Which Indy 500 will be more historic in 30 years?

[WhirlinGraphics]

I'm talking in terms of the grand scheme of all the races run. Which is the greater milestone?

[NoviVespa]

I say Anniversary. Just the word has a ring to it.

But, it may also depend on who won. What if Danica won one of them?

[irlracingfan]

I think it will depend on which is the more memorable race. Everyone remembers Al Unser, Jr.'s, "You Just don't know what Indy means," in 1992.... for example.

[WhirlinGraphics]

I'm looking for votes based on the 'milestone' worthy-ness. Forget who won, who crashed out, if the race was rain shortened, etc.
Thanks.

[irlracingfan]

Based solely on that criteria; 100th anniversary or 100th running... I would say the 100th anniversary. My reason for this is based on the ignorance and/or stupidity of most media people who won't be able to do the math or make the connection that the race wasn't run in the War years. He11, most media people probably think the Indy 500, as well as every other race in this country, is and always has been a nascar race. The truly sad part is that most will be too lazy to confirm that it is NOT and never has been, before printing that it is.

[indyracefan]

I voted the 100th running. And here's the reason why, hopefully in 2016 there will be more variety in the engines & chassis and a more realistic chance of a driver other than from Penske. Ganassi or Andretti winning.

[Doctorindy]

It depends on if they even play up the 100th running. I can't seem them not doing that, considering the money they could make...again.

100th anniversary of the first race is a huge deal. But let's face it, they decided to celebrate "100" sooner than later because they need the attention and need the money. Creating a three-year-long "Centennial Era" is a way to sell more merchandise, invite more celebrities, and try to get more people to show up or watch on TV. Even if people are a little unclear on what 100 means each of those years. Then they can turn around and do it all over again one more time in 2016.

IIRC, 1961 was the bigger celebration of "50" while 1966 was sort of big.

1986 was the 75th anniversary of the first race, but they didn't do much of anything. About all they did was create a poster. The big celebration of 75th took place in 1991 for the actual 75th running.

[SpeedwayRyan]

100th anniversary of the first race is a huge deal. But let's face it, they decided to celebrate "100" sooner than later because they need the attention and need the money. Creating a three-year-long "Centennial Era" is a way to sell more merchandise, invite more celebrities, and try to get more people to show up or watch on TV.

Or it was done because the track opened in 1909, which is an anniversary worth celebrating, and the Indy 500 was first run in 1911, which is also an anniversary worth celebrating, and there was a way to celebrate both of them and also avoid making a big deal about a 100th anniversary of something in 2009 and then turning around and doing it two years later. The general public would just say "didn't they just do this two years ago?" It makes perfect sense to lump the two together -- if you're going to spend two years out of three celebrating anniversaries, why not lump them together into one big celebration?

If selling merch was the motivating factor, they would have had two separate anniversaries, one in '09 and one in '11. With two separate anniversary logos (IMS 100th and 500 100th), you can sell two different runs of merch and get people to buy twice as much stuff...but that's not what happened.

When you have a facility that opened one year, a famous race that started another year, and breaks for those pesky world wars, you're going to end up confusing some people with anniversaries no matter what...but having one celebration "era" with some consistency is less confusing than two separate 100th anniversaries with a year off in between.

[Race Dork]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here... but neither will be very historic for me (looking back) unless they're awesome races.

2006 and 1991 are the two most legendary races in my mind.

That doesn't mean I won't enjoy the heck out of being at both of them.

[Z28]

Apparently shortsightedness is rampant and lack of vision to the future fun for many. It's not a question of which race that hasn't been run will be considered 'better'.


A sports 'feat' that comes once gets celebrated on an anniversary, Bobby Thomson's Shot Heard round the World, Don Larsen's perfect game in the WS, when someone broke a scoring record, Lou Gehrig's speech at Yankee Stadium or the first 500. It's then put aside until the next 10, 25, 50 or 100 year anniversary and for the 500 150 would be the next number most would feel worthy of celebrating. The 500 is in a unique position having stopped for the wars making the two 100' come in different years, can't think of another event that is like that. The 100th race will be the one remembered by most well in the future.

[WhirlinGraphics]

It depends on if they even play up the 100th running.

I think it will be just as big as the 100th Anniversary since they will go back to saying which "running" the race is after this year. Don't know how they will top things like inviting all the living participants though?

[WhirlinGraphics]

For the anniversary they are associating the Marmon Wasp with the memorabilia. What will they do in 2016?

[greenknight]

What about 2002? The controversy over who won the race is still an issue in racing circles.

[Dez1013]

What about 2002? The controversy over who won the race is still an issue in racing circles.

Why linger on 2002 the right man won, its decided and done, lets move on.

1992 was pretty awesome with the pole sitter crashing out on the parade lap and the Cheever sandwich from the Andretti's and the amazing finish by little Al over Goodyear. The finish to the 1967 Indy was pretty amazing. There are so many. If Helio wins this year that could be pretty huge as well.

[voice_of_reason]

What about 2002? The controversy over who won the race is still an issue in racing circles.

What about the controversy of 1911?