Which is more of a legend? Roush
Hendricks
Roush Fenway or Hendrick motor sports?
- Thread starter VR1
- Start date
- Status
Roush!
The cat in the hat builds stuff, that other guy just writes checks.
The cat in the hat builds stuff, that other guy just writes checks.
Well, Roush has won more races (277 vs 241) but Hendricks has won more championships (10 vs 2). Based on that, I'd say Hendricks.
I hear ya but, I think Hendricks buys his way in Nascar especially being a Chevy boy. Look at Jack Roush and Mark Martin Nascar had to find something every year they were kicking [censored] in the chase so Chevy boys could win. That Number 6 Valvoline was [censored] on wheels with probably the best driver in Nascar to this day. Earnhart had to go to driving school he was good but, Martin was a natural.
I can understand the argument of races vs championships as a factor. That's traditionally been a big argument in any such question.
It's why Montana is often considered better than Marino, or why the opinion of Elway in 1999 was considerably more than Elway in 1996.
Championships are simply subsets. In a short season like football, we're usually talking about a small handful of games over an entire career as being the differential. Often times, the difference between winning and losing in a single game is incredibly small.
With Championships in many sports, you often are differentiating between very small incidents.......a play, a few minutes, a big shot, one pitch. For a coach, a manager, or an entire organization the viewpoint of their success depends on something with less statistical meaning than random noise. The opinion of Bill Cowher completely changes after one game. Did he change before that game, or did Don Shula change in the mid 70's? It's pretty hard to argue that either changed after/before they won a Super Bowl, yet public opinion can sway heavily based on that one game.
NASCAR has traditionally had an even bigger problem than many sports because the season scoring system has a lopsided risk vs reward equation. They've tried to answer this with their own playoff system, and wild cards for winning races......but the fact remains that someone crashing you is more detrimental to your success than you making a few late race passes.
But if we're discussing the modern era, perhaps the biggest hurdle to this question comes in the rules themselves. The mechanical rules are so restrictive that it becomes very hard for an enterprising team to gain much of an advantage. This is a key differentiator, because unlike many sports where coaches/management are indirectly affecting the outcome, it could be said that the race team in motorsports has a direct effect on the outcome.
It's why Montana is often considered better than Marino, or why the opinion of Elway in 1999 was considerably more than Elway in 1996.
Championships are simply subsets. In a short season like football, we're usually talking about a small handful of games over an entire career as being the differential. Often times, the difference between winning and losing in a single game is incredibly small.
With Championships in many sports, you often are differentiating between very small incidents.......a play, a few minutes, a big shot, one pitch. For a coach, a manager, or an entire organization the viewpoint of their success depends on something with less statistical meaning than random noise. The opinion of Bill Cowher completely changes after one game. Did he change before that game, or did Don Shula change in the mid 70's? It's pretty hard to argue that either changed after/before they won a Super Bowl, yet public opinion can sway heavily based on that one game.
NASCAR has traditionally had an even bigger problem than many sports because the season scoring system has a lopsided risk vs reward equation. They've tried to answer this with their own playoff system, and wild cards for winning races......but the fact remains that someone crashing you is more detrimental to your success than you making a few late race passes.
But if we're discussing the modern era, perhaps the biggest hurdle to this question comes in the rules themselves. The mechanical rules are so restrictive that it becomes very hard for an enterprising team to gain much of an advantage. This is a key differentiator, because unlike many sports where coaches/management are indirectly affecting the outcome, it could be said that the race team in motorsports has a direct effect on the outcome.
Roush is an engineer with years of experience at actually designing and building things, plus he never stole money from Ford as best I can recall.
Hendricks is a glorified car salesman who's father was caught stealing millions from GM back in the day...they got money, but thats about it...no class at all.
Roush FTW.
Hendricks is a glorified car salesman who's father was caught stealing millions from GM back in the day...they got money, but thats about it...no class at all.
Roush FTW.
I'd say Roush as well.
He was/is involved with (AND sucessful at) MANY other forms of motorsport, i.e.; SCCA Trans Am, drag racing, etc.
He was/is involved with (AND sucessful at) MANY other forms of motorsport, i.e.; SCCA Trans Am, drag racing, etc.
The more I think of it, the more I think this is a good question to ponder.
How exactly do you rate these 'umbrella' teams; in essence a conglomeration of teams all under one umbrella.
The individual teams clearly fall under the standard definition of the word 'team' as they all must work together to have a successful day. We've all seen those races where the gascan man didn't get a full fill and its impact on the driver. However, what the front right tire changer does on Jimmie Johnson's car has no impact on Dale Earnhardt.
In terms of ranking, it's hard to call these umbrella teams as 'teams'. Even in a sport like basketball, which has a very high correlation to individual impact on team success, you could never have a championship situation like we currently see with Hendrick. Michael Jordan, as good as he was, couldn't win titles without the likes of a Pippen, or guys like Grant/Rodman crashing the boards, or 3 point specialists opening up the offense. As great as Wilt was, he still got pounded by the Celtics in the playoffs, only to win championships in his later years when he became surrounded by better players. Even in a sport that has an affinity for individual players, a single player still needs to be surrounded by others capable of pulling their weight.
But in Motorsports, you can have a situation where one team is completely dominant, while the other teams under the owner umbrella have done almost nothing. Earnhardt hasn't won in so long that we're putting asterisks on his races if he just gets close. Mark Martin has retired more times than Brett Favre. And Jeff Gordon has largely become forgotten, despite a great career.
It's a great question, because how do you rank Hendrick is going to be somewhat a question of how much credit do you give the overall based almost solely on the recent success of Jimmie Johnson.
How exactly do you rate these 'umbrella' teams; in essence a conglomeration of teams all under one umbrella.
The individual teams clearly fall under the standard definition of the word 'team' as they all must work together to have a successful day. We've all seen those races where the gascan man didn't get a full fill and its impact on the driver. However, what the front right tire changer does on Jimmie Johnson's car has no impact on Dale Earnhardt.
In terms of ranking, it's hard to call these umbrella teams as 'teams'. Even in a sport like basketball, which has a very high correlation to individual impact on team success, you could never have a championship situation like we currently see with Hendrick. Michael Jordan, as good as he was, couldn't win titles without the likes of a Pippen, or guys like Grant/Rodman crashing the boards, or 3 point specialists opening up the offense. As great as Wilt was, he still got pounded by the Celtics in the playoffs, only to win championships in his later years when he became surrounded by better players. Even in a sport that has an affinity for individual players, a single player still needs to be surrounded by others capable of pulling their weight.
But in Motorsports, you can have a situation where one team is completely dominant, while the other teams under the owner umbrella have done almost nothing. Earnhardt hasn't won in so long that we're putting asterisks on his races if he just gets close. Mark Martin has retired more times than Brett Favre. And Jeff Gordon has largely become forgotten, despite a great career.
It's a great question, because how do you rank Hendrick is going to be somewhat a question of how much credit do you give the overall based almost solely on the recent success of Jimmie Johnson.
Roger that I agree with you there. Jimmie Johnson is a great driver and to me Hendricks is more of a car salesman which is why he has so many dealerships and makes millions and millions. Not discounting his ability but, you never really see Hendricks in the shop working on cars or figuring out new ways to run better at the track. Jack Roush is more of a R@D guy/team owner due to the fact he worked for Ford in the early 60s and started his own racing deal with Gapp and Roush in the late 60s to the 70s. When he joined Nascar in 88 he had a natural driver Mark Martin and though he helped tremendously in Roush's success in NASCAR I feel they both built each other in that respect and Roush surronds himself with other great minds alike. Its hard to be bad with that.
The thread name is "Roush Fenway or Hendrick motor sports?", NOT "Jack Roush or Rick Hendrick". In that light, HMS is "better" than RF. Now, from a personal technical ability perspective, JR IS better than RH(I've never read whether RH is very technically oriented). From a "race team" perspective, while individual victories are great, imo, HMS's championships are what it's about.
- Status
