43 replies to this topic

[MilesDavis]

ok heres the deal. we have numerous of threads where we talk about overrated drivers. And I read them (spent a lot of time reading TNF for the past 2 weeks) So after reading all those threads I came to the concusion that basically all of the drivers from 1973 onwards (to lets say 1984 when Prost stood out as the main figure) are really really overrated. So I will state them and some usual quotes about them.

1. Alan Jones -they call him a charger who won only because of Williams surpremacy

2. Carlos Reutemann -didnt win a lot, should have won more considering cars he drove ( I found this to be the most acquard of all, since Reutemann never actualyl had a dominant car untill he joined Williams)

3. Mario Andretti -Peterson was better. (If he was better -why didnt he have nr.1 status?)

4. Emersom Fittipaldi -no particular quote, but people in general think of him as overrated

5. Niki Lauda -too wild before crash, too conservative after. In march and brm days average. Fuji 1976 unproffesional behaviour. Talks rubbish all the time.

6. Gilles Villeneuve -charger, crasher, lost to his teammate in 1979

7. Jody Sheckter -nobody rates him particularly high

8. Clay Regazzoni -always considered 2nd leauge driver. Kind of Barrichello before Barichello

9. James Hunt -They call him the weakest champ ever -won only because lauda crashed.

10. Jackie Ickx -never did anything special in F1, although was special eswhere

So that actually leaves us only with Patrick Depallier, Carlos Pace and Ronnie Peterson -that were the main bombers of 70s -but were they really that good???. Or they are simply overrated because they died while still active. So people percieve them in different light. Niether of them also never won wdc either.

To me it is impossible to mark one or two drivers as the ones that stood above their colleagues in period from 1973 to lets say 1984. Like for eg. Stewart, Clark stood out before. And fangio in 50s.

Or was it, that all of them were so evenly matched that we cannot actually see their talent?

If you ask me, I will go for Lauda as the one who stood out during post Stewart era. Statistics are on his side, as well as drives. He was a force in Ferrari, he won few races with Brabham and he led Mclaren to their first triumph in Project 4 era. But a lot of people do not consider Lauda as one of the top 10 all time greats.

Edited by MilesDavis, 18 April 2012 - 13:18.

[kayemod]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, a classic "Light the blue touch paper and retire" post, from someone who doesn't understand what this forum is all about. This has all been said, and mostly refuted, many times before on here.

[MilesDavis]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, a classic "Light the blue touch paper and retire" post, from someone who doesn't understand what this forum is all about. This has all been said, and mostly refuted, many times before on here.

ok, tell moderator to move it to RC

[Paul Rochdale]

This has all been said, and mostly refuted, many times before on here.

Ah, but without the many spelling mistakes ;-)

[Allen Brown]

Is there some sort of competition going on to see who can start the most stupid thread?

[kayemod]

Is there some sort of competition going on to see who can start the most stupid thread?

If there is, up to now, H****** F** is winning by a short head.

[britishtrident]

re Hunt v Lauda Hunt was a brilliant natural driver but had zero technical understanding, Lauda was the exact opposite.
For two months in the middle of the 76 season McLaren suddenly lost form. Mclaren in those days was missing the input of its' founder Bruce Maclaren and had yet to become technical power house it is under Ron Dennis as a result Gordon Coppuck was carrying almost the entire design load. The team had introduced a a handful of what we now call updates and found the car suddenly lost form, the puzzling thing was when they removed the updates the car still didn't return to form. It took a couple of months but the problem was eventually tracked down to the mechanics moving an oil cooler to accommodate other mods. The re-positioned oil cooler both stalled the airflow over the rear wing and caused additional drag.

Edited by britishtrident, 18 April 2012 - 15:02.

[RogerFrench]

re Hunt v Lauda Hunt was a brilliant natural driver but had zero technical understanding, Lauda was the exact opposite.
For two months in the middle of the 76 season McLaren suddenly lost form. Mclaren in those days was missing the input of its' founder Bruce Maclaren and had yet to become technical power house it is under Ron Dennis as a result Gordon Coppuck was carrying almost the entire design load. The team had introduced a a handful of what we now call updates and found the car suddenly lost form, the puzzling thing was when they removed the updates the car still didn't return to form. It took a couple of months but the problem was eventually tracked down to the mechanics moving an oil cooler to accommodate other mods. The re-positioned oil cooler both stalled the airflow over the rear wing and caused additional drag.

For heaven's sake, please don't grant this thread the honour of a sensible reply!

[Bob Riebe]

Or was it, that all of them were so evenly matched that we cannot actually see their talent?

You answered your question.

All else is simply personal opinion which has value only to the one holding it.

[Doug Nye]

You answered your question.

All else is simply personal opinion which has value only to the one holding it.

...or perhaps he should stick to playing that trumpet?

I must confess that for me any thread beginning "OK now here's the deal..." is, ummm, incendiary.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 18 April 2012 - 18:58.

[kayemod]

...or perhaps he should stick to playing that trumpet?

Don't ask, just don't ask...

[Vitesse2]

...or perhaps he should stick to playing that trumpet?

I must confess that for me any thread beginning "OK now here's the deal..." is, ummm, incendiary.

DCN

Or even umbala ;)

[David M. Kane]

ok heres the deal. we have numerous of threads where we talk about overrated drivers. And I read them (spent a lot of time reading TNF for the past 2 weeks) So after reading all those threads I came to the concusion that basically all of the drivers from 1973 onwards (to lets say 1984 when Prost stood out as the main figure) are really really overrated. So I will state them and some usual quotes about them.

1. Alan Jones -they call him a charger who won only because of Williams surpremacy

2. Carlos Reutemann -didnt win a lot, should have won more considering cars he drove ( I found this to be the most acquard of all, since Reutemann never actualyl had a dominant car untill he joined Williams)

3. Mario Andretti -Peterson was better. (If he was better -why didnt he have nr.1 status?)

4. Emersom Fittipaldi -no particular quote, but people in general think of him as overrated

5. Niki Lauda -too wild before crash, too conservative after. In march and brm days average. Fuji 1976 unproffesional behaviour. Talks rubbish all the time.

6. Gilles Villeneuve -charger, crasher, lost to his teammate in 1979

7. Jody Sheckter -nobody rates him particularly high

8. Clay Regazzoni -always considered 2nd leauge driver. Kind of Barrichello before Barichello

9. James Hunt -They call him the weakest champ ever -won only because lauda crashed.

10. Jackie Ickx -never did anything special in F1, although was special eswhere

So that actually leaves us only with Patrick Depallier, Carlos Pace and Ronnie Peterson -that were the main bombers of 70s -but were they really that good???. Or they are simply overrated because they died while still active. So people percieve them in different light. Niether of them also never won wdc either.

To me it is impossible to mark one or two drivers as the ones that stood above their colleagues in period from 1973 to lets say 1984. Like for eg. Stewart, Clark stood out before. And fangio in 50s.

Or was it, that all of them were so evenly matched that we cannot actually see their talent?

If you ask me, I will go for Lauda as the one who stood out during post Stewart era. Statistics are on his side, as well as drives. He was a force in Ferrari, he won few races with Brabham and he led Mclaren to their first triumph in Project 4 era. But a lot of people do not consider Lauda as one of the top 10 all time greats.

What are you smoking? How old are you anyway? I saw ALL these guys race and ALL of them were good, some better than others!

I agree they were all very evenly matched; perhaps one of the finest group IMHO.

Edited by David M. Kane, 18 April 2012 - 19:25.

[Vitesse2]

Leave 'im Dave, 'e's not worth it!

[Lola5000]

Shakes heaks.

[JtP1]

Miles, I take we can safely assume you have formed your opinion from what you have read and not from watching F1 races and drivers from the period.

[ryan86]

Overrated is usually by those that try to put everything into Top X lists.

I think in some ways there's a hypothetical point that if you put a grid of complete dropouts on a grid, one of them would still need to come 1st, and presumably would come 1st more often than others, whilst on other grids, the talent may be so high that one of the best would still have to come last.

In tennis Federer, Nadal and Djokvic must have won 90% of the Slams in the past decade. Now is that because they're so good that the rest have rarely got a look in or are the rest so poor they've made Federer, Djokovic and Nadal look greater than they are. And that gives you the conundrum of Andy Murray as well?

I'd tend to agree with David though. Perhaps no dominant talents, but very solid as a group.

[JacnGille]

[buckaluck]

I may give you some insite by a conversation with the late Bruce McLaren on his dominating car in Can Am (sorry you may be to young to know what Can Am was) when asked why his car was so dominint was it his ability as a driver he was quite frank that it was the car he said most of the drivers on the grid could win if they drove his car in other words Chuck Parsons or Mark Donahue or anyone esle could get into his car and win he wasn't diminishing his talent he was just conceding that most of the drivers in the top 20 positions had the talent to take his car and win.
That being said in most case that you point out it is a matter of the car being the main reason but it should not diminish the efforts of the driver as it takes a high skilled driver to drive that car and make it a winner. Case in point what if they had a so so driver driving the Lotus 79 gave Mario a car that was much better then the rest of the field could some one else have taken the championship driving that car probably not as he had more skills then most other drivers so he was able to exploit the advantages of the car if Lotus had a lesser driver it would have negated the positives of the car and the car would have been viewed as marginal vs the exception that it was. Peterson never had the chance but I understand your view Mario out did him in most cases so that proves Mario's talent but should not take away from Peterson's potential for getting better. It's all about expierience, luck to have a good car, and the ability to communicate with your mechanics so they provide you with a good car. If you have a good driver and a good car but the driver cn't give good input technology wise then you will not be able to quantify him as good or overrated. Lets face it the teams hired the best talent that was avalible at the time and they knew more about them then we will ever know or be able to question their decisions.
We lost far to many good drivers as well as what you consider overrated in the 70's but thanks to McLaren not invoking their patent on a carbon fiber chassis in the interset of safety we are loosing far fewer drivers since then.
You can say Alan Jones was over rated but he took a great car and did what he did and to try to take that away from him is rediculious if it wasn't him it would have been someone else and you would be calling that driver over rated your an idiot to start this thread you have know knowledge of what makes a good driver it's a really good car that really helps. Case in point I have a video of incar for 1991 with Senna in one car and Alain Prost in the other the switch back an forth you see Alain just making slight moves of the sterring wheel and in the lead but Senna (who i think was no where near as good as Prost) was seen chopping wood with the stering wheel trying to keep up this video confirmed my point that Senna was not that great and could only do well with a good car and even then just got by ( sorry all but I don't think much of Senna, taking his teamate out on the first turn so he would win the championship destroyed my view of him forever).
To wrap this up it is a matter of luck for any driver to have the best car and take it to the wins needed to be a champion the drivers you mention as being over rated all you can do is say what if, if it had been Jackie that got the drive in the Lotus 79 instead of Mario would you be crapping on Mario and hyping Jackie as you can see you thread is rediculious as it is mostly speculative like could Ragazzoni would have won the championship if he had been able to drive Alan Jones's William the answer is absolutely there is no doubt he would have done it. So it is a matter of Luck to have the better car then you need to bee the better driver to cpitalize on the combination which all of the people you slight did you can not slight them for taking advantage of a good situtation what driver would not.
Those care were extremely hard to drive on the limit and all of the drivers deserve their respect and don't need your screwed up attitude and critizisim hell you weren't even born then and did not live in that age you have no right to start this thread with so little knowledge of what happened back then.

[Glengavel]

Overrated is usually by those that try to put everything into Top X lists.

I think in some ways there's a hypothetical point that if you put a grid of complete dropouts on a grid, one of them would still need to come 1st, and presumably would come 1st more often than others, whilst on other grids, the talent may be so high that one of the best would still have to come last.

In tennis Federer, Nadal and Djokvic must have won 90% of the Slams in the past decade. Now is that because they're so good that the rest have rarely got a look in or are the rest so poor they've made Federer, Djokovic and Nadal look greater than they are. And that gives you the conundrum of Andy Murray as well?

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Andy Murray is going to be the Stirling Moss of tennis.

[E1pix]

Miles... simples... you couldn't possibly have been there.

I'm kinda slow, so please let me review... Alan, Carlos, Mario, Emmo, Niki, Gilles, Jody, Clay, James, and Jacky (a different guy than your "Jackie" version)...... all sucked?


One question... why doesn't Alessandro Pacino make your list?
(he drove for Brabham in 1977 as you surely must know... and was pretty good — even though it wasn't that hard for him).


[Oh Crap, guess I replied after all...]

Edited by E1pix, 19 April 2012 - 09:14.

[kayemod]

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Andy Murray is going to be the Stirling Moss of tennis.

Yes indeed, just about as wrong as wrong can be. I'm sure that not even Andy Murray's own mother would have the temerity to suggest that he has the ghost of a 1955 Mille Miglia tennis match inside him.

[Andretti Fan]

10. Jackie Ickx -never did anything special in F1, although was special eswhere.

I'm sorry, but I have to say this. This statement is probably the dumbest thing
I have ever heard.

[Glengavel]

Yes indeed, just about as wrong as wrong can be. I'm sure that not even Andy Murray's own mother would have the temerity to suggest that he has the ghost of a 1955 Mille Miglia tennis match inside him.

He might if he had a short, bearded and bespectacled tennis journalist standing alongside him calling the shots:

"Play the backhand! Forehand! Go deep!..."

Edited by Glengavel, 19 April 2012 - 09:12.

[rdmotorsport]

ok heres the deal. we have numerous of threads where we talk about overrated drivers. And I read them (spent a lot of time reading TNF for the past 2 weeks) So after reading all those threads I came to the concusion that basically all of the drivers from 1973 onwards (to lets say 1984 when Prost stood out as the main figure) are really really overrated. So I will state them and some usual quotes about them.

1. Alan Jones -they call him a charger who won only because of Williams surpremacy

2. Carlos Reutemann -didnt win a lot, should have won more considering cars he drove ( I found this to be the most acquard of all, since Reutemann never actualyl had a dominant car untill he joined Williams)

3. Mario Andretti -Peterson was better. (If he was better -why didnt he have nr.1 status?)

4. Emersom Fittipaldi -no particular quote, but people in general think of him as overrated

5. Niki Lauda -too wild before crash, too conservative after. In march and brm days average. Fuji 1976 unproffesional behaviour. Talks rubbish all the time.

6. Gilles Villeneuve -charger, crasher, lost to his teammate in 1979

7. Jody Sheckter -nobody rates him particularly high

8. Clay Regazzoni -always considered 2nd leauge driver. Kind of Barrichello before Barichello

9. James Hunt -They call him the weakest champ ever -won only because lauda crashed.

10. Jackie Ickx -never did anything special in F1, although was special eswhere

So that actually leaves us only with Patrick Depallier, Carlos Pace and Ronnie Peterson -that were the main bombers of 70s -but were they really that good???. Or they are simply overrated because they died while still active. So people percieve them in different light. Niether of them also never won wdc either.

To me it is impossible to mark one or two drivers as the ones that stood above their colleagues in period from 1973 to lets say 1984. Like for eg. Stewart, Clark stood out before. And fangio in 50s.

Or was it, that all of them were so evenly matched that we cannot actually see their talent?

If you ask me, I will go for Lauda as the one who stood out during post Stewart era. Statistics are on his side, as well as drives. He was a force in Ferrari, he won few races with Brabham and he led Mclaren to their first triumph in Project 4 era. But a lot of people do not consider Lauda as one of the top 10 all time greats.

whatever!

[sonar]

What is considered as talent in motor racing?
I always wondered about that.
Surely pure speed is not the same thing as talent.
Is it...?

[Stephen W]

ok, tell moderator to move it to RC

Is there some sort of competition going on to see who can start the most stupid thread?

For heaven's sake, please don't grant this thread the honour of a sensible reply!

...or perhaps he should stick to playing that trumpet?

I must confess that for me any thread beginning "OK now here's the deal..." is, ummm, incendiary.

DCN

I'm sorry, but I have to say this. This statement is probably the dumbest thing
I have ever heard.

Judging by the comments above I would suggest that this thread is DELETED rather than moved to Racing Comments as the majority of the kiddy-winks over there haven't a clue!

[Vitesse2]

Judging by the comments above I would suggest that this thread is DELETED rather than moved to Racing Comments as the majority of the kiddy-winks over there haven't a clue!

Given that it's a classic bit of "flame bait" from someone who has apparently been here less than a month I doubt it has attracted the sort of answers the OP expected/hoped for. Thankfully.

[barrykm]

..Staggering..

[Vitesse2]

..Staggering..

Maybe you should take more water with it

[David Beard]

I present myself as an alternative target for criticism...

Alan Jones – Some of us didn’t realise how good he was until he arrived at Williams. (Williams included?)

Carlos Reutemann - fast but it had to be the right day.

Mario Andretti – Perhaps not as fast as Ronnie but clever enough to develop a good rapport with Chapman.

Emerson Fittipaldi – Not a very exciting racer from this spectator’s point of view, and may never have shaped up without his Lotus opportunity.

Niki Lauda – Developed extremely well from his rentadrive origins. A very honest man to retire from that Japanese GP. His return from retirement was remarkable.

Gilles Villeneuve – the recent Motor Sport article depicted him well, I thought. So many respected opinions: they can’t all be wrong. He is a favourite of most who watched in the 70s.

Jody Scheckter – Hard to forget Silverstone 73, especially if your name is John Surtees. Not sure he generated much passion from the fans in the way GV did, but a worthy champ

Clay Regazzoni – It seems that everyone liked him. Was never going to be a champion, but 70s F1 wouldn’t have been the same without him.

James Hunt – He burnt out, but before he did he was a match for anyone. Another character greatly missed.

Jacky Ickx – World Champion material. Wet weather ability great but over hyped? All the best drivers are good in the wet.

[kayemod]

I present myself as an alternative target for criticism...


Gilles Villeneuve – the recent Motor Sport article depicted him well, I thought. So many respected opinions: they can’t all be wrong. He is a favourite of most who watched in the 70s.

OK, you asked for it. I wouldn't quibble with anything at all in the rest of your post, my opinion is only that, and worth no more than that of anyone else on here of course, but out of the twenty opinions on GV expressed by his peers in Motor Sport, the only two I more or less agreed with were the only two slightly negative ones, those of John Watson and Derek Warwick. I'd have to agree that neither of those two were ever in Gilles Villeneuve's league, but I've always thought that post-death adulation of GV has been somewhat overdone. I'm not suggesting that Gilles suffered from any lack of "taent", he certainly didn't, but was he really as good as many now claim? It's a terrible thing to have to admit, but I think I'm responding to the original post, but at least, clearly unlike that poster, I was around at the time, so have some idea what I'm talking about.

[David Beard]

OK, you asked for it. I wouldn't quibble with anything at all in the rest of your post, my opinion is only that, and worth no more than that of anyone else on here of course, but out of the twenty opinions on GV expressed by his peers in Motor Sport, the only two I more or less agreed with were the only two slightly negative ones, those of John Watson and Derek Warwick. I'd have to agree that neither of those two were ever in Gilles Villeneuve's league, but I've always thought that post-death adulation of GV has been somewhat overdone. I'm not suggesting that Gilles suffered from any lack of "taent", he certainly didn't, but was he really as good as many now claim? It's a terrible thing to have to admit, but I think I'm responding to the original post, but at least, clearly unlike that poster, I was around at the time, so have some idea what I'm talking about.

I should have added that I am always a little perplexed that people seem to be impressed with his reckless driving on the road...

Edited by David Beard, 19 April 2012 - 12:22.

[MilesDavis]

I may give you some insite by a conversation with the late Bruce McLaren on his dominating car in Can Am (sorry you may be to young to know what Can Am was) when asked why his car was so dominint was it his ability as a driver he was quite frank that it was the car he said most of the drivers on the grid could win if they drove his car in other words Chuck Parsons or Mark Donahue or anyone esle could get into his car and win he wasn't diminishing his talent he was just conceding that most of the drivers in the top 20 positions had the talent to take his car and win.
That being said in most case that you point out it is a matter of the car being the main reason but it should not diminish the efforts of the driver as it takes a high skilled driver to drive that car and make it a winner. Case in point what if they had a so so driver driving the Lotus 79 gave Mario a car that was much better then the rest of the field could some one else have taken the championship driving that car probably not as he had more skills then most other drivers so he was able to exploit the advantages of the car if Lotus had a lesser driver it would have negated the positives of the car and the car would have been viewed as marginal vs the exception that it was. Peterson never had the chance but I understand your view Mario out did him in most cases so that proves Mario's talent but should not take away from Peterson's potential for getting better. It's all about expierience, luck to have a good car, and the ability to communicate with your mechanics so they provide you with a good car. If you have a good driver and a good car but the driver cn't give good input technology wise then you will not be able to quantify him as good or overrated. Lets face it the teams hired the best talent that was avalible at the time and they knew more about them then we will ever know or be able to question their decisions.
We lost far to many good drivers as well as what you consider overrated in the 70's but thanks to McLaren not invoking their patent on a carbon fiber chassis in the interset of safety we are loosing far fewer drivers since then.
You can say Alan Jones was over rated but he took a great car and did what he did and to try to take that away from him is rediculious if it wasn't him it would have been someone else and you would be calling that driver over rated your an idiot to start this thread you have know knowledge of what makes a good driver it's a really good car that really helps. Case in point I have a video of incar for 1991 with Senna in one car and Alain Prost in the other the switch back an forth you see Alain just making slight moves of the sterring wheel and in the lead but Senna (who i think was no where near as good as Prost) was seen chopping wood with the stering wheel trying to keep up this video confirmed my point that Senna was not that great and could only do well with a good car and even then just got by ( sorry all but I don't think much of Senna, taking his teamate out on the first turn so he would win the championship destroyed my view of him forever).
To wrap this up it is a matter of luck for any driver to have the best car and take it to the wins needed to be a champion the drivers you mention as being over rated all you can do is say what if, if it had been Jackie that got the drive in the Lotus 79 instead of Mario would you be crapping on Mario and hyping Jackie as you can see you thread is rediculious as it is mostly speculative like could Ragazzoni would have won the championship if he had been able to drive Alan Jones's William the answer is absolutely there is no doubt he would have done it. So it is a matter of Luck to have the better car then you need to bee the better driver to cpitalize on the combination which all of the people you slight did you can not slight them for taking advantage of a good situtation what driver would not.
Those care were extremely hard to drive on the limit and all of the drivers deserve their respect and don't need your screwed up attitude and critizisim hell you weren't even born then and did not live in that age you have no right to start this thread with so little knowledge of what happened back then.

Dear Sir,

I think you called me an idiot there. Well I might be an idiot conserning motorsports, because I follow it few times a year I watch maybe 10-15 races altogether. But I have life outside motorsport -actually I have a lot of life so I cant learn all those little facts that determine idiot from non-idiot. But even though I am an idiot I can see one factual "idiotism" there in your post. Senna and Prost were not teammates in 1990 -the year Senan took Prost out on the first corner. One drove for Ferrari the other one for Mclaren. Now if I were on your level of surpremacy I would call you an idiot now because you made that mistake. But im not, im just an idiot, so I just tell you that you made mistake

Also english is not my first language. If you want to discuss my idiotism further please write in french

thak you

[charles r]

Where is Twinny when you need him....?

[MilesDavis]

Those care were extremely hard to drive on the limit and all of the drivers deserve their respect and don't need your screwed up attitude and critizisim hell you weren't even born then and did not live in that age you have no right to start this thread with so little knowledge of what happened back then.

also if you go and read the OP, you will see that I say that all those criticisms are QUOTES found here on TNF

I based my thread upon what I have read here on TNF. This are not my views -this are YOUR views!!!

I was just wondering who were the most talented drivers of 70s -thats all. I am completely innocent here.

[Pat Clarke]

Please guys, don't feed the troll!

Pat

[Nigel Beresford]

Dear David (Beard),

FWIW I agree with your opinions in general, though I feel Kayemod Rob has hit the nail on the head re Villeneuve. Also I think you're generous about Ickx being WDC material, but as Rob says it's all personal opinion. I do feel that the assessment re Emerson Fittipaldi is a bit harsh. I'm not so sure he needed the Lotus opportunity to break through - it just accelerated the process. The cream tends to rise to the top and Emerson achieved it twice of course, once on each side of the Atlantic. I was lucky enough to work closely with him in the US and he was seriously good - especially at Indy. Mind you, as you say, he wasn't particularly spectacular to watch. Just very, very efficient.

Thanks

Nigel

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 19 April 2012 - 13:57.

[PCC]

I feel Kayemod Rob has hit the nail on the head re Villeneuve.

Disclaimer: If Kayemod and Nigel (and in this case, DCN) have one view on a racing topic, and I have another, I am almost certainly wrong!

That said, while I completely understand your opinions on Villeneuve, I can't share them. Gilles may not have been the 'best' driver I ever saw (although the meaning of that word is a moving target), but he was the most inspiring. The sheer talent, passion and joy he brought to the job is something that still has an impact on me. And that's why I watch (or more precisely, watched) racing: to be blown away, to be uplifted, and to be given a bigger sense of what is possible.

Sure Gilles was crazy at times, as even his best friends admit. A more sensible driver like Pironi would have parked it at Zandvoort in '79. That said, Pironi finished 15th at Jarama in '81. The flame either burns or it doesn't, and when it does, it can be a mixed blessing.

(Similarly, I much prefer Gothic architecture to Classical, which probably explains a lot about me...)

[Nigel Beresford]

... but he was the most inspiring. The sheer talent, passion and joy he brought to the job is something that still has an impact on me. And that's why I watch (or more precisely, watched) racing: to be blown away, to be uplifted, and to be given a bigger sense of what is possible.

...very nicely put. I loved GV too from the get/go - I was there hanging out with the McLaren team at his first GP. It's just Rob's comment that the adulation had been overdone in some quarters that resonated with me. Thanks.

[David Beard]

Dear David (Beard),

FWIW I agree with your opinions in general, though I feel Kayemod Rob has hit the nail on the head re Villeneuve. Also I think you're generous about Ickx being WDC material, but as Rob says it's all personal opinion. I do feel that the assessment re Emerson Fittipaldi is a bit harsh. I'm not so sure he needed the Lotus opportunity to break through - it just accelerated the process. The cream tends to rise to the top and Emerson achieved it twice of course, once on each side of the Atlantic. I was lucky enough to work closely with him in the US and he was seriously good - especially at Indy. Mind you, as you say, he wasn't particularly spectacular to watch. Just very, very efficient.

Thanks

Nigel

Memory isn't what is was. I was actually forgetting his championship at McLaren!

[ianselva]

Dear Sir,

I think you called me an idiot there. Well I might be an idiot conserning motorsports, because I follow it few times a year I watch maybe 10-15 races altogether. But I have life outside motorsport -actually I have a lot of life so I cant learn all those little facts that determine idiot from non-idiot. But even though I am an idiot I can see one factual "idiotism" there in your post. Senna and Prost were not teammates in 1990 -the year Senan took Prost out on the first corner. One drove for Ferrari the other one for Mclaren. Now if I were on your level of surpremacy I would call you an idiot now because you made that mistake. But im not, im just an idiot, so I just tell you that you made mistake

Also english is not my first language. If you want to discuss my idiotism further please write in french

thak you

I think by the lack of punctuation and spelling errors English may not be Miles Davis' first language either.

[PCC]

...very nicely put. I loved GV too from the get/go - I was there hanging out with the McLaren team at his first GP. It's just Rob's comment that the adulation had been overdone in some quarters that resonated with me. Thanks.

Thank you. I really enjoy and appreciate the conversation. Too bad it's in a thread whose days may be numbered...

[Twin Window]

Where is Twinny when you need him....?

I'm here now after having 'one of those days'...

This thread justifies deletion purely on appalling spelling, grammar and punctuation alone, never mind its somewhat futile nature and awkwardness within the domain of TNF.

Closed.