The Day Formula One Died...

John

 

You illustrate the issue perfectly.  You are clearly someone that likes motorsport, you can watch it anywhere and endure things most people can and will not to do so.

 

It seems the newer F1 fans need something more, either a driver to love or hate, a team to love or hate, a national element. Racing is never enough.

 

hence it is immensely popular.

 

 

They may call themselves fans , but to me they are tiresome dilettantes with no real understanding of or interest in the wider sport. They watch a lot of telly, get into hissy fits on Twitter about Max's penalty or Lando's pitstop but rarely , if ever , stand in the fresh air  and actually watch the sport . They are the people who don't care if a race is at Monza or Vietnam . and the sort who will witter on about the sport's brand values and similar guff . As for the corporate lot .....well , if somebody thinks blowing a grand  is worthwhile for rubber chicken and a 2 minute speech from a driver then fine ,they can boast to their colleagues in HR what big shots they must be .

 

Thing is  - racing is enough . If it isn't , you need another sport.   

From around 1951 to 2002 I was truly absorbed by motor racing in general, and by Grand Prix racing in particular.

 

On May 12, 2002, that level evaporated - due to Ferrari's cynical manipulation of the Austrian GP result - and that so early in the series.  It was to me totally indefensible. Something certainly died - or had just been killed - inside me...

 

 

While I agree with your annoyment from a spectator´s point of view, for me it is always hard to understand at the same time the glorification of the 'good old times'. Wasn´t it quite normal with Ferrari, Alfa, Mercedes, Auto Union etc. to "fix" the outcome of the races in advance? And still we call this the 'Golden Era'!

 

I don´t think, GP racing was generally better in the past, instead I think our attitude was simply less critical...

It is all so different today when thousands flock to one motor race a year in order to support Lewis, their enjoyment of the meeting seemingly dependant upon him getting pole position and winning the race. As a teenager in the 1950's I naturally cheered on Moss, Collins and Hawthorn etc and BRM in particular, but I also supported Fangio, Ascari, Farina, Behra, Castelotti and the others that I read about in the magazines of the day, they were my hero's. The British drivers could be seen on numerous other occasions at other meetings during the season. Todays fans have to be content with the one race meeting a year which although quite enough for me, is rather sad for them. Silverstone back then had a distinct crowd and atmosphere which changed with the emergence of 'Our Nige' and 'Brit culture'.

Eric, fascinating post.  I am sorry to say from someone far older than me!!  It must be fascinating to watch now or see now and compare. I think Alonso is trying to recapture some of that old magic as much as he can and for very selfish reasons, but at least he is trying numerous things, just not all at the same time!

 

I think that is a lot of middle aged old farts issue they see atmosphere as something projected, not real. I have rarely felt it at race tracks to be honest. 

 

And as you say the place had a feel back then, I only really get that feel at other venues, I felt it very strongly at the Nordschliefe, and at Dijon bizarrely.

But in the UK only at certain venues, certainly not Silverstone which I have always found a soulless, distant place. 

I've never been a fan of any one driver to the exclusion of all others and resented it being assumed by the commentators that all British people supported Mansell.

When I first went to the races, I enjoyed seeing Hawthorn, Collins, Brooks and Moss of course, but the others were what made the whole Grand Prix thing interesting. As Eric says, we could and did watch those British chaps race other cars quite often and at circuits other than Silverstone.

In the 1960s/70s we used to be able to have a day's holiday to see Friday practice (at a very affordable price) at Silverstone and if the results made us think it would be a good race, we'd buy a grandstand ticket as we left (also affordable at around the price of a tank of fuel) and be back there on the Saturday for the races. Yes, races, as there would be several supporting races as well as the Grand Prix. The time GP racing "died" for me was when I couldn't buy a ticket the day before - not to mention the time when the price went stupidly high.

When I first went to Silverstone and for a few decades it still was a dead aerodrome, but had some quite interesting characteristics including many corners that could easily be approached far too fast and without the acres of run-off that's obligatory now. Stowe was one such and I liked to watch from the Stowe grandstand.

Yes, my pals and I just loved motor racing and would happily cycle the fifty miles or so up the A5 to a Silverstone Saturday club meeting with little idea of the actual programme or entry, it was the racing that mattered to us, next day we'd probably ride down to Brands Hatch or to Crystal Palace,

saddle sore and with aching legs and looking forward to reading the Autosport reports of what we'd just watched. Happy times. .

The whole tribal thing is alien to me - although , as a long time lover of the  Cavallino Rampante , I loved seeing the Tifosi on their home ground at Imola in 1987 . I liked Hunt , but loathed the near riot at Brands ' 76  and , when Mansell Mania  hit , fuelled by tabloid xenophobia , I was embarrassed  and appalled in equal measure .

 

I have never been that fussed who wins , or where they come from ,.  I love the sport for its international flavour and owe my entire knowledge of Finnish forenames and Italian surnames to the Mikkas and Hannus  , Alboretos and Brambillas . All that counts is the race , not the national anthem they play at the end .

 

I was no less thrilled by Lauda's sheer guts in 76 than I was by Damon Hill's stoic grit in 1994 .    

The whole tribal thing is alien to me - although , as a long time lover of the  Cavallino Rampante , I loved seeing the Tifosi on their home ground at Imola in 1987 . I liked Hunt , but loathed the near riot at Brands ' 76  and , when Mansell Mania  hit , fuelled by tabloid xenophobia , I was embarrassed  and appalled in equal measure .

 

I have never been that fussed who wins , or where they come from ,.  I love the sport for its international flavour and owe my entire knowledge of Finnish forenames and Italian surnames to the Mikkas and Hannus  , Alboretos and Brambillas . All that counts is the race , not the national anthem they play at the end .

 

I was no less thrilled by Lauda's sheer guts in 76 than I was by Damon Hill's stoic grit in 1994 .    

 

I agree with all that, though my Ferrari enthusiasm is on a rather lower level. All I'm really interested in are the cars and the actual on-track stuff, the racing, and I don't much care who the driver is, their nationality, or the car's name or entrant. That's the way my motor racing interest has always been, though of course I had favourites, especially in my younger days. It never really bothered me if they got beaten either, as long as everything was fair and above board. However, what follows is something I think should concern all of us. I have a friend, he's in his early 60s, and he's what today would pass as an Effwun fan, we were round at his house a couple of days ago, and much of the time racing was discussed. He has BT cable, which means that he can access hours of motorsport TV every race weekend, and much of the rest of the time as well, he never misses any of it, though I don't think he's ever attended a race or seen racing live in his life, so he's what John would dismiss as a  dilettante. He's a really decent guy, I give him all my read MotorSports, which he passes on to one of his workmates who's similarly interested, and we often lend each other books, different viewpoints, though our interests do overlap to some extent. I've never tried him with any older stuff, and sadly, the name of Sir Stirling barely registers with him. He never stops trying to interest me in Formula E though, with no success at all so far, I'd rather watch Strictlycomewhateveritis, but he never gives up. "You'll really love it he insisted, they pass and re-pass each other all the time, and there are loads of crashes, though nobody gets hurt, best racing I've seen", though it sounds more like dodgems with vacuum cleaners to me, so I doubt if I'll weaken. That's not untypical of many of today's Effwun followers though, they want constant action, not really appreciating what we'd think of as the finer aspects, and it sounds more like a Tom & Jerry cartoon or Playstation game to me. I know most of us are getting on a bit, but are any of today's younger followers going to grow up to take our places, to become what we, maybe deludedly, seem to think of as "proper" motor racing fans?

Plus ca change... I remember at school in the fifties, the few fellow enthusiasts I could find were "fans" of Stirling Moss because he was British.  Newspaper reporting was always nationalistic twaddle; a seventies headline claimed a British victory at Le Mans. All credit to Derek Bell, but Jacky Ickx and Porsche could have had a mention. The existence of people who watch only TV (not live) dates back to the spread of decent coverage.

 

I don't think the various things we decry are necessarily new.

Edited by Sterzo, 29 October 2019 - 21:37.

...On May 12, 2002, that level evaporated - due to Ferrari's cynical manipulation of the Austrian GP result - and that so early in the series.  It was to me totally indefensible. Something certainly died - or had just been killed - inside me...

Extraordinary that that should have bothered you when, for example, in one race in 1997, Schumacher tried to ram Villeneuve out of the race and title and Williams and McLaren colluded to stitch up the result between them (and the very next race McLaren again fixed the result between their two drivers).  But that was apparently all okay?  No cynicism there?

I too have never really understood team or driver favouritism.  I am probably the other way, there are a few I don't want to win!  

 

I never like domination, I feel it puts people off the sport and only really benefits those that win, no-one else, but that also is a snub to those that do prefer to have favourites, just not my way.

 

Sadly I liked Mansell in his prime, mainly because I knew no better, I wish I could take that back. I always liked Piquet, loved Villeneuve, had a soft spot for Damon and Herbert and Button after he stopped being a spoiled brat. So a Brit bias, but also was fond of Mika, and off the wall guys like Patrese, Berger, who were not universally popular but occasionally had their day, and I would cheer for them!

 

But never warmed to dominant men like Schumacher, Vettel, Hamilton, Loeb, etc.

 

I admire Lauda more than most, and also guys like Rosberg, both of them for being utterly single minded and able to walk away with their head held high, I actually admire Nico more for his title and his stance after than any of Lewis's sadly. 

 

AS for racing I can and will watch anything, the only restriction now being price and length of time sitting on Britain's roads behind the endless gormless cretins that now populate them!

 

I was certainly born in the wrong era I think!

Don't want to enter into this ideological discussion, but surely this doesn't improve the prospects...

 

Mobile gaming to identify top racing drivers of the future

 

https://www.motorspo...-drivers-future

 

The future is a foreign country.

Don't want to enter into this ideological discussion, but surely this doesn't improve the prospects...

 

 

https://www.motorspo...-drivers-future

 

The future is a foreign country.

I used to play racing games, liked them for what they were, but I'd never claim that even as they got more realistic they really identified you as a potential champion. There is a difference to taking Eau Rougle flat on a screen to taking it flat in reality when under multiple G lateral and vertical loads with the chance of potentially fatal consequences if something goes wrong. And as I've also found, games don't induce the same motion sickness either..... Hence I really don't get the current fixation in both Autosport and Motorsport with e-sport F1 - top drivers need more than what is identified by a game, however good it is. Sure, you can point to Jann Mardenborough, and Norbert Michelitz, but that's two drivers from however many gamers out there. Is that really such a great hit-rate? The future is the future, and often very different from where people expect.

If mobile gaming lowers the barriers of entry to Motorsport it can only be a good thing, the pool is getting smaller and smaller, the sport is to reliant at the top echelons of the sport to sons of billionaires and sons of ex drivers, that cant be a good thing. The tough part as pointed out above is how they cross over to actually drive a real machine that can bite them...

The fixation is about trying to get more readers, it is a new avenue to try and make money, that is all. Away from existing fans. 

 

Gaming does offer some benefits, it certainly is a great way to learn tracks and do lots of other things.

 

But we have all seen it does not really transfer well to real racing.

 

The Gran Turismo thing is all well and good, but in the final stages, all the people there were good enough, it was profiling and media and lots of things that decided the winners.

And to be honest if you or I had that much training and money spent on us, we would also be half decent like Mardenborough or Ordonez or any of the other winners would.  And considering the money spent on them they are the only ones that have really sustained a career. 

I would argue that worldwide motorsport has died, not just F1. It happened in the 1990's when the FIA began pandering to the car manufacturers who began dictating to the FIA what they wanted and not what was best for the sport. I saw Rally GB on telly recently and compared to the glory days of the RAC rally pre-1990, it was just a sad spectacle. Same with touring cars. Ridiculous "parity" formulas that have no relevance to anybody, particularly new car buyers.

 

I don't think F1 has died but something went badly wrong in F1 between 1982 and 1988. 10 different drivers won a race in '82 but six years later one team won pretty much everything and unfortunately this has been the trend ever since. One team will dominate for a few years before another team takes over and does the same thing and this pattern has been pretty much uninterrupted since 1988. It seems those in control of F1 don't want, or are incapable of changing the status quo.

 

 I actually think F1 has performed reasonably well compared with other four-wheel formulas. I actually liked the introduction of DRS as finally we had some passing in F1. The allowance of more aero and bigger tires in recent years has proved to be a step in the wrong direction and the racing has definitely taken a turn for the worse.

 

What I do resent is the deplorable treatment of the fans. Not having pay-TV I have to watch a highlights package which is so badly edited that at times it is virtually unwatchable. I can only assume this is a deliberate ploy to frustrate fans and thus "encourage"  fans into paying to watch. It seems to me that if we don't pay them money, F1 doesn't want us. Does it really have to be this way?

I would argue that worldwide motorsport has died, not just F1. It happened in the 1990's when the FIA began pandering to the car manufacturers who began dictating to the FIA what they wanted and not what was best for the sport. I saw Rally GB on telly recently and compared to the glory days of the RAC rally pre-1990, it was just a sad spectacle. Same with touring cars. Ridiculous "parity" formulas that have no relevance to anybody, particularly new car buyers.

 

I don't think F1 has died but something went badly wrong in F1 between 1982 and 1988. 10 different drivers won a race in '82 but six years later one team won pretty much everything and unfortunately this has been the trend ever since. One team will dominate for a few years before another team takes over and does the same thing and this pattern has been pretty much uninterrupted since 1988. It seems those in control of F1 don't want, or are incapable of changing the status quo.

 

 I actually think F1 has performed reasonably well compared with other four-wheel formulas. I actually liked the introduction of DRS as finally we had some passing in F1. The allowance of more aero and bigger tires in recent years has proved to be a step in the wrong direction and the racing has definitely taken a turn for the worse.

 

What I do resent is the deplorable treatment of the fans. Not having pay-TV I have to watch a highlights package which is so badly edited that at times it is virtually unwatchable. I can only assume this is a deliberate ploy to frustrate fans and thus "encourage"  fans into paying to watch. It seems to me that if we don't pay them money, F1 doesn't want us. Does it really have to be this way?

There's a few things going on there.  1982 was an exceptional year and not in a good way, with two drivers killed and another with a career ending accident.  Not to mention a car in the crowd resulting in spectator injuries and changes to the regulations at the end of the season.  But also, reliability was a big issue then.  Now a car almost never breaks down.  Still, there were seven different winners in the first seven races of 2012, don't forget.  Nor should you forget that Ascari won pretty much all the races in 1952 and Jim Clark similarly in 1963.  In any sport you have periods of dominance (e.g. Manchester United or Usain Bolt or Venus Williams).

 

In some ways, I disagree with what you say about not trying to change the status quo.  Rather, I think, they have tried endless silly sticking plaster ideas that only serve to make things worse and more artificial instead of identifying the real root problems and dealing with them.  I do applaud what they set out to do with the 2021 F1 rules.  But latterly that seems to have descended into more nonsensical rubbish about reverse grids, qualifying races etc. (whilst still keeping rubbish tyres) and saving money in all the wrong areas (plus far too many races).  

 

Money?  Well yes, they sold F1 off to the highest bidder and, unsurprisingly, they want the maximum return now rather than what might be best for the next 10 or 20 years.

 

Rallying pre-1990?  I've never been much of a fan of rallying but the Group B era was something else.  Spectacular!  But it was also incredibly dangerous and it was inevitable that it couldn't last.

There's a few things going on there.  1982 was an exceptional year and not in a good way, with two drivers killed and another with a career ending accident.  Not to mention a car in the crowd resulting in spectator injuries and changes to the regulations at the end of the season.  But also, reliability was a big issue then.  Now a car almost never breaks down.  Still, there were seven different winners in the first seven races of 2012, don't forget.  Nor should you forget that Ascari won pretty much all the races in 1952 and Jim Clark similarly in 1963.  In any sport you have periods of dominance (e.g. Manchester United or Usain Bolt or Venus Williams).

In the last decade, only six new winners (one of whom was Maldonado), and only twelve new drivers standing on the podium (of which three were, at present, one-offs).

Six years since anything other than a Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull won a GP. Coincidentally (cough) these are the three manufacturers grousing the loudest about the 2021 regulation changes.

I have a dream...that one day F1 will allow racing like this in the not too far distant future (watch from 4:30)

 

 

 

Now imagine the drivers were Hamilton, Verstappen Vettel...wonder if they still had time to push the radio button 

 

Overtaking not due to DRS but only by slipstream, high speed cornering side by side, cars unaffected by dirty air…

In terms of race action technical progress wasn´t for the better

Edited by funformula, 31 October 2019 - 20:47.

Posts 52 and 60 - I assumed this was a thread about 'last straw' moments, which is what in my case I described.  There's not enough space here - and I wouldn't have enough time - to detail every previous F1 irritation or disappointment witnessed over so many preceding years.  

 

For me that 2002 Austrian GP was just my final straw... 

 

DCN

It is so happened that today for me is a day of special reflection - about what has been done, what can be done now, and what I am going to do in the future (that's because I was notified in the morning that due to the economic crisis and job cuts in our country, I have only one month left to work in my current place). Following an old good habit, I decided to go to my lovely TNF and I saw a discussion of this curious question - when did Formula 1 cease to be itself. I admit that majority of comments are very interesting and I tend to agree with them. Nevertheless, I would like to note some special points. One of them is that, indeed, an original Formula 1 died at the end of 1951, when it became clear that Alfa Romeo was leaving, and the next WDC would have to be decided in the Formula 2 class. At the same time, moving away from 1951 both retrospectively (to previous years, that is, to the time of the Grand Prix of the Golden Era and European Championships of the 1930s, the first World Championships of the 1920s, etc), and ultra-perspective ("back to the future" - from 1952 onwards) every change of regulation and the concept of racing can be nominated as formal moments of F1 death and rebirth. One of the earliest examples I would call the Paris – Madrid race of 1903, which changed the face of motor racing in Europe. In the same time one of the most significant blows to current Formula 1, I would call the restriction and later the ban of private tests, that first was introduced in 2007. Up to this point, Formula 1 could still be considered a sport, but due to testing limitation one of the main principles of sport was limited - which is a free access to the training process and improving results in competition through training and testing. Since then Formula 1 has become an entertainment show with elements of sports, but not pure sports. In general, it seems to me that Formula 1 (as well as the Grand Prix racing in general, and the other dominant forms of motorsport in a given period in a particular territory) in terms of its main qualitative characteristics - the fascination, depth of character of personalities, the acuteness of the rivalry and its permissible frames - is a peculiar but objective form of interpretation of what is permissible, noble and fair for the time in which it exists. That is why, for example, the dirty tricks of the rivalry between Prost and Senna can be considered quite acceptable in the late 80s, but at the same time the same attitude just can't be extrapolated to the 50s and the fights between Fangio and Moss or Moss and Hawthorn. And further. As it is known all phenomena develop in a spiral and history tends to reproduce itself doing it at a new round of its spiral. And when I saw the sketches of the concept of Formula 1 cars according to the regulations of 2021, I almost immediately remembered BRM P207 of Larry Perkins at the 1977 Brazilian Grand Prix. Indeed, despite 44 years of difference, a certain similarity in their shapes is visible:

If it is as 'quick' as the BRM, I may still have hope to make it as racing driver...

Posts 52 and 60 - I assumed this was a thread about 'last straw' moments, which is what in my case I described.  There's not enough space here - and I wouldn't have enough time - to detail every previous F1 irritation or disappointment witnessed over so many preceding years.  

 

For me that 2002 Austrian GP was just my final straw... 

 

DCN

Yes, understood.  It just seemed a strange final straw in light of plenty of other things before (and indeed since) but then everyone is different and has their own "breaking point".

Can I suggest a few other moments when motor racing died?

 

The Paris-Bordeaux-Paris when they disqualified the winner for not being a four seater.

 

The 1902 Gordon-Bennett which Britain won even though there were about six French cars ahead that simply had not been nominated for the sub-race.

 

The 1908 Grand Prix decided on team orders.

 

The 1926 French Grand Prix which had one finisher out of three starters.

 

The 1930 Belgian Grand Prix when Bouriat had to sit still for 150 seconds on the last lap waiting to be overtaken by his team leader.

 

Loads of GPs when a team plugged a fresh driver into a car at the expense of other drivers who had to go the whole distance themselves.

 

1966 Le Mans when Ford killed Ken Miles' one shot at immortality.

 

The scrutineers disqualifying Mini and Tyrrell for fake reasons because they were in the way of their favourites.

 

And I haven't even mentioned NASCAR point systems.

 

Since reading your post I have looked up a number of reports about the 1908 GP, but still can not see, how that race had been or could have been decided on team 'orders'?

Rocky2 has, I think, pinned the subject. Pretty much every change is the end of the World, if you choose to view it as such. To my eternal shame, I and my friends decried full-face helmets and  Armco barriers as the death of Grand Prix racing. Now that looks an extremely silly position. As an individual I am still extremely silly, but try not to let that influence my view of racing. It's one thing to spot the flaws, another thing to dismiss the fantastic sport that still lies at the core.

Rocky2 has, I think, pinned the subject. Pretty much every change is the end of the World, if you choose to view it as such. To my eternal shame, I and my friends decried full-face helmets and  Armco barriers as the death of Grand Prix racing. Now that looks an extremely silly position. As an individual I am still extremely silly, but try not to let that influence my view of racing. It's one thing to spot the flaws, another thing to dismiss the fantastic sport that still lies at the core.

Interesting point, and quite valid.

For me it was a series of changes that took many years and, to pick up on your closing point, completely buried that fantastic core under a freight train of irrelevance, excessive technology and political tampering.

If the core was ever allowed to emerge and breathe free once more I would be back in the stands.

Edited by uffen, 01 November 2019 - 16:57.

Since reading your post I have looked up a number of reports about the 1908 GP, but still can not see, how that race had been or could have been decided on team 'orders'?

 

Sorry - meant 1914.  Team strategy.

Sorry - meant 1914.  Team strategy.

 

Hm, in the literature I have read many times about that being "the greatest Grand Prix of all times"... 

We all know it died soon after that first race back in 1895. (please note sarcasm).

Hm, in the literature I have read many times about that being "the greatest Grand Prix of all times"... 

 

Very possibly.  Off the top of my head it is the earliest race in which team strategy helped to decide the outcome. Doubtless there were purists complaining that this meant the man against machine against everyone else struggle was now polluted by the need to play as a team, remove the individual element, help the bigger budgets &c.

I find  the GOAT (greatest of all time ) accolade hugely irritating in the context of anything , such as motor  sport , that has only been around for a tiny pin prick of all time. 'Best' is a perfectly decent and serviceable word...

I don't mind it, it suits certain people who have massively achieved in thier sport. 

 

The first time I experienced it in racing was Ricky Carmichael in moto/supercross.

 

I think anyone who goes a season without losing can rightly claim to be pretty special, and around this be uterly dominant on different machines for years and I very much doubt anyone chooses the moniker for themselves!!

 

But it does not bother me, and it provokes debate,l which is always good.

 

The Marquez/Rossi stuff on facebook groups is hilariously funny and I imagine the same is true in sports of every kind. 

The GOAT accolade is almost always applied to a current performer by people who probably have little knowledge of the full history of that sport and hence have no real idea of whether it's justified or not.

I would strongly disagree with that sentiment, not everyone who watches modern sport has no appreciation of what happened in the past.

 

I would call Schumacher a GOAT, simply for what he achieved for two teams, and how he changed the sport for drivers, I didn't like him at all, but facts speak.

Andretti is one too, for being that rare thing, an American who won in all sorts of things in the USA and then did the same in a few elsewhere.

 

John Surtees is in a league of his own with his achievements, so you could maybe cal him the overall GOAT!

 

Roger Federer, Michael Jordan, Jerry Rice, Jonah Lomu, these are all a few who can claim this sort of title.

 

You ether like it or you don't, i would not expect many regular posters on this section to like it!

So your 'all time' stretches back, gosh , half a dozen decades or so.?   I don't dispute the sentiment behind  wanting to give accolades to people you think deserve it , it is just the ludicrously portentous label .

Well in some sports like motocross and the like the sport doesn't really go back that far to be honest, so you can fairly easily make the claim.

 

Very few motorsports go back beyond the 50's in anything like the same sort of similarity let's be honest.

I know I wrote in an earlier post that the safety car was, for me, the moment Formula one died but in reality, that was just the moment it went from being a serious sport to entertainment. I still followed it.  But thinking about it more, the moment it actually died was when I started racing. Even at the lowest level, suddenly actually doing something myself was far more interesting than watching something on TV! 

Edited by chr1s, 03 November 2019 - 22:19.

I just read on the Roaring Season forum Stirling Moss' opinion...

Motor racing as such ended with the introduction of sticky tyres.

Well in some sports like motocross and the like the sport doesn't really go back that far to be honest...

 

Just to be clear, the sport of motocross (or ‘scrambling’ in the UK) is over ninety years old, dating from the mid-twenties after it grew out of trialling. Within its first decade there were at least five works teams in the UK alone. In the context of motorsport as a whole, that makes it pretty old. The first FIM series was in, what 51, 52 or so?

 

The aforementioned Ricky Carmichael might be the most successful US stadium motocross or ’supercross’ rider ever, but if you define the parameters tightly enough there are one or two things at which even I am the greatest of all time. And I believe I have been, at least once, referred to as a goat; although, on that occasion, it was not meant as an acronym…

 

I’m with John on this… of all the unquantifiable superlatives bandied about amongst motorsport followers, ‘goat’ seems to me to be the silliest of all. It just fuels a curious compulsion to list, quantify and rank every last (often incomparable) thing rather than just enjoy. 

 

 

Other will, doubtless, disagree!

Very possibly.  Off the top of my head it is the earliest race in which team strategy helped to decide the outcome. Doubtless there were purists complaining that this meant the man against machine against everyone else struggle was now polluted by the need to play as a team, remove the individual element, help the bigger budgets &c.

"Doubtless"? On the very contrary - I very much doubt there were any of those thoughts around in 1914. Don't just copy & paste your current mindset into the past, it doesn't work that way. Read period articles, and you will see that individual drivers didn't mean that much then, and your much derided "team" was everything that counted. Budget envy? Everyone was impressed by the forethought and enterprise that went into the Mercedes effort. If their budget was bigger than everyone else's, it meant their effort was bigger, and that was generally applauded.

 

Just to be clear, the sport of motocross (or ‘scrambling’ in the UK) is over ninety years old, dating from the mid-twenties after it grew out of trialling. Within its first decade there were at least five works teams in the UK alone. In the context of motorsport as a whole, that makes it pretty old. The first FIM series was in, what 51, 52 or so?

 

I’m with John on this… of all the unquantifiable superlatives bandied about amongst motorsport followers, ‘goat’ seems to me to be the silliest of all. It just fuels a curious compulsion to list, quantify and rank every last (often incomparable) thing rather than just enjoy. 

 

Other will, doubtless, disagree!

 

 

 

Ah yes, motorcycle scrambling, there were events quite close to our Sheffield home, and that was my introduction to motor sport. It took place in the Peak District, mid 1950s, I was very young or course,  My dad used to take me on the pillion of his Velocette, me clinging on for dear life, I'm surprised my mother didn't veto that, but she allowed me to go. Imagine trying that today, a child of 5 or 6, sans helmet or other protection, I don't think you'd make it very far. I was enthralled back then by the sight of Arthur Lampkin and Dave Bickers and others, racing over the muddy and grassy slopes of Mayfields Valley, followed by the aroma of Castrol R, still a heady perfume for me many years later.

 

On the GOAT thing, surely there's some confusion about this. To take one obvious example, in a purely Effwun context, Michael Schumacher was so far the most successful ever, but the greatest? Certainly not for me, though possibly better than any of his contemporaries, and some would disagree about that, as they will today about Lewis Hamilton. Both unquestionably supremely talented, but the greatest? Taking into account their opportunities and teams, cars etc, I don't think it's possible to be sure.

"Doubtless"? On the very contrary - I very much doubt there were any of those thoughts around in 1914. Don't just copy & paste your current mindset into the past, it doesn't work that way. Read period articles, and you will see that individual drivers didn't mean that much then, and your much derided "team" was everything that counted.

 

I was thinking of the first Tour de France, which did have motor racing links, and which was meant to be an individual event.  The founder decried the instant rise of teams and the consequent team strategy of defeating the whole point of the one-man-against-the-world ethos. 
 

I was not trying to insinuate that motocross or scrambling was only around since the 50's, but as a similar sport to what it is now it largely was, and it was certainly not a big championship in supercross terms until the 70's. I mean in terms of it being semi pro at the top level, works riders and teams, and using similar tracks etc. 

 

People can pick bones out of anything you say on here, but the fact remains that titles like that are always going to be a topic of discussion. And a Marmite topic. 

 

It largely depends on whether you rate achievement and titles over everything, or influence or popularity,.

 

Would Americans call Petty the greatest of all time?  He won a lot of races against meagre opposition and coz he did all the races and not many others did. I would say he still is the GOAT of Nascar because of lots of things, not just results.  

 

Same as Don Garlits in drag racing, not coz of wins, but the things he did, the designs he tried. 

 

In my opinion the greatest racer ever was Jim Clark, I never saw him though so maybe I don't qualify to make that statement. A lot of people say Moss, but he never won it did he!!  It is always an interesting topic.

Both unquestionably supremely talented, but the greatest? 

"Supremely talented"? It is very tricky to avoid superlatives when discussing positive attributes.

 

Occasionally I try the mental exercise of ranking "best driver of a decade" which quickly breaks down into "best driver of a period" and even "best driver of the year" sometimes becomes a toss of the coin. Defining GOAT is thus beyond my capacity but I do feel able to say that some popularly nominated GOATs fail to meet the sportsmanship qualification.

 

Returning to the original topic, my enthusiasm for F1 is diminished by vociferous arguments about whether a driver is fast enough to deserve a seat. For any period we can usually suggest a quick driver from the junior series who was never given a chance. We recall drivers who were unprepared or selected too early in their careers or given a "decent car" which wasn't working that weekend. For the last 50 years, though, my list of "slow drivers" is in single figures. If we extend the period to include "gentleman drivers", the list gets a bit longer but those drivers were rarely pushing anyone from a place on the grid. Every driver in F1 for 20 years or more has been damned quick, even if others might have been more deserving.

One issue with "GOAT" is that the time for the subject matter must have elapsed. If the profession/pastime/activity is still in play then the matter of "all time" must delay debate.

So, when F1 drivers are no longer plying their talent, no longer a "thing," then the discussion can rage. Until that happens we can only discuss Greatest So Far. 

One issue with "GOAT" is that the time for the subject matter must have elapsed. If the profession/pastime/activity is still in play then the matter of "all time" must delay debate.

So, when F1 drivers are no longer plying their talent, no longer a "thing," then the discussion can rage. Until that happens we can only discuss Greatest So Far. 

 

Perhaps we could amend it to 'Greatest Of All Time (up to this date)'?! Though GOATUTTD doesn't quite roll off the tongue...

DC letting Hakkinen pass for the win in Australia.

Just  for a reference point DSJ had an article in the March 1973 Motor Sport " when did you lose interest" !!

 

 

He went through his view of 1950 to 1973 and concluded that although his interest in F1 had waned at times ( Brabham/Cooper in'59/60 interestingly)  he was still fully interested after 20 years of following it.

What a totally depressing thread, it makes me wonder what is wrong with me. I still feel the same passion and excitement as I did standing on that grassy bank watching my first race at Goodwood all those years ago.

I was thinking of the first Tour de France, which did have motor racing links, and which was meant to be an individual event.  The founder decried the instant rise of teams and the consequent team strategy of defeating the whole point of the one-man-against-the-world ethos.

Hmm. I always loved bicycle racing because it is a team sport as well as a contest between individuals - much like motor racing! Each to his own, I guess.

Motor racing, however, has a very different origin. It started as a means for manufacturers to advertize their goods, and for many decades it stayed that way. The big news wasn't Lautenschlager winning and Boillot not, but Mercedes winning, and not Peugeot. Boillot was one of the first drivers to capture the imagination of the public, but he was still just a "tool" in the Peugeot box!