Well, that’s beyond my grasp of physics, so I haven’t a clue.
One correction from my previous post. I would classify better vision as an ability rather than as a skill. Both are the focus of what makes sport interesting; competing head to head against the most naturally gifted and extensively trained opponents.
In sports like basketball and sumo, the taller/more massive competitors have an advantage solely from body type that they can capitalize on through the application of skill. The driver weight issue, OTOH is an advantage that is completely passive. That’s what makes it different.
If the weight difference is significant, surely the logical end result is auto racing will be dominated by women? If men have more strength and stamina and this is more relevant, then it will be dominated by men. If he wants women handicapped because of weight, then he should take some drugs or put extra resistance in the steering or whatever it is that can be done to take away his strength advantage.
Otherwise, he’s just a whining ass, which appears to be the case. I think it would be great for the sport to have twice as many people eligible to race.
Agreed on all counts. But those advantages must be actively pursued to be gained. The weight issue is passive.
Absolutely correct. I’m a huge fan of parity, which only really exists in the NFL, and even that is beginning to strain. I wholly endorse any and all parity measures in any and all sports. To me, without parity, there is no competition, and competition is the only thing of interest in sports. I cannot fathom watching those slam dunk contests or streetball shows.
I hear what you’re saying, but I think that’s really looking for an issue when there doesn’t need to be one. How about a cap at 200. Fatter than that? Lose some weight or accept a disadvantage.
100% correct. Parity is one of the things that makes NASCAR such a successful sport. (I’m aware that those dirty cheaters try to gain any advantage they can, by hook or by crook. But the rules themselves promote a level playing field.)
Your strength handicapping idea sounds like sour grapes to me. Women can (and do; look at Annika Sorenstam) build up strength and muscle by training. While a man can lose weight, you can’t make an average man 100 pounds.
The arguments against weight equalization here seem a bit odd to me. Is it possible that those of you making these arguments aren’t sports fans? Because some don’t seem to grasp the “level playing field” concept. The idea isn’t that all competition should be so even that all games end in ties. The idea is that the structure of the sport itself is fair, and you do everything you can to improve your chances of winning by studying, training, practicing, and gameplanning.
So bigger is an advantage that should be accepted, but smaller is not?
Shaq’s height is an advantage because the basketball hoop is at a fixed height; taller people can reach it more easily than shorter ones.
Cars of a minimum required (car only) weight race by travelling a fixed distance, with a goal of travelling the distance in the shortest time. In this case, the passenger achieves a small advantage by being smaller.
So why is “bigger” automatically accepted as an advantage, but smaller is not?
As others have mentioned, the horse-racing world addressed this problem long ago, by requiring that jockey + saddle meet a certain weight, with weights added to equalize the field. (If you wanted to field a fat jockey, you’re allowed to exceed it.)
If this were genuinely perceived as such a huge issue, why didn’t someone start screaming about those 130 pounders winning? The 70 pound advantage a 130 pounder would have over the 200 pounder is already 70% of the way to that dreaded 100 pound advantage he’s whining about. For that matter, has anyone looked to see if there is a statistically significant advantage to the light-weight drivers over the heavy weights? Have the majority of wins come from the lightweights, or does weight of the driver appear to be irrelevant?
If they do try to set an equalizing limit, they should make it a moderate target ---- more along the lines of 150 pounds or so. Lighter weight competitors should not be penalized for not having the extra muscle mass (and/or beer gut).
Gordon is a putz. Women have already made their mark in other areas of racing, have been involved for over 30 years, and I don’t recall any of the other men getting out the crying towel until now. He needs to shut his pie hole and drive, unless he wants to go find some sport where the mean little girls won’t kick his ass. :rolleyes:
I’ve sat on my hands long enough.
Racing is not fair. Let me say that again Racing is not fair
Different engines produce different amounts of horse power. Not fair.
Different chassis handle different. Not fair.
Different chassis set up on the same chassis makes the car handle different. Not fair.
Different pit crews work at different speeds. Not fair.
Different brands of tires have different grip characteristics. Not fair.
Wings can be adjusted to allow the car to go faster, or have more downforce. Not fair.
Fuck guys, for the most part, life is not fair. Deal with it. Different racing series have different rules Completly fair as long as the rules are applied the same to all.
The trick in racing is to maximise the not fair items in your favor, and win the fucking race. The smallest driver does not always win at Indy ( or most other places for that matter.)
In the racing I was involved in there was technical term for guys like Mr. Gordon. We described them as having a stuck whiner valve.
Ms. Patrick drove a hell of a race. She made a couple of mistakes, but also showed some real skill when the shit hit the fan.
Women weren’t even permitted to ride in Jockey Club sanctioned Thoroughbred races until 1969, after Kathy Kusner, a prominent showjumping rider, mounted a successful legal case in 1968 to become the first licensed female jockey in the United States.
There have been some female jockeys who’ve made it big, most notably Julie Krone, who is
I don’t think so. She’s a good driver but she was in like 10th place when that caution happened and she stayed out to become the leader. I don’t think there were enough laps left to allow her to become the leader by passing–both the cars and the drivers in front of her were very very good. I think she might’ve won with one less mistake–either not stalling it out in the pits or not crashing right before the restart. Similarly, if that second yellow had come out when she was still the leader she might have been able to conserve enough gas to stave off the people behind her and run it full.
The difference is that the taller basketball player has to acquire and implement skill to capitalize on the height advantage. What, exactly, does a 100 pound driver have to do to capitalize on the weight advantage? Absolutely nothing. That is a significant difference.
Agreed. I would like to see every reasonable measure put into place to minimize the unfairness. Equalizing for driver weight seems to be a reasonable measure.
What does this mean? The tall basketball player must learn exactly the same skills as the shrimpy basketball player in order to capitalize on her height. The scrawny driver must learn exactly the same skills as the fat driver in order to capitalize on his weight. I see no significant difference at all.
Let’s say it comes out that Gordon has superior peripheral vision, through an accident of birth, and that this peripheral vision helps him in the game. Shall we then insist that his car be equipped with blinders in order to remove his advantage?
Let’s say it comes out that Smith has got a lower center of gravity than other racers, because of his abnormally large hips, and that this helps him in the game. Shall we require him to wear a heavy helmet in order to remove his advantage?
Let’s say it comes out that Petty has got faster reflexes than other racers through an accident of birth, and this helps him in the game. Shall we require him to be drugged in order to remove his advantage?
It’s an absurd idea. We almost never penalize someone in a sport because their body is well-equipped for the sport.
The exception is telling. Horse jockeys are required to wear a certain amount of weight to bring themselves up to par. And do you remember the winner of the last Kentucky Derby?
If you do, I bet you named the horse, not the jockey. In horseracing, we focus on the horse’s physique, not on the human’s. And a horse with superior carriage is not penalized for it.
Er, acquire and implement skill? I don’t see how it’s different at all - in both cases the natural advantage simply makes it easier to achieve a given level of performance. One could even argue that the basketballer’s height advantage is more unfair, since it’s a lot easier to lose weight than it is to gain height. No, I think the reason weight is a concern in motor racing is because the driver’s physical characteristics are incidental to the point of the sport, whereas in basketball they’re not. Racing’s supposed to be about the skill of the driver and the performance of the car; as long as the driver’s fit enough to make it through a 2hr race, no-one much cares about their physical attributes.
How about the using exactly the same car, the same driver, and just adding some ballast? How about plotting the lap times of a car as it gets through its fuel load? I’ve done a bit of work for F1 teams, and trust me, they have an extremely good idea just what effect extra weight has on their cars, since it’s what largely dictates their optimum race strategy. Really, it’s pretty undeniable that extra weight is a disadvantage, the only question is how much of a disadvantage it is (and on an oval race, I think it’s minimal). Like I said earlier, the weight regs in F1 are specified for driver+car; I’m kind of surprised they don’t do this in Indy, but I presume it’s because the weight effects on ovals are just so small. I certainly don’t buy the “1mph advantage” figure that’s been quoted, since that figures out to about .2s/lap if I’ve got my numbers right. When you factor in track length, that’s about the same effect as on an F1 car at Monaco, where you actually have to brake and accelerate. So yeah; weight certainly does have an effect, but I think they’re full of shit regarding just how much.
I don’t think anyone’s trying to do that - I think the idea (and it’s a reasonable one) is to try and find any factors that convey an advantage, and decide whether allowing them to vary is conducive to an interesting race. It’s like when the javelin regs were changed in athletics; the javelins were starting to get more and more specialised, with aerodynamic nobbles at the tail and all sorts of mod cons, and the distances thrown were skyrocketing as a result. Since the javelin is supposed to be a contest of strength and technique, and not an engineering challenge, the rules were changed. It’s all about what makes the sport fun to watch - would you rather watch less-talented people selected for weight, or would you rather just see the most skilful drivers? For me, it’s the latter. Doesn’t mean Gordon’s not being a tool in the way he’s complaining, though.
It means that the ball doesn’t automatically go through the hoop just because a tall person shot it. But a lighter car+driver load is actually more efficient at accelerating and turning regardless of the driver’s skill.
Why do you name horse racing as the sole exception? NASCAR weighs the car+driver load, not the empty car like IRL.
Again, no difference. The car doesn’t automatically make the inside lane just because a short person aimed for it, and a taller basketball player is more efficient at shooting for the basket regardless of the player’s skill. In both cases, a physical advantage makes it easier to take advantage of the skill. Or do you argue that a 5’6" basketball player has just as easy a time on the court as a 7’0" player?
Not sole; one of the few. I can’t speak to NASCAR’s rule, but I’m saying that its rule is extremely rare in sports: very, very few sports penalize players for having bodies better-adapted to the sport.
Which would tell you only how that driver compares at different weights. It says nothing about how two different drivers compare. Because different drivers have different skill sets. A 100-lb driver may have a supposed weight advantage over other drivers, but have lower endurance, meaning that driver’s overall advantage may well be nil. Just as one example. My point is you can’t compare one trait across multiple drivers and claim that trait is solely responsible for a given driver’s success (or lack thereof).
Like hell. There is no way I could train myself to achieve faster reflexes than what I have. Younger folks generally have faster reflexes, and they sure as hell didn’t learn that.
Like hell. What, you think someone could, for example, learn to not need glasses?!
There are some traits which are simply inherent. There’s a reason why there are “sports legends”, and it usually amounts to more than simple dedication. The same is going to be as true in racing as in anything else.
I don’t understand why you guys think I’m suggesting that sports should equalize all aspects of a game. I’ve repeatedly stated that I think skill should be the determining factor in who wins, and skill is clearly a variable. One thing you’re convincing me of is that basketball is a flawed sport, not that Gordon’s point was wrong.
I’m stunned that the fact that lighter load allows faster acceleration is a legitimate advantage to you guys. I’m guessing you’d like to see the weight restrictions on the cars removed as well? Or perhaps IRL drivers should go the route of jockeys? What is it, exactly, that you are advocating?
Very very few overall, but curiously, it appears that of all the sports where the majority of the work is done by a non-human, they all take combined weight into account. All of them except IRL, that is. So I think your claim that the rule is extremely rare is irrelevant and misleading.
Even if that’s all they do, their car will still accelerate and handle better than if the weights were equalized.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Let’s assume that every driver did these trials, and it was shown that across the board, in every case, the drivers performed better without the added ballast. Would your position be that IRL, unlike all the other racing organizations, had it right to favor smaller drivers, and favoring them was a good thing?
And suppose Patrick did win. Would everyone automatically discount the idea that perhaps she really does have “mad skillz”, and instead suggest that the sole reason she won was because she weighed less than the other drivers? That’s my point: you can’t separate out an “inherent advantage” like weight from real skill differentials – or even other innate physical or mental abilities – between drivers. The fact that she didn’t win the Indy 500 would certainly provide evidence that being a lightweight in and of itself doesn’t make one a master racer. And, in a larger sense, it would indicate that being light in and of itself is not nearly the advantage that some people seem to think.
An advantage, sure. But racers win based on more than just how much they weigh. Strength, reflexes, endurance, even the ability to strategize all are more likely far more important in the long run. As I said before, all other things being equal, weight might mean something. But since all other things aren’t equal out there on the track, I think the focus on the driver’s weight is meaningless.
Tanya Streeter has been called the ''most physiologically gifted athlete in the world." and she competes in free-diving competitions (diving underwater and ascending with one breath of air). There are various categories of free-diving (descending with a weight, then ascending with air ballast; unassisted descent and ascent, etc). She has held (and holds) many of the world’s free-diving records - beating the female and male records!!!
Incidentally, for a woman her size, her lung capacity is 50% greater than an average woman’s. Hmmm, that sounds similar to racer’s weighing less than other drivers. This advantage has nothing to do with skill or training. Maybe free-divers don’t have egos as sensitive as 200 pound race drivers.
Someone asked if the Dopers involved in this debate are sports fans. I used to be a sports fan but somehow port have been dominated by the almighty dollar as the year’s have gone by. I’m sure I’m not the first to say this but sports have become games that are played by millionaires and owned by billionaires.
I think the more important question is what are you advocating? IF weight is the advantage you are claiming, then do you suggest preventing anyone weighing less than a certain amount from even participating in the sport? Or that all vehicle+driver combinations must be a constant?
I, for one, am advocating leaving things as they are until such time as it is demonstrated that lighter drivers truly have an overwhelming advantage.
As I have already stated, all other things being equal, weight differences would provide differing performance. Unless all other things are equal, drivers should not be penalized by their weight (or lack thereof) simply because of perceptions. You wanna carry out some scientific tests which demonstrate conclusively that a 50-lb difference in drivers provides a definite edge, and I’d be all for making some rules changes in the sport. Until then, it’s all just speculation, and I can speculate just as well that the weight differences between drivers are insignificant relative to skill differences.