46 replies to this topic

[Joe Fan]

I noticed in Atlas's Hall of Fame (located on the front page down at the bottom right side), Phil Hill made Atlas's Hall of Fame and Dan Gurney didn't. How does everyone feel about this?

As an American, I feel that Dan Gurney was the better driver between the two. The F1 statistics might not back it up but I hold a higher regard for Dan Gurney since he won in everything, F1, Indy Cars, Sportscars and NASCAR. Dan Gurney and Mario Andretti are the only two drivers who have won a F1 race, an Indy Car race, a major Sportscar race and a NASCAR race.

Granted, Phil Hill won a WDC and has a higher winning percentage in F1 than Gurney and since Atlas's Hall of Fame is for F1 only, maybe Phil Hill does belong there moreso than Gurney. Phil was also an outstanding sportscar racer too. However, I would still like to hear what everyone else has to say on this since the quality of ride in F1 makes a huge difference in the stats.

[f li]

Joe,

Now Dan drove a GT-40, didn't he? Are we gonna reopen that thread via the back door?

[Keir]

On pure driving ability, I would pick Dan.
Phil was very fortunate in his driving career
to drive for Ferrari during one of it's most competitive eras. About the only wrong move Phil made was going to ATS. Apart from that, Phil, in comparison to Dan, had an easy time of it all.

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

[Fast One]

I didn't get to see Phil Hill until he was past his prime, so I am hesitant to say. Both were superb, but I recall the received opinion at the time was that Dan was one of the best 4-5 in the world, and Phil Hill was maybe one of the best 10-15. That seems about right to me. Dan suffered even more than Fearless John from not having a car that could showcase his talents. He was pretty special.

[This message has been edited by Fast One (edited 04-09-2000).]

[Ray Bell]

Well, if "past his prime" is in his last ever open-wheeler race, I saw Phil when he was past his prime, too. Three of the last four of his open-wheeler races, to be more precise.
And in that race he was so great that I'm getting geared up to write the story of my career about it. He made that race.
But then, I always considered Dan the better driver - from afar (and you don't get much further afar than Sydney is from the Nurburgring or Rouen).
It might be hard to quantify the differences between them... each with his own strengths. But Dan's several wins in succession in the Riverside 500-miler in NASCAR would have been very, very hard to achieve - as would Phil's several Le Mans and Sebring wins.
Too hard!


------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Falcadore]

The reason that Phil Hill is in the Hall of Fame is that he was World Champion and Dan Gurney was not. The Atlas Hall of Fame contains only the 27 world champions. It's too easy to cause arguements of who should and shouldn't be in the list, I believe the line was drawn there for that reason. it's the easiest to justify and the hardest to argue against. Additionally no opinions are enterred into.

[Art]

If Clark hadn't of killer Vontrips Hill would of never been World Champion.

Art

[Fast One]

Art, you can't say that. Von Trips had 33 pts. to Hills 29 going into Monza. Hill had 5 poles and 2 fastest laps to von Trips single pole. So it wasn't like Taffy dominated the season. At the time of the accident Hill was in 1st while von Trips was fighting Clark for 4th. Had von Trips lived and taken 4th, Hill would have come out of that race with a 1 pt. lead going into Watkins Glen and Hill's home GP. My money would have been on Hill. Von Trips wasn't in Hill's class, was he? I never saw him race, but the word I read was that he was basically an extremely good amateur. Hill was certainly faster.

[This message has been edited by Fast One (edited 04-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Fast One (edited 04-10-2000).]

[Joe Fan]

Yeah Art, I said the same thing that Fast One just posted to Atlas F1 poster Indian Chief last year, when he posted the big if scenario.

Falcodore, I didn't put it all together with the Atlas F1 Hall of Fame. You're right all of the members are former WDCs. Poor Stirling Moss.

[Don Capps]

The fact is, BOTH were excellent drivers!!!!!

I saw both drive, Hill for the first time in about 1955 and Gurney in 1959. Contrary to something posted earlier, driving for Scuderia Ferrari in the late 1950's and into the early 1960's cannot be defined as "easy." If you think things are in a constant turmoil today, they are the very picture of calm and reasoned management today compared to then. Hill should have been in single-seaters during the 1956 season and NLT the 1957 season. He is a vastly underrated driver. He is my personal choice for the top The Enduro Driver. I personally think he had the legs on von Trips by many leagues and would have emerged #1 in spite of it all.

Dan Gurney: Geez, what a driver! He, Moss, and Mario Andretti - along with Parnelli Jones & AJ Foyt - are at the top of my "If It's Got Wheels, I Can Put in the Winner's Circle..." Group. Dan was a wonderful driver with a huge amount of talent and was willing to try about anything. He is just so different than many of the others in that he tried so many categories and did well.

Personally, Phil and Dan are tops in my Book. Period.

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…

[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 04-10-2000).]

[Ray Bell]

'NLT'? - Naturally Led Team? New Little Toy?
Don't forget, Collins and Hawthorn were still there at the time, although it was a multi-car team.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Joe Fan]

Don, one other driver that would fit into my "If it has four wheels, I can put it in winner's circle" group would be Mark Donohue. He won the Indy 500 plus a couple of other Indy Car races, the Daytona 24HRS, the first IROC championshop in a Porsche plus some sportscar races in Can-Am, won a NASCAR race and would have won in F1 if he had lived as he finished on the podium in his very first F1 start.

[Fast One]

Don--

I agree completely. Joe asked us to choose, and of course, by the time I saw Hill, he was perhaps past his best, but he is the sort of man you respect with a capital "R". I wish I'd seen him in the 50's at Ferrari. Stateside he was, I am told, nearly untouchable.

Thinking of Hill and Gurney (and Gregory, Revson, Donohue, Ginther, Miles, Schell, Andretti, Foyt, et al., why is it that America quit producing world-class driving talent. Really? It really stopped in the 70's, so this isn't a I'm-gonna-pull-out-all-my-teeth-and-race-NASCAR thing. It happened way before that. It just stopped completely.

[Ray Bell]

When did you first see him? I'm curious because of the reason I outlined above.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Fast One]

Ray, I can't remember, but it had to be right at the very end of his career. When did he last race? Somewhere between 67 and 69, I think. What sticks in my mind (remember, I was in high school, was someone pointing him out in the pits, and how serious he looked, really totally focused. I would never have dreamed of approaching him. He looked like he'd melt you with his glare if you interrupted his thoughts.

[Ray Bell]

More the other way round, I believe. Somebody once wrote that if you came up behind him unexpectedly just before a race he'd jump ten feet in the air - perhaps that was Purdy or Moss in All But My Life.
So you would have seen him in the Chaparrals?
He was in McLaren's previous year's Tasman car when I saw him.


------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Fast One]

It was an early race, and I was young enough I acn't be sure. Unless it was in th USRRC, which I doubt, it had to be a Can Am race, so it was either Mosport or Bridgehampton in '66. I can't remember which year I went to which.

[Mike Argetsinger]

My purpose in bringing this thread back up to the top is that Dan and Phil will both be honored guests at Watkins Glen this season.

Phil Hill will be there the weekend of May 17-19 which is the Grand-Am race weekend (my brother Pete is racing that weekend in the 6-Hour race in a Riley&Scott-Ford - I'm driving a Mustang in the 3-Hour Grand Am Cup).

Dan Gurney is there the weekend of September 7-9 for the SVRA vintage car event.

In addition to their role as Grand Marshall at the respective events, they will also be helping us out at the Research Center. On both occasions we will have an auction at the library as a fund raiser and Phil and Dan will play a lead role. If any TNF regulars would like to participate - either in bidding on some of the wonderful art and other memorabilia - or in donating something for the auction - we would be most grateful. Please contact me and I will assist you in making the connections.

If anyone is going to be attending one of these races at Watkins Glen (or for that matter any of the races at Watkins Glen this year) I would love to hear from you and arrange a place to meet. I would enjoy giving you a personal tour of the Research Center and even a lap of the original circuit if you're up for it! Ray Bell says he is going to be there (eventually) and I know Don Capps will be coming to one or another of these events.

I almost started a new thread but decided to revive this one because there is a lot of good comment - except for one rather ugly one!

I saw them both race many times and they were both major heroes to me - when I started racing in Europe I painted my helmet black in tribute to Dan Gurney (and that's still the color today). I don't know if you can say one was better than the other. They both had careers that would -and do - inspire all of us. I disagree with some of the inference above that Phil Hill was past his prime at the end of his career. I just don't believe that is true. His last ever race was the BOAC 1000K at Brand Hatch in 1967 where he and Mike Spence won in the Chaparral 2F. He hadn't had a decent GP drive in some time but he was still one of the aces! I think he went out on top. The same can be said for Dan Gurney.

[Keir]

Mike,
Funny thing about helmets, mine was part Amon(the striping pattern), part Gurney(the color) and part Irish heritage(the striping was green and orange).

;)
Keep those Glen dates active on the BB, they sound like fun and I need an excuse to get back to "The hollowed ground")

[Barry Boor]

Gadzooks, chaps, another thread has popped up from before my discovery of the delights of TNF.

Now you may say that I am just a teensy bit biased here, seeing that Dan Gurney is my all-time #1 hero (my ONLY hero) in racing. And of course, you would be right. But..... Hall of Fame or whatever, I think that, fine driver though Phil Hill undoubtedly was, there really is NO CONTEST here.

Jim Clark raced against both drivers from 1960 on, and I cannot recall him ever saying he was 'worried' by the speed of Phil Hill. The 1960 Ferrari was good on fast circuits and Phil drove it well; where it was not quick, he was not able to drag it higher than the midfield. In 1961, he drove a car that was so superior to anything else, it was really a lottery as to which of the team became Champion, and sadly, as we know, the dice fell against von Trips.

After that, Phil faded away. The Chaparral drives were very good, but dare I say, superior car again.

Dan's results speak for themselves. If I had three weeks to spare one night, I'd look up the races that Dan SHOULD have won e.g. Spa '64, Germany '67 and see how Grand Prix victories that would have given him.

My final thought; the 1962 Porsche was a bit of a lorry; no, I'm not going to bleat on about Rouen - that was a lucky one (Dan, lucky? Surely not?) The high point of 1962 for me was 8 minutes 47.2 in practice at the Ring. Had it been dry, they wouldn't have seen which way he went.

Course, it rained......

So for me, no contest, Dan Gurney every time!

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Barry Boor
My final thought; the 1962 Porsche was a bit of a lorry; no, I'm not going to bleat on about Rouen - that was a lucky one (Dan, lucky? Surely not?) The high point of 1962 for me was 8 minutes 47.2 in practice at the Ring. Had it been dry, they wouldn't have seen which way he went.

Except for the Scotsman in the Lotus. He lapped in 8m 51.2 on almost his only flying lap, this despite easing up for a few kilometres when he thoght something was wrong with the steering.

[Zawed]

Of course this is way before my day, but from what I've read Gurney appears to be the better of the two. Did'nt Clark say once he feared Dan Gurney more than any other driver? Phil Hill was lucky in being at the right place at the right time, hence his championship, but having said that I understand that he was an excellent Sportscar Driver (as was Gurney).

[Option1]

I must say I'm a little surprised at this thread and in some ways its tone. I agree completely with Don Capps and would add that even at the best of times "comparisons are odious" (quote from another thread by Ray I think.)

However, to draw comparisons between two different drivers in this way is to my mind almost nonsensical. It's certainly not being done in any historical way, but appears amost completely based on personal opinions and biases. It sounds horribly similiar to 90% of the threads in Readers' Comments - Mikka's better, no Michael's better...ad infinitum.

I'm sorry to sound so tetchy about it, but I really do dislike that style of thread.

However, the one shining light has been Mike Argetsinger's post. Now all I've got to do is convince the missus of the need to head east at that time.

[borsari]

[/B] [/QUOTE]
So for me, no contest, Dan Gurney every time!

[/B][/QUOTE]

Gee, Barry, why did i ever think you would vote like that ???
Wanna guess what my vote would be ?

vals

[David J Jones]

Saw them both.

Gurney without a shadow of any doubt

[karlcars]

The only season in which we can compare them directly, I think, was 1959 in the Ferraris. Of course this was Dan's first Formula 1 year and by his own admission he still had a lot to learn. Nevertheless he soon showed himself to be a strong driver, to the extent that he matched Jean Behra, no mean achievement. His drive at Oporto late in the season was excellent. Noteworthy, I think, is that Dan especially respected the skills of Tony Brooks as de facto team leader at Ferrari. Dan considered Brooks to be the yardstick against which to measure his own performance.

The following paragraphs from my book on Dan Gurney may be relevant here:

"Yes, I did recommend Dan Gurney to Ferrari. I don’t know why. If I had any sense I would have said, 'No, I don’t think Gurney should be here.' Why would anybody possibly want, on the same team, the guy that stood to show him up the worst? Did Prost want Senna to come and be a part of the team?" Phil Hill shook his head, recalling this for Tim Considine. Having raced in America against Dan, four years his junior, Phil respected the skill and determination of his fellow Californian. Defying expectation, Phil didn't kick Dan’s hands off that rung of the ladder. On the contrary: he offered a hand up.
Later Dan returned the favour. When Britain’s BRM was auditioning possible drivers for the 1960 season Phil came into the frame. BRM’s Raymond Mays thought that Hill had "fallen out with Ferrari." Mays noted that Hill "always seems to drive hard and this was confirmed by Dan Gurney, when we were discussing Hill." Phil may well have unburdened himself to Dan during their season together at Ferrari in 1959, but in the end it was Hill who stayed with the Italian team while Dan went to BRM in 1960.

[Joe Fan]

Karl, thanks for the information. However, one thing I wonder though, why Phil didn't recommend Masten Gregory at that point? Masten was a fellow American who had a huge reputation racing over in Europe going into the 1959 season, even bigger than Phil's. It was apparent that Masten desired a factory ride at that time because he ended up going to Cooper that season. Masten was offered a ride as a fourth driver at Ferrari for 1957 but turned it down in favor of the Scuderia Centro Sud Maserati ride where he would get to race in more Grand Prix. So Ferrari had shown an interest in Masten on the F1 side of things before Phil, who was driving sports cars for them at that time. From what I remember reading in John Cooper's autobiography, Masten didn't sign with Cooper until late 1958 or in January of 1959.

[oldtimer]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Capps
Dan Gurney: Geez, what a driver! He, Moss, and Mario Andretti - along with Parnelli Jones & AJ Foyt - are at the top of my "If It's Got Wheels, I Can Put in the Winner's Circle..." Group.


"If It's Got Wheels, I Can Put in the Winner's Circle..."

Well, this ex-Brit can't but help but disagree with our respected host on that one. I saw him drive lots of wheels throughout the early and middle sixties in the UK, and never saw anything special in terms of results, whereas I did see Jim Clark bring home a very sick Lotus to first place in the 1965 British GP. And didn't he stop during his '67 Spa drive to complain about a problem and get shooed out of the pits by his team?

Very fast, yes, but I've never thought of him as a car carrier.

[fines]

I think Don probably hinted at the diversity of cars those guys could put into victory lane, not their ability to nurse a sick car. In this respect, I think he's probably spot on!

[FLB]

To those of you who saw Phil Hill race, how much, if any, of his competitve spirit was robbed by the whole ATS fiasco? Why was he so sublime in certain conditions (EX: 1967 BOAC 1000km) and not others?

Is my impression that he was an "on/off" driver correct?

[Mike Argetsinger]

FLB - no your impression is not correct - if fact it could not be further off the mark. Hill was the consumate professional and brought his "A Game" to the grid every time. I will not attempt to further counter your assertion because, frankly, I cannot understand where it is coming from.

As to his "competitive spirit being robbed" by the ATS deal - no, no, a hundred times no. Many drivers end up in the wrong team at the wrong time. It's part of the game. Most drivers, Hill included, deal with it and move on. In fact it could be said that most drivers wind up in the wrong team most of the time!

Please infer no disrepect on my part for your personal views. But I believe a closer look at Phil Hill's career will provide the answer to your questions.

[FLB]

Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger


Please infer no disrepect on my part for your personal views. But I believe a closer look at Phil Hill's career will provide the answer to your questions.

None taken, of course! That's why I wanted to have the opinion of someone who DID see him, because it was only an impression. I am happy to have it corrected. It was a general impression that came from reading articles about him, mostly in French.

Thank you for again proving the value of TNF

[fines]

Just curious: Why was Hill's 1964 campaign with Cooper so poor? Although I'm pretty much a McLaren fan, I'm at the same time under no illusion that he was in the same bracket with Moss, Clark or Gurney, for that matter, still he comfortably eclipsed Hill that year. Any suggestions?

[oldtimer]

Originally posted by fines
I think Don probably hinted at the diversity of cars those guys could put into victory lane, not their ability to nurse a sick car. In this respect, I think he's probably spot on!

Agreed!!

[Mike Argetsinger]

Regarding Michael's comment above about Phil Hill's apparent poor comparison to Bruce McLaren in 1964 - I think there are some realities that should be put on the table.

Let us first recall that few F-1 teams at that time had the resources to put together equal cars for two drivers - at least on a consistent basis - on a race to race basis. Being the number two driver often meant being in the car with the older chassis, the not quite as good engine and the poorer level of preparation. That was demonstratedly the case with the Cooper Team that year. There was nothing devious in this state of affairs - it was just a reality of the resources available.

Consider also that McLaren was in his sixth year with the team. He was well established and much beloved by the team from top to bottom. He was also a terrific driver - which seems almost forgotten today.

At the preseason races (non-championship F-1 races I mean to say) at Aintree and Silverstone Hill had the old T66 while McLaren had the new T73. Still Phil had the best result with a 4th at Silverstone.

At Monaco they both had T73's - Hill's had never turned a wheel prior to practice. There were a lot of new car ills - the seat didn't fit and they never did get it right that weekend - Phil had to drive from an unnatural and uncomfortable position. The cockpit heat was searing and he suffered some bad blistering. Still he qualified ahead of Bruce - who also had a troubled car and ultimately had to switch to the spare T66 for the race. Hill retired with a broken suspension link.

At Zandvoort they were 7th and 8th although admittedly Phil was 2 laps down. At Spa Phil's car caught on fire in practice and the engine blew in the race. Bruce was a brilliant 2nd. He actually was in the lead (after Graham Hill in the BRM ran dry) on the last lap right up to LaSource only to have the electrics go bad and allow Jim Clark in the Lotus to pip him at the line!

Bruce was 6th and Phil 7th at Rouen for the French GP. At Brands Hatch for the British GP Phil scored his only point of the year with a 6th while Bruce's gearbox failed.

So up to this point in the season I don't think one could fairly say that McLaren had "eclipsed" Hill as has been said. At the Nurburgring things became to unravel between John Cooper and Phil. Phil was engaged in a fierce duel with Jack Brabham when he blew the engine. This time it was Phil's fault and he honestly admitted to missing a shift in the heat of battle. You have to know what a straight forward and honest guy Phil is. It was a rare mistake for someone as mechanically sympathetic as he, but he openly admitted his error.

The Austrian GP at Zeltweg was effectively the end. On the first lap of practice on the rough and bumpy airport circuit Phil Hill made an error in judgement and crashed into the hay bales breaking a front wheel. John Cooper opened a pretty public berating of Hill. In the race Phil crashed again at the same corner and the car was consumed in the fire. While Phil admitted his error in the practice crash he steadfastedly maintained that the rear suspension broke entering the corner in the race. He was unable to prove it because of the intensity of the fire. But you can absolutely count on it being true. Phil Hill is unfailingly honest whether he is in the right or wrong. John Cooper fired him on the spot (although after missing Monza Phil returned to the team for last two GPs at Watkins Glen and Mexico City - but the cars were "starting money specials" and the results reflected that fact).

It should also be noted that Bruce McLaren thought very highly indeed of Phil Hill as a driver and a man. After the GP season he invited Phil to be on his 1965 Tasman team where Phil scored two very strong 3rds - at Sundown and in the Australian GP.

That was doubtless a lot more long winded than you wanted - but you see things aren't always as they may seem. I just don't think Phil Hill did as poorly that year as you suggest if you look at the whole story.

[fines]

Thanks Mike, that was the kind of reply I was hoping to get! Without a doubt Phil is one of my all time favourites as a character, and I just wondered why he seemed so out of his depth that year. In actual fact, I was just too lazy to go to my magazines of the time to find out the things that you just posted.;)

[Roger Clark]

At monaco, McLaren had a steering arm break during practice. He started in the 1963 car, Hill had steel "safety-keeps" put on his in case of further breakage. In the race he was up fifth when the rear suspensioon broke. A driver who comes through that can't be laking in courage and determination.

[Ray Bell]

As one of the lucky few - if 36,000 can be considered 'few' - who saw his drive at Longford, I give Phil full marks for courage, persistence and team spirit... he backed up Bruce so well in that race, he drove the wheels off the year-old car in a slipstreaming battle between the trees and the wire fences... his job being to secure Bruce's second AGP win.

He set the lap record at one point in the race, dicing with the very determined Brabham in a wheel-to-wheel clash intended to get old Jack off Bruce's back as he tried to win the race for the fourth time, and he also fought off Graham Hill and Jim Clark, though Jimmy was probably up against it that day with a high-speed miss that probably makes this one of his great drives as well.

Is it any wonder I feel this is the best race I ever saw... Phil Hill's best race, by his own reckoning... one of Clark's best drives ever.... Brabham and McLaren locked in mortal combat.... anyway, below is a picture of Tannery Straight taken between races on the Saturday. This was the scene of a lot of the passing in the dices of that event:

http://fp.geocities....fordtannery.jpg

There will be more on the Longford thread... but none of Phil, unfortunately.

And let me say, while I recognise this great drive as such, Dan is still my favourite of the two... can't help that.

Oh, and as for 'competitive spirit' - well, let's not forget that everyone... and I mean everybody accepted it as a feat of great bravery (and skill) that Phil passed Clark over the Long Bridge... which looks like this:

http://www.geocities...llongbridge.jpg

[Treeface]

I was looking over Dan's Champ Car stats for 62-70. Very Impressive. 7 wins in 28 starts (The AAR website has 30 starts but I can't find them at motorsport.com). Head to Head with Foyt in 22 races he won 4 to AJ's 3. Head to head with Mario Andretti (23 races) it's 7 to 3. When all three started (18 races) Dan won 4 times to 1 apiece for Mario and AJ. His 68 and 69 USAC totals are amazing. In 68 he started 5 times took 4 poles and 3 wins for 7th place in a 28 race championship. In 69 it was 5 poles in 9 starts for 4th in a 24 race championship. Both years he was 2nd at the Indianapolis 500 (ouch!).

[Ray Bell]

I should have mentioned, I think the only time I chatted with Phil was at Adelaide in 86, when he was standing around with Stirling Moss. I got them to autograph my GP book....

The interesting thing is how much Mossy seems to like Phil... they have some kind of sharing arrangement with their website, too.

That doesn't come unless there's mutual respect, surely?

[Bernd]

Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger
This time it was Phil's fault and he honestly admitted to missing a shift in the heat of battle. You have to know what a straight forward and honest guy Phil is. It was a rare mistake for someone as mechanically sympathetic as he, but he openly admitted his error.

Anyone from that era who claims to have not missed at least one shift a race is flat out lying or having rose tinted memories

[Barry Boor]

Given the subject matter of this thread, I thought posters might like to see this photo, taken by Borsari (occasionally known as Mark Valsi).

[fines]

Nice pic! Is that Monterey?

[Barry Boor]

Vals will confirm, but yes, I'm pretty sure it is.

[borsari]

Yes Barry, that is Monterey. I ddin't remember sending you that picture, and I can't remember in which year I took it !
But it sure is a nice picture. Your scanner must be a very good one because that came out nice !

Forza Dan

[chrisj]

This is slightly OT, but last week Speedvision showed a 1/2 hour film on the '62 French GP, Gurney's first GP win. The thing that most amazed me was is driving suit. It looked to me as if he was driving with the sleeves rolled up, and when got out of the car after the race it looked like he was wearing something he outgrew when he was about 15!
Back on topic, my opinion is Gurney was naturally a little better than Hill, but both were better than Andretti on his best day. I would have loved to see Foyt or Mears in a Grand Prix car in their prime, although I'm not sure AJ would have fit in one.

[Ray Bell]

What a strange notion! But when I think about it, I think I would have put Mario in between them,