Your top 3 NASCAR drivers of all time?
- Thread starter cawoodsct
- Start date
Richard Petty, David Pearson & Jimmie Johnson.
You are really splitting hairs past The King. Dale Sr tied with JJ and Petty winning 7 championships. Jeff Gordon 4 Championships, 3 for Cale Yarborough and Darrell Waltrip. 80+ victories for all except Dale Sr. with 76. Bobby Allison with 85 wins.
Gordon's career and sustained success saw him compete against many top drivers from different eras such as Johnson, Stewart, Larson, Harvick, Dale Sr, DW, Jarrett, Wallace, Martin, Gant, the Labontes, Elliott, Truex, Hamlin, Kyle Busch and even his first race was Petty's last race. Raced in the old points format and the playoff era that started with the Chase for the Cup in 2004.
You are really splitting hairs past The King. Dale Sr tied with JJ and Petty winning 7 championships. Jeff Gordon 4 Championships, 3 for Cale Yarborough and Darrell Waltrip. 80+ victories for all except Dale Sr. with 76. Bobby Allison with 85 wins.
Gordon's career and sustained success saw him compete against many top drivers from different eras such as Johnson, Stewart, Larson, Harvick, Dale Sr, DW, Jarrett, Wallace, Martin, Gant, the Labontes, Elliott, Truex, Hamlin, Kyle Busch and even his first race was Petty's last race. Raced in the old points format and the playoff era that started with the Chase for the Cup in 2004.
That list is skewed and does not accurately represent the best drivers in the sport going off of average finish. No way in hell is Darrell Waltrip the 20th best regardless of average finish. Erik Jones, Greg Biffle, Tyler Reddick before Dale Jarrett and Bobby Labonte?
Tend to agree with these 3 at the top. All 3 with 7 Championships, 3 more than the next closest Gordon with 4. Won across multiple decades. Johnson and Knaus excelled better than anyone in the playoff era and had the wins throughout the season to back it up.
Stewart and Logano have 3 Cup Series Championships with Waltrip and Yarborough. Tony won the 2002 title under the old format, won the 2005 Chase for the Cup, and the tiebreaker over Carl Edwards with more victories in 2011. Not NASCAR related but worth mentioning he has an IndyCar Championship too.
Movie Favorites:
Ricky Bobby (Talladega Nights)
Cole Trickle (Days of Thunder)
Junior Jackson (The Last American Hero)
Ricky Bobby (Talladega Nights)
Cole Trickle (Days of Thunder)
Junior Jackson (The Last American Hero)
Wow. Apparently none of you have been paying attention the last few years.
1) Wendell Scott
2) Bubba Wallace
3) Danica Patrick
What did I win?
1) Wendell Scott
2) Bubba Wallace
3) Danica Patrick
What did I win?
The correct answer:
Richard Petty
Dale Earnhardt Sr
Jeff Gordon
Richard Petty
Dale Earnhardt Sr
Jeff Gordon
Gordon would’ve had 7 championships (04, 07, 14) with the traditional championship format that Petty and Sr won their 7 championships.
Gordon is a top 3 driver all time based on any metric you want to look at.
I stand by my 3 answers based on any metric you want to look at. I base my decision on objective metrics documented in the official NASCAR record books. Hypotheticals with the traditional format are irrelevant past 2003. Omitting JJ with 7 championships in the past 20 years, and The Silver Fox with 3 titles and 105 wins, the 2nd most in the sport is absurd. Gordon had his opportunities like everyone else in the Chase/playoffs and simply no one has done it on the level Johnson did. Harvick would be a 4-time champion under the old rules and that simply is not reality with the current landscape of NASCAR in a playoff era for 21 years. It is what it is, whether people like it or not. I am fine with those who want to put Sr. in the top 3 with 7 Championships as he also raced against some of the pioneers of the sport and the stars of the 90s. That is based on reality, and not based on theoretical situations. Pearson as the only other driver with 100+ wins other than Petty with 200, also multiple titles considers the entire body of work here. 29 more victories than Sr. and that would be a great career for a driver. Would rank them 30th on the all-time wins list which is 3 more than Jr's career total in victories.
Old Points Format in Winston Cup.
Reality
Last edited:
In the might would have been category:
Alan Kulwicki
Davey Allison
Tim Richmond
Alan Kulwicki
Davey Allison
Tim Richmond
Those 3 were some damn good drivers and lost too many good ones during that time. I often wonder the same if Ernie Irvan had neither one of those Michigan wrecks. He was never the same after the first crash and was in a tight battle in points with Dale Sr. Ernie was leading most of the year before missing the last 10 races. Earnhardt would go on to win that year.
The old format isn’t irrelevant in this conversation. It obviously relevant considering Petty and Earnhardt won 7 championships a piece without a playoff format.
Omitting Pearson and Jimmie Johnson isn’t anymore absurd than omitting Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Sr.
The latter two had vast more impact on the sport in terms of success and sport viability than the two you listed.
You argue “any metric” but Gordon had more sustained, consistent success than Pearson or Jimmie Johnson.
As I said Gordon won 7 “points championships”. Sure, he didn’t win a “championship” but based on the traditional format he had the best team all season 3 times yet didn’t come home with a trophy, it’s needs to be taken into account. Gordon also never had a drop off like Pearson and Johnson. Outside of his rookie year Gordon never finished outside of top 10 points but one time (2005) from 1994-2015.
Gordon also has more crown jewel and grand slam wins than any driver in NASCAR Cup history. He also has the most modern era (1972-present) NASCAR Cup wins. He also won the most single season wins in the modern era. He has the most wins at restrictor plate and road courses in history. He is also the only driver in consideration to win the Rolex 24 at Daytona.
Your argument is based on a points format that was outdated over 20 years ago is inconsequential. Pearson has the 3rd best winning percentage in the sport, 18.3% of the time he was in victory lane. Jeff Gordon had 231 more starts than David Pearson did, and Pearson still won 105 for 2nd all-time. 93 for Gordon and a win percentage around 11.5%. The reddit post above shows career averages and The Silver Fox is on top. I don't get what metric you are basing Gordon being more consistent with those numbers. Pearson had a career avg finish of 11.0 compared to Gordon 12.5. Being a more mainstream driver has absolutely nothing to do with skill to determine who was a better driver behind the wheel. This sport is nothing without the pioneers who paved the way. Pearson also did this in inferior equipment for his era compared to driving HMS equipment his entire career for Gordon. As I said, I have no issue with people wanting to put Dale Sr. in the top 3 with the 7 titles. I made my case citing the 29 additional victories, avg finish and winning multiple championships in his own right too. I have a hard time not putting Pearson in the top 3 of drivers with the highest career avg finish and 2nd most wins. Not an absurd take. Wasn't the only one here who found Pearson to be a top 3 driver too. Earnhardt and Gordon would round out my top 5 with the entire body of work factored in.
McMurray, Larson, Montoya and Allmendinger have all won the Rolex 24 at Daytona for whatever relevance this has to the discussion. One of the "Crown Jewel" events, the Brickyard 400 wasn't even on the circuit during Pearson and Petty's career. That would literally make it impossible for those two to be a "grand slam" champion having not raced at Indy. For such a prestigious event, NASCAR temporarily took the Brickyard 400 off the circuit from 2021-23 citing a decrease in attendance and TV ratings.
If you’re going to credit Gordon with three “unofficial” championships based on the old points system, you must then acknowledge that Pearson likely would’ve won multiple more titles had he competed full-time every year like Gordon. Pearson ran partial schedules in the 70s, yet still finished top 3 in points multiple times. No drop off for Gordon? He went winless twice in HMS equipment in 2008 and 2010 when Jimmie Johnson was dominating while driving the same HMS equipment.
I need no other argument than 7 Championships for Jimmie Johnson and the fact he did it better than anyone coming up clutch in the playoff era of NASCAR. 5 consecutive titles from 2006-10. Johnson won 66 races to Gordon's 48 head-to-head from 2002-15 as full-time competitors. Jeff never won a title again after Jimmie became a full-time driver at HMS in 2002.
Last edited:
My argument isn’t based on the traditional points system. However it is a system that has a reflection on arguments made for who is top 3 and who isn’t. I almost don’t even like including the Golden Era with the Modern Era because Golden Era NASCAR was so different. My top 3 Golden Era drivers are Petty, Pearson, and Yarborough. My top 3 Modern Era drivers Earnhardt Sr, Gordon, and Johnson.
David Pearson's winning percentage, while impressive, isn't nearly as impressive as Gordon's overall consistency and run of success. You bring up Gordon going winless in two seasons, Pearson went winless in 6 out of 27 years in his career when he raced more than 10 races in a season. Add on top of that Jimmie Johnson went winless in his last 4 full Cup seasons with HMS equipment.
Its not known that Pearson would've won more championships racing full time. Have to factor in that he was still going against the greatest driver ever, not likely he wins more championships. I would
I'm not sure what the argument is about Johnson having more wins in a stretch than Gordon. Counter to that would be that Gordon has more wins against multiple 7 time champions (Sr+Johnson) than any other driver in history. Gordon also has more wins/point seasons than Jimmie Johnson and David Pearson. If Jimmie was so much better, why didn't he pass up Gordon on all-time wins list, overcome him in grand slams, and overcome him in crown jewels with albeit far better equipment and resources than Gordon had early in Gordon's career? Simple one to answer.
Jimmie Johnson had a great decade, with an advantageous format that resulted in him winning championships. You called him "clutch" referring to him being able to shine in a 10 race season with style of tracks that benefitted his team. You're inferring Jimmie's success is more "postseason" driven then overall consistency and dominance.
If championships are the only that matter then UCLA should be considered the greatest CBB program of all time. However they aren’t because consistency and sustained success matter.
You are really reaching with these fallacies and conjectures here. Your entire post earlier just propped how great Jeff Gordon was on every track, and now somehow JJ had an advantage because they benefited him more during a 10-race stretch? The tracks did not benefit Johnson more, he was simply better than Gordon. Gordon raced in the same equipment as Jimmie Johnson. JJ had no more of an advantage than any other driver in the same playoff format. Gordon only raced against one 7-time champion at a time with Earnhardt before his passing and later Johnson.
Pearson raced against a 7-time champion throughout his career as you even mentioned with Petty. A 200-time race winner I might add, while winning 105 races himself. You say we don't know if David would won another title. Yes, but you don't know that Pearson wouldn't have won at least one more title if afforded the opportunity to run full-time under the same circumstances to the drivers he is getting compared to. Given what we know about his success throughout his career, in a full schedule considering all of the points lost in the missed races when he was still finishing the top 3. It is very probable he would have given the consistency and skill throughout his career. It is not a debate whether he had the highest average finish in the sport and ran partial schedules in inferior equipment unlike Gordon at HMS. Your last paragraph is a load of bull and don't misconstrue my argument when I never once said championships were the only metric. You know what I said, multiple times I consider the entire body of work, wins, average finish, and titles. Can I spell it out any clearer for you? Pearson 2nd most wins in the sport winning 105, highest career-average finish 11.0, 1 less title than Gordon in fewer races than Jeff. How is that not consistency? The highest average finish literally proves his consistency. Johnson 83 wins, 7 titles. That is even more than Dale Sr. Earnhardt is the only driver with a convincing argument to be put ahead of anyone but Richard. However, like I said the wins, multiple titles and average finish make it hard to not put Pearson in the top 3.
You don't have to accept how Jimmie Johnson won his titles, but it is ignorant to act like his 7 championships are invalid while crediting Gordon with 7 under an outdated format. If Gordon was so much better than Johnson, how come he never won a title during 2002-15 and Jimmie won more races 66-48 in this time? Grand Slam/crown jewel victories, 10 more wins in more starts are only a couple metrics you can give Gordon the advantage, but I'll take the 7 championships. JJ's overall averages will slide the more he races part-time as a semi-retired driver. The way you claim to be confused by Jimmie being more dominant during this head-to-head run, while driving for the same team, both close in age, JJ with 66 wins to JG's 48 from 2002-15, 6 of his 7 championships is a good one. But since you asked what went wrong and he winless towards the end of the career. Here are some pretty convincing videos as to why. He had 3 wins early in 2017 coming off his last title in 2016, had that nasty crash in turn one at Pocono and was never quite the same after that crash. I don't believe for a minute his decline and this crash are some coincidence. Crashes have impacted drivers for years in this sport. I'm sure you will come back and down play any lingering effects this may have had.
Last edited:
Let me know the fallacies I’ve stated. Can’t wait to hear this.
You think Pearson was as consistent over +20 years as Gordon? It’s simply amazing. You have said an antiquated system doesn’t matter yet are now saying well Pearson has one less championship than Gordon when Pearson only drove in a points-system championship whereas Gordon competed in both points and playoffs. Which way do you want it? So now you’re penalizing Gordon for not winning 7 championships when in Pearson’s system would have but also because Gordon raced full time for +20 years he’s not as good as Pearson because Pearson won some races when he raced 12 times a years for more than a decade. LMAO
It’s awesome that you swear by championships in one statement then swear by winning percentage in the next. At that rate Dale Sr should be in your top 3 because he won nearly the same amount of races as Jimmie Johnson without goofy playoffs and won more titles than Pearson. Yet you excluded him.
You have spun this argument into who was more mainstream, mentioned the Rolex 24 to validate Gordon as a better NASCAR driver, and continue to say I am only considering championships when determining the best drivers while you credit Gordon with 3 titles not on the record books. You are the one who brought up these phantom championships into the discussion to make Gordon a 7-time champion and accuse me of the same thing you just did presenting a reasonable argument how a 105-time winner with 3 titles running a partial schedule with the highest average finish wasn't afforded the same opportunities as full-time competitors. Good grief, you are the one who started crediting drivers with championships not in the record books. You know I never said championships were the only metric to go by, but whatever narrative you need to spin for your failing argument. In what world did Dale Sr. when more races than Jimmie Johnson? Nice try saying I did not mention my criteria multiple times already with wins, average finish and titles in the entire body of work to factored in to prove sustained success over a career.
Even so the Winston 500 was a crown jewel prior to the Brickyard in 94. So all else being equal Pearson gets credit for winning that race even when Gordon doesn’t.
And that is only one metric. NASCAR did not even promote the "Grand Slam" championship prior to 1984. You know who the only driver was that won 3 of those crown jewel events you just mentioned in the same season? Pearson was retired by 1986 and was barely racing anymore by then.
Last edited:
Nope. Never spun it into who won more championships hence I didn’t include Jimmie Johnson. All I said was it needed to be accounted for that Gordon would’ve won championships relative to guys pre-playoffs, not sure what you don’t understand about it. You’re wanting to compare Pearson’s championships to Gordon then penalize Gordon for not being able to afford the same championship opportunity.
I also never said a word about mainstream. You said that, not me. Gordon has meant way more for the sport in terms of success and sport growth than both Pearson and Johnson. If you argue otherwise this conversation is completely pointless because it’s a dead *** wrong opinion.
Gordon has won a Rolex. No one else in contention has done it. Shows his depth and ability to transcend sport. Oh but Pearson is a better driver because he won races in the 60s against dudes that also had full time jobs LOL
When someone says someone else is saying “fallacies” and is “failing” without actually effectively presenting an argument means you are actually the one losing.
What? Gordon won the Daytona 500, the Coke 600, the Southern 500, and the championship in 1997. What are you even arguing at this point?
I am simply using your logic against you. You were the first in this thread to credit a driver with championships not on the record books. So I mentioned that if you are going to credit him with 7 titles not on the record books under an old format as your reasoning that Gordon is a better driver... You have to acknowledge that David wasn't running a full schedule therefore penalizing him for that doesn't make him lesser of a driver because his teams lacked funding. I know you aren't dumb enough to think drivers should still be winning titles when they don't run the entire schedule. I believe his accomplishments in fewer starts make it all that more impressive. That is a really ignorant statement to say when Pearson raced against the King, Yarborough, Waltrip, Junior Johnson, Tiny Lund, the Allisons, Parsons, Lorenzen, Labonte, Earnhardt, so forth. Rolex 24 is not NASCAR, something Pearson never did.
No dude, that is not what that means. It means the exact opposite for you. I presented facts before you and you have spun everyone of them in a way to fit your narrative and misconstrue my argument. That is when you know your argument is moot when you have to resort to this in your argument. Here you are again talking about how Gordon has meant so much more for NASCAR. I'm not going to argue that JG, Dale Sr and Petty were more marketable stars, but what does that have to do with driving skill? Nothing. Wins, titles and average finish are the most accurate ways to measure sustained success in the sport. This has been my reasoning since the start.
I was referring to the 4 crown jewel races you mentioned with Talladega in the post you quoted to diminish Pearson's crown jewel resume after moving the goal posts again with Talladega mentioning it as a crown jewel event. Though Crown Jewel wasn't promoted until 1984. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. David Pearson won at 3 of those tracks in 1976. Gordon won 3 crown jewel races in a year, but not when Talladega was considered a crown jewel race as your earlier post mentions the Winston 500. LeeRoy Yarbrough won Daytona, Charlotte, and Darlington in 1969 before Talladega.
Last edited:
Do you just talk in circles? I said Gordon won more Crown Jewels and Grand Slams than anyone. Fact. This also includes Pearson being able to claim the Winston 500 amongst the Daytona 500, Coke 600, and Southern 500. Another fact. So yes it does diminish Pearson’s “record” because he did both more than Pearson regardless of when NASCAR officially recognized it.
Apparently you do. It is only one metric. You are using crown jewel events as if it is the most important metric in determining who the most successful driver is. I guess Jamie McMurray is a legend since he won Crown Jewels at Daytona 500 and the Brickyard 400 using this logic. He also won the Rolex 24 at Daytona, Talladega and the All-Star Race. Something Richard Petty never won was an All-Star race but no one would ever say he wasn't a star in the sport. He was on the downhill slide by then, therefore I don't diminish his career. Crown Jewel wins are nice, but I'll take consistency with overall wins, titles and average finish when determining who I believe are the best drivers. That is not an objective take to diminish Pearson's record for something NASCAR didn't even recognize. Just like NASCAR doesn't recognize those 3 titles Gordon would have won under an outdated points format in the playoff era.
Last edited:
My logic? My guy, I’m still waiting to hear the fallacies. Gordon with 4 championships and +90 wins is a top 3 driver of all time. Period. All I did was reflect on that fact that he has 3 years that he didn’t win titles yet was the best driver those years. If he had Pearson’s ability to win championships based on points he’d have 7 and it’s further from an argument than it is now. However it didn’t occur that way but it still doesn’t take away from him being a top 3 driver. All you want to say is it’s a “spin” while in the next breath you want to say “Pearson has one less championship than Gordon”. So which is it?
I’m fascinated that you’re whining about my point, acknowledgement that Gordon would have more championships in a traditional era, which you dismiss, then want me to acknowledge that maybe Pearson would have more championships, at the expense of Petty and Yarborough, if he raced full time more consistently. In the Golden Era is certainly top 3. Overall? Nope.
Your criteria is a moving goal post for Pearson and Johnson. Hence why Gordon and especially Earnhardt Sr are in the top 3 based on actual performance, sustained success, and meaning to the sport.
Nope. Again wrong on your part and just generalizing. I said Gordon had more Crown Jewel and Grand Slam wins than anyone ever. Simply a fact. You can twist and spin, just simply it what it is.
You tried to move the goal posts by saying Gordon had benefit of the Brickyard without knowing it was widely known it replaced the Winston 500 as a grand slam race. Then wanted to say NASCAR didn’t acknowledge until 1984 (so?) and Pearson stopped in 1986 (so?). Then trying to diminish Indy in last decade (again, so?). Still doesn’t change that Gordon is the most successful big race driver ever.
LMAO then made a false claim that only Pearson won 3 of these races in a year when Gordon won 3 plus a championship.
Keep living in the land of make believe dude. I didn't even read these posts you just took the time to write out. I'm not wasting anymore time proving you wrong buddy. Have a good night.
Now “it’s make believe” but you didn’t “read them”. Awesome exchange. I agree you shouldn’t waste any more of anyone’s time trying to explain your position.