The problem is, there is no good way to know who's a rookie with a year or
so of experience and who's a rookie with decades of experience without doing
a lot more research and inquiring than we have time or staff to do. So it is
simply -- if you are there for the first time you are a rookie. Plain and
simple. If you don't think some Nigel is a rookie, well next year he won't
be. There are also 20-year-old rookies in CART or Atlantic -- even F1! --
who have been racing for 15 years. It is the event experience, not the
driving experience, that determines if you are rookie or no.
--Rocky
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Linnhoff <eric10mm@qni.com>
To: Team.net <autox@autox.team.net>
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2000 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Solo II Co-Rookies of the Year
>Now I simply must address this "rookie" titling.
>
>Just because someone has never attended Nationals does not necessarily make
>them a rookie. There are tons of folks who have many years under their
>belts and just because they attend the Nationals for the first time they're
>a rookie? Hardly. I heard tell of a gentlemen who's been autocrossing for
>30 some years and just this year finally made it to the "big show" in
>Topeka.
>
>_That's_ no rookie.
>
>To me, a rookie is in only their first or second year ever and attending
the
>Nationals for the first time. Don't get me wrong, I definitely don't want
>to take away anything from those folks who drove their butts off for their
>wins but a rookie should, by definition, have very few rings around their
>trunks.
>
>That's all I have to say about that.
>
>Eric Linnhoff in KC
>#69DS TLS #13
>'98 Neon R/T
><eric10mm@qni.com>
>
>"Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time,
>the farther we penetrate the unknown,
>the vaster and more marvelous it becomes."
>Charles A. Lindbergh
>
>
|