's episode of You Can't Blame: Anna Kournikova for Not Winning a Tournament. I mentioned that the haters are already starting to speak up. Wee Bairn explained the reason for it.

I still maintain that failing to ever win a WTA individual tournament is a legitimate criticism of a top player. The schmucks who never crack the top 100, but manage to eak out a brief career? Obviously their failure to win a tournament isn't a dig, since they aren't expected to win. But top players are expected to win something just by virtue of being a top player.

She won doubles tournaments. She was one of the 20 best female tennis players on the planet. Calling her a failure because of some standards that you, or people like you, have cooked up are completely unfair and silly.

I'd like to see what female tennis players have never won a tournament that have been ranked in the top twenty at one point in their careers. I still think that you'll find out that it's not nearly as uncommon as you make it to be.

[Yookeroo]

Originally Posted by An Arky

Well, that's the thing...if it were a 2 mile race, then 50 lbs probably wouldn't make enough difference over that short of a duration. But over 500 miles, that little sliver of advantage adds up to a more significant one.

Sure. But I have yet to hear a good reason as to why it's an unfair advantage. Nothing unfair about it.

[Saltire]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

Probably because it would be impractical.

IRL is the only major (car) racing organization that doesn't add ballast to offset driver weight disparities. (Many apply some sort of cutoff, for example 150. In other words, if you weigh more than 150 pounds, and want an even playing field, get your fat ass to the gym.)

As for whether or not 50 pounds makes a difference, a full gas tank is around 80 pounds. Cars clock faster lap times with a quarter tank than a full one.

No amount of handwaving negates the basics physics of racing. IRL is within their rights to give an advantage to the lighter drivers; hell, with Danica on the circuit it's in their best interest to do so. But it is a departure from standard (car) racing practices.

I personally am against unfair advantages just on general principle, and especially when it seems to target specific competitors. It would be like having an exception to steroids rules for players that have (dual) citizenship in a country where steroids are legal.

I'm not a big sports fan, and certainly not a racing fan. But I do wonder what you think is unfair.

I understand that some racing types have different rules as regards driver weight, but Danica Patrick isn't competing in those races. She's competing in Indy, which has it's own rules. It's not like they've got one rule for her and a different rule for other drivers. Your steroid comparison is analogous to Danica jumping into NASCAR and having them decide, just for her, to ignore weight. The metaphor doesn't seem to have any meaning within the one driving sport under discussion

Every Indy race team could, if they wanted to take advantage of this rule, field a smaller driver. It's perfectly fair. They could have been doing this years ago, since the rules are the same as they were before Danica joined the sport. Again perfectly fair.

What would be unfair would be to change the rules just because Danica's driving now. That would be an unfair disadvantage that seems to target specific competitors.

[Sam Stone]

Danica Shows She Deserved Hype

Patrick's eighth-place finish was the same result as last year, but her drive was more reminiscent of her historic fourth place as a rookie two years ago.

She ran as high as second place and stayed among the top five all day with several impressive passes. Rain interrupted the race and ultimately ended it 34 laps shy of the scheduled 200 circuits. She was in third place when the race was red-flagged for three hours, but fell back after the restart.

But Patrick, 25, proved that with competitive equipment, she can be competitive.

She deserved to be considered a favorite. She drove like one.

She's a great driver. She doesn't deserve the snark.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by bluethree

100 pounds is extremely light, even for a woman. You can't even get into the Army if you weigh less than 110 pounds, and even the tiniest grown women I know usually weigh no less than 115 pounds. 140 pounds is probably an average weight for healthy, adult women who are in good shape.

For a woman with a small frame and height of 5'2", the suggested weight range is 108-121 lbs, so it looks like she is underweight by a bit, if she is only 100 lbs.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by bluethree

Really, if this weight advantage turns out to be that friggin' wonderful, it ought to lead to tinier men joining the ranks of NASCAR drivers. Is there something wrong with that?

It doesn't affect NASCAR because NASCAR weighs the cars as raced, which includes the driver. Because IRL doesn't, you do indeed see an army of tiny men competing.

Originally Posted by commasense

Cite? AFAIK, neither Formula 1 nor Champ Car (the two series most similar to IRL) add ballast to make up for driver weight. At least I've never heard any mention of the fact and I've been watching both for almost 20 years. I believe that all three series have minimum weights for the empty car, but that's it.

Champ Car and IRL use the same rules, since they are the two leagues that formed from the CART split. (I don't know the details, and I'm probably wrong that the former unified league was named CART, but Wikipedia's expanation wasn't very clear to me.) As far as other leagues:

The Official Formula 1 Website

Cars must weigh at least 605kg (including the driver) at all times. Teams may use ballast to bring cars up to weight. This must be firmly secured to the cars. Ballast may not be removed or added during a race.

NASCAR 101

NASCAR mandates that all Cup cars must weigh 3400 pounds, including the driver and all of his safety gear, when the cars enter sanctioned competition.

American Sprint Car Series

Weight Rule: Weight rule is 1475 lbs., including the driver, at the conclusion of the race.

CANADIAN VINTAGE MODIFIEDS

Minimum weight of car and driver after any race shall not be less than 2300 lbs.

A1 Grand Prix

Overall weight: 600kg including driver and camera

World Touring Car Championship

the maximum weight is [1,140] kilos, and that is with the driver [Maximum? - ED]

I could go on, but half of the sites crash my crappy dial-up modem, which means I have to reboot to get back online. I trust this sampling is enough.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

The only reason she was leading at the end is because she skipped the last pit stop, which is why she ended up coasting on fumes and ultimately losing. Most would classify that as a screw-up.

A screw up not under her control. A great number of the articles/features I saw this weekend mentioned the interest in seeing how she did with Andretti Green with the implication that they are/were a much better organization than her old team of Rahal Letterman.