Readers write: The case for Wendell Scott
In Tuesday's paper, Dustin Long picked his inaugural class for the new NASCAR Hall of Fame in Charlotte. As part of that we ran a little box asking readers to do the same thing. We've gotten in a handful of responses. The best so far was from David Mielke, an N&R reader who lives in eastern Guilford County.
He makes a convincing case for including Wendell Scott in the NASCAR Hall sooner rather than later or not at all. And Scott is an interesting case:
* Scott should get in because he's a pioneer. He was the first African American to win a Cup race, and he raced in nearly 500 events.
* Scott's stats are, well, not great -- just one win and one pole in 495 Cup/Grand National races. That's not HOF material.
* Scott should get in because he probably would have done better had he driven in a different, more tolerant era or racing series.
* Another pioneer, Jackie Robinson, had good enough numbers to be included regardless of his position in history. Scott, in other words, had his chance and did little with it.
And on and on. See how interesting this Hall of Fame debate can be? Better than Sunday's Vegas race, that's for sure.
Now if you're asking me, sure, Scott deserves entry. I don't think he's part of the first class if the hall goes with 5-7 drivers (which was the premise of Dustin's Tuesday story) -- it's hard to exclude Petty, Earnhardt, Pearson, etc. But Scott should be in the first 15-20 drivers.
David's case for including Wendell Scott after the jump ...
Here's David Mielke on Wendell Scott:
That is an interesting list Dustin Long has prepared and I certainly could see controversy between some of the first year possibilities and his list of Year 2. I am however apalled that one name is missing - a name which epitomizes all of what has been right with NASCAR as well as all of what has been wrong with the sport, namely racism. That name is, of course, Wendell Scott.I am 61 years old and was a NASCAR fan of the 1950s through the 1970s. I attended the first race at Bristol as well as races at Hickory, Asheville-Weaverville, and Martinsville. I religiously listed to the NASCAR races on the radio. Here are the reasons I believe Wendell Scott should be among the first in the NASCAR Hall of Fame Class.
1. Scott built, maintained and re-used his cars by himself without factory sponsorship and without much assistance. That being said, he usually finished the race (178 finishes versus 175 non finishes) with 142 top ten finishes. Though he captured only one pole position, that in itself is remarkable given the lack of industry support. In the Jacksonville dirt track race (a Grand National event) it was announced that Buck Baker had won. Scott protested, saying he had lapped Baker three times. It was hours later, and after the crowd had left, that Scott was declared the winner.
2. Scott ALWAYS labored in a racist atmosphere despite a semi-charitable attitude of some of the larger "white teams." I remember one time at Martinsville seeing Wendell Scott and his family isolated over next to the fence working on their blue Ford. No one was paying attention to them and they seemed a bit surprised that a white boy would be coming over to say what a fan of theirs he was. I remember quotes by driver Curtis Turner that he was going to "get that nigger out of the race as soon as he could." And he did, on more than one occasion.
3. The nation recognizes Wendell Scott to the extent that a successful Hollywood film was made of his life (as well as that of Junior Johnson, a Dustin Long first year inductee.) Scott's role in NASCAR was recognized as he came near the end of his life good people in the racing fraternity, owners and drivers alike, raised funds to help Scott and his family. They recognized his accomplishments - a black man in a white man's sport winning the respect of his colleagues.
4. NASCAR is desparately trying to woo a more diverse audience and is especially appealing to the African-American community. It would be an extremely appropriate gesture to honor Wendell Scott by inclusion in the first NASCAR Hall of Fame class. I believe Scott is to NASCAR what Satchel Paige was to baseball. Both could have achieved far more if racism hadn't denied them the opportunity.
More on Wendell Scott:
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I also picked Scott as the one to represent those in NASCAR that have competed on a less than shoestring budget. I was immediately "accused" of selecting him because he was black.
It does indeed add to his "value" but is only part of the calculation. Coo Coo Marlin, James Hilton or Dave Marcas could also represent those that fought tooth and nail to support the sport on poor budgets in sub-par equipment but non of them had to deal with the racial problems Scott had.
Question: Jon have you heard any rumors on how many will be in the "first class" and who will be selecting them?
With NASCAR's long history I can't see anything less than 15-20 being inducted first. I had someone suggest it should be limited to Richard Petty as the single entry the first year and it does some merit.
Also, don't take offense Jon, but I think sportwriters should be exempt or limited in some way from selecting entrants. MLB has had a number of players that failed in the first try because they had a less than popular reputation with the press but had superior stats than those already in.
And finally, fans should have little or no say in the voting. Sorry, Dale Jr. doesn't need to go in the first year and that's the way the voting would go.
Posted on March 8, 2006 4:00 PM
I was waiting for a politically correct spin on the HOF. I'm OK with a display on Wendall Scott, but not as an elected member. You have to have HOF numbers just like Jackie Robinson.
So if the HOF is to have an area on the history of NASCAR, by all means Wendall Scott can certainly be part of that. But inclusion as a HOF member dilutes the value of membership in the HOF.
Posted on March 8, 2006 4:53 PM
Marc: NASCAR has said nothing about its induction procedures. I'm with you on the sportswriter thing. It's not the grudge issue - that it's kept any deserving athlete out of any hall of fame is more urban legend than fact. My beef is with sportswriters voting on anything. It's a major conflict of interest.
Mark: Try that argument over at the International Motorsports Hall of Fame. Two of its 2006 inductees, Humpy Wheeler and Janet Guthrie, combined for exactly 1 less win than Scott in major racing series. I'm not saying that either deserve to be included, but somebody is making the case that HOF status is more than just victory lane appearances.
Posted on March 8, 2006 8:43 PM
Not fussing at you John, but then the HOF is a sham and not a true hall of fame.
Here is how I would try to defend the two people you mention.
Humpy is to this day an innovator in the sport, his one blunder being last year's levigating or whatever he called it. Truly a champion of the sport and tireless promoter for over 30 years.
You are testing my memory on Janet Guthrie, but I can make an arguement as a racing pioneer in not only NASCAR, but also open-wheel and sports car. Her creditials, while lacking wins includes qualifying and competing in Daytona 500, Indy 500, 24 hours of Daytona, 12 hours Sebring, 24 hours of Le Mans. She may not have had the wins, but she had the ability to make a variety of cars go fast enough to make the show.
I do not consider Wendell Scott in the same league just because he won a 200 lapper at the Jacksonville fairgrounds 1 day. If Wendell Scott put up the same versatility as Guthrie I'd be OK. I would be more OK if Willy T Ribbs were in the place of Scott.
I'm fine with Scott in a "pioneers of NASCAR exhibit", just please don't have his bust in between Petty & Pearson, or Allison & Yarborough.
Posted on March 9, 2006 2:10 PM
What Mark in comments and David in his take are getting at is that NASCAR will have some trouble deciding on a standard. What is fame? Is it victories? Is it longevity? Is it some sort of intangible contribution to the sport? Whatever it is, it won't be easy if it's going to be fair and consistent.
Or should it be caprious and inconsistent, sort of like NASCAR's rule book? Heck, I don't know.
The reverse is true in the Pete Rose case. The fact that he holds the all-time hit record is grounds for including him. But his gambling? The Baseball HOF says that's enough to keep him out. Others say off-field conduct shouldn't matter - Ty Cobb was a true SOB, for instance, and he's in. That debate has kept Woody Paige and Mike Lupica and their ilk on TV for a decade now.
Interesting stuff. Anyone want to argue for or against Alan Kulwicki? Tim Richmond? Smokey Yunick? All three are in the Int'l HOF at Talladega.
Posted on March 9, 2006 7:07 PM
Well that's a good point John, who is on the election panel??? Is it sports writers like baseball or is it the France family and Mike Helton pulling names out of a hat?
I can see both sides of the Pete Rose arguement because he tampered with the integrity of the game with the gambling. Ty Cobb may very well have been an SOB, but that did not influence the outcome of a game.
Tim Richmond had one good season in the 25 when he won 6 or 7 races and what he did when he first cameback and won Riverside and Pocano (I think) was very impressive.
Given the right situation, Alan Kulwicki had the chance to put up true HOF numbers. He definitely did more with less, but I couldn't give him the HOF nod.
Posted on March 9, 2006 9:27 PM
Please let my father,Wendell Scott, Sr. rest in peace......Thank you, Sybil Scott
Posted on May 10, 2006 2:20 AM