Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Incoming -- A new book on the split by John Oreovicz

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Per the details on Amazon the book traces the dysfunction back to 1945 through 2007. I’ll pick it up always good to listen to the other side.. the stability finally came full circle in 2020 with the Penske sale.
    Chicago Cubs 2016 World Series Champions

    Comment


    • #17
      Good to hear that he's starting the story in 1945, the root of the split in '96 starts many, many years before. It is a book that needs to be written by a non racing journalist, I don't think there's motor sports writer around that wouldn't have some bias on this.
      I'll see YOU at the races!

      Comment


      • #18
        If the subject is takes that far back in history, that makes the book interesting for me to consider for sure.
        I agree entirely with all the comments made already that suggests that the roots of the split go so much deeper. Matters like USAC vs CART, the cancellation of dirt tracks from the USAC trail.
        What about AAA and/or USAC vs NASCAR and other organisations we saw in the 50s?
        This book may well be more interesting after all.

        Comment


        • #19
          I have no interest in giving Oreo any of my money.
          "Paff has been closer to the mark than anyone will give him credit for."

          Richard Kimble 11/18/2010

          "Paff is far more right than any of you will EVER give him credit for.

          As non politically correct and un IndyCar friendly as it is, it's the truth. "

          SeeuInMay 12/29/2010

          Comment


          • #20
            Yeah, that'll be a pass for me today.
            "George Bignotti's Sinmast Wildcat (Designed by Bob Riley); delicately built, carefully prepared and boldly driven by Gordon Johncock." -- Keith Jackson

            Comment


            • #21
              I was born 4 years before the split so during my childhood.... I was unfortunately taught to hate the other side as they were trying to destroy AOWR. Looking back on it now as a 28/29 year old, and having done a ton of research myself.... I know now that there were a million people to blame, a million factors going on, most everyone did have good intentions, and it all started WELL before 1996. Also, like most everyone else I've been able to move on and look forward to the future of Indycar.

              I look forward to the book, and will give it a read to see what John has to say. If it was purely on 1996 split, i'd probably be less interested. I'm interested to read about the history going back to 1945 and how it all worked up to the eventual first split in 1979 and the second one in 1996.
              RHR: "I'm a proud American boy right now!" -2014 Indy 500 Victory Lane

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by RHR Fan Always View Post
                I look forward to the book, and will give it a read to see what John has to say. If it was purely on 1996 split, i'd probably be less interested. I'm interested to read about the history going back to 1945 and how it all worked up to the eventual first split in 1979 and the second one in 1996.
                I feel the same and look forward to reading it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Going back to 1945 sounds great. But, considering how biased the author was during the '96-'07 split, that draws into question the objectivity of anything he'd write about '45-'95.
                  The book will be one man's opinion. And, it's not an opinion I'm interested in paying for.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MM658 View Post
                    Going back to 1945 sounds great. But, considering how biased the author was during the '96-'07 split, that draws into question the objectivity of anything he'd write about '45-'95.
                    The book will be one man's opinion. And, it's not an opinion I'm interested in paying for.
                    Fully agree.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I guess we’ll know more about the objectivity when we see the people who get quoted the most and who gets left out.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by goner View Post
                        I guess we’ll know more about the objectivity when we see the people who get quoted the most and who gets left out.
                        Judging by his previous writings, I'm pretty sure we can already guess which side is going to get left out.
                        http://www.honorflight.org/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MM658 View Post
                          Going back to 1945 sounds great. But, considering how biased the author was during the '96-'07 split, that draws into question the objectivity of anything he'd write about '45-'95.
                          The book will be one man's opinion. And, it's not an opinion I'm interested in paying for.
                          Well, at least you could give it the benefit of the doubt.
                          That someone was biased in something of the recent past doesn't automatically means that he was biased over things in longer time ago affairs. And who knows, maybe he is biased in the same direction as you might be. But if he agrees with your opinions this time, is he then still biased in your eyes?

                          Anyway, I think that one of the subject of early postwar split related subjects will be ASPAR....
                          And another one might be Lew Welch's disagreements with prize money fee's if 1950. Was Lou Welch's reputation and popularity large enough that he couldn't be wrong so if he is exposed as being wrong the writer had to be biased? Or the other way around, since Tony Hulman & Wilbur Shaw couldn't do anything wrong after saving the speedway, you're biased if you're tellling them to be wrong against Welch?
                          Like just about everyone who dares to be negative on the Hulman Family, A.J. Foyt, Tony George, IMS in general etc is rated as biased?

                          Over in Europe I know about several writers of who their preference as for drivers and teams was well known. But they still dared to be hard on drivers, teams and designers in book and magazines because of being objective and not close their eyes because of their preferences. Up to an occasion that one driver was so infuriated about what was written about him by a writer of which he was on good terms up till that moment with that he refused to write the foreword for the book, though it was the habit that a driver in his position would write the foreword for this series of books.

                          So one `sin` doesn't mean that he is a sinner in everything vaguely realed with that situation, past, present or future.




                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Indyote View Post

                            Well, at least you could give it the benefit of the doubt.
                            That someone was biased in something of the recent past doesn't automatically means that he was biased over things in longer time ago affairs. And who knows, maybe he is biased in the same direction as you might be. But if he agrees with your opinions this time, is he then still biased in your eyes?

                            Anyway, I think that one of the subject of early postwar split related subjects will be ASPAR....
                            And another one might be Lew Welch's disagreements with prize money fee's if 1950. Was Lou Welch's reputation and popularity large enough that he couldn't be wrong so if he is exposed as being wrong the writer had to be biased? Or the other way around, since Tony Hulman & Wilbur Shaw couldn't do anything wrong after saving the speedway, you're biased if you're tellling them to be wrong against Welch?
                            Like just about everyone who dares to be negative on the Hulman Family, A.J. Foyt, Tony George, IMS in general etc is rated as biased?

                            Over in Europe I know about several writers of who their preference as for drivers and teams was well known. But they still dared to be hard on drivers, teams and designers in book and magazines because of being objective and not close their eyes because of their preferences. Up to an occasion that one driver was so infuriated about what was written about him by a writer of which he was on good terms up till that moment with that he refused to write the foreword for the book, though it was the habit that a driver in his position would write the foreword for this series of books.

                            So one `sin` doesn't mean that he is a sinner in everything vaguely realed with that situation, past, present or future.



                            The dude has not changed.. He deserves no benefit of the doubt
                            "Paff has been closer to the mark than anyone will give him credit for."

                            Richard Kimble 11/18/2010

                            "Paff is far more right than any of you will EVER give him credit for.

                            As non politically correct and un IndyCar friendly as it is, it's the truth. "

                            SeeuInMay 12/29/2010

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Good thing people know what he wrote before anyone has a chance to read it. I suppose it's better to only read things biased towards what you want to hear.

                              I look forward to learning about the history leading up to what happened in the 80's and 90's.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                +1
                                I ride tandem/with the random/Things don't run the way I planned them.
                                Peter Gabriel, "Humdrum"

                                Comment

                                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X