62 replies to this topic

[Bladrian]

I have read two diametrically opposing views on Jimmy Clark, by two of his contemporaries - are there any views out there that additionally support or gainsay these two gents?

(From Peter Bramwell's site)

" Surtees said of Clark that he was good when he knew he had an advantage to work with, and that he lacked a fighting spirit. This somewhat uncharitable attitude was refuted strongly by Graham Hill who said of Clark: "He was one of those drivers you could never forget about if you managed to get past him. He would always come back at you. There are drivers you can never shake off. Clark was one of those."

So - which was it? Any illumination gratefully received.

[ensign14]

Italy 1967? Clark making up a lap on Il Grande John and the rest of the field? On a slipstream circuit?

Or Clark nearly winning at the 'Ring in a Lotus sports car, which decidedly did NOT have a performance advantage?

Or Clark winning with the H16 BRM engine?

Or Clark making a rare mistake at the Ring in the German GP (1962?) and still nearly pulling out a win?

There must be more examples of the Clark fighting spirit...

[Bladrian]

Precisely. And Monza 67 is immediately the example that springs to my mind.

But John Surtees is known as a chap who has all his ducks in a row - why, then, would he state that Jimmy gave up too easily? Could that have been in a fit of pique, a casual throw-away statement for the gallery .... or did he believe it?

[Doug Nye]

A wind-up. John being John - don't pay too much credence to the literal meaning of those words - no great competitor (and there have been none FIERCER than John the Great) lightly acknowledges another's class. Which adds emphasis to Graham's words...

DCN

[Bladrian]

A windup ..... now THAT makes sense. And John was one of the very fiercest competitors himself.

Ok. Got it. Thanks Doug.

[DOHC]

Wonderful thread in its brevity.

[neville mackay]

Although Doug knows John Surtees and I don't, I don't necessarily buy the wind-up theory. I have read similar comments from Surtees in a number of different forms over the years, most notably in the rather disappointing Alan Henry biography. Seems to me that you can wind someone up by saying something once. Persistently repeating it over a period of years suggests something else. Am I alone in sensing a frostiness between Big John and Jim? If so, why?

Neville

[Bernd]

Jim Clark was one hell of a driver. The other guys weren't too much trouble, but you really had to be on it when you were racing with Jimmy. He was so smooth and to me he never seemed to make mistakes. It didn't get any better than that.

Frank Matich

[Doug Nye]

Neville is quite right - but it IS a wind-up which JS has generally sustained as long as I've known him - properly since 1970...
DCN

[Roger Clark]

Jim Clark was best man at Surtees' first wedding. Whether this demonstrates that there was no frostiness, or caused it, I don't know.

[dbltop]

When Clark and Surtees were together at Lotus in 1960, perhaps Big John was annoyed that ACBC decided to keep Clark in 1961 and beyond and not himself? I've read quotes from Surtees and Black Jack that made you think that they wondered what all the fuss was with Clark. I prefer Graham's opinion myself.

[Macca]

ACBC wanted JC AND Big John for 1962 - however, there was a small matter of one R McG I Ireland having an existing contract to the end of 1961. Chapman tried to slide Innes sideways into a sort of semi-works/private team, but John wouldn't be part of such a dubious situation (which says a lot about his integrity) and made other arrangements.

Paul Mackness

[Ruairidh]

It is particularly interesting to me that the wind-up seems to have continued long after the competition was over.

But it is also true that DCN is the only one amongst us (I think) who has personal knowledge of the man, so I'd accept his view.

Mind you it leaves me with the thought that "humor is anger in disguise" and Surtees, as good a driver as he was (on two and four wheels) is generally not regarded as having been in Clark's class which could be fuel for John the Great's desire to wind up, or then again - maybe not!

[Pine]

Originally posted by ensign14
Italy 1967? Clark making up a lap on Il Grande John and the rest of the field? On a slipstream circuit?

I think that the Lotus 49 gave Clark quite an 'advantage to work with', so I would say that this race, as stunning as Clark's driving was, only supports Surtees' opinion.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Pine

I think that the Lotus 49 gave Clark quite an 'advantage to work with', so I would say that this race, as stunning as Clark's driving was, only supports Surtees' opinion.

But Graham Hill did not lap the field at the other end when his was running properly.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by ensign14
But Graham Hill did not lap the field at the other end when his was running properly.

Nor did Giancarlo Baghetti. (Nevertheless, the three Team Lotus 49s ran nose-to-tail for a little while.)

[Pine]

I have no doubt that Clark was the best driver of the three (or of that period for that matter). What I'm trying to say is that the 49 was a car that Clark knew could let him do what he did that day in Monza, and if he had an inferior car he wouldn't try that hard. This is how I understand Surtees' words.

[Doug Nye]

I've used 'wind up' in too broad a sense I'm afraid in that the phrase is generally taken today to mean somebody is joking, not speaking with serious intent.

I really meant the phrase in its other connotation here, meaning 'winding-up the listener' in the sense of 'seeking to provoke a reaction'.

John loves an argument, he's as competitive in his speech as ever he was in his sport, and instinctively seeks debate and a full and free interchange of ideas. Any notion that something might be "generally accepted" to be "a fact" is likely to fire a contrarian - competitive - reaction.

Jack Brabham also has reservations on everybody who ever drove against him - these blokes all do, it's as natural to them as pumping air - Jim included, though for different reasons.

Jack had a collision with Jim in Formula 2 at Rouen 1967 due to Jimmy failing to appreciate that a rear tyre was deflating. Jack, Jochen Rindt and Jackie Stewart (I think) each took it in turns to try to draw abreast JC at Rouen and indicate to him that one of his rear tyres was softening...they could see it changing profile as he got progressively more and more out of shape on it.

Jack had just concluded there was going to be a shunt so he dropped back going past the pits and down into the spooky swerves towards Nouveau Monde. Sure enough Jim's deflating tyre suddenly collapsed and he lost it, the others close to him ducked by but as Jack appeared Jimmy's Lotus spun back across the track, and hit him.

They walked back to the pits together. Jack told Jimmy "we were trying to warn you your tyre was going down" and Jim's reply "I knew something happening with the back end" convinced Jack that - racing genius though he certainly was - Jimmy had no sense of mechanical analysis. Jack recalls "His natural talent enabled him to drive around a problem and instinctively adapt to what the car was doing, rather than to identify and interpret why it might be doing it... I'm convinced that's what - ultimately - killed him."

At Monza that year in the early laps of the Italian GP a similar situation occurred with Jimmy in the Lotus 49 - again his rivals trying to signal to him that they could see one of his rear tyres was softening.

That time - with the recent memory of Rouen - he probably concluded it wasn't a 'wind-up' in the jokey sense, and he headed into the pits for a fresh wheel and tyre. At Hockenheim the following April he didn't get that far. Jack is convinced to this day that Jim Clark's natural flair kept him out there despite his car's deteriorating handling, until the tyre's fatal collapse at high speed triggered a situation which even Jimmy could not control.

DCN

[Dave Wright]

Originally posted by Pine
I have no doubt that Clark was the best driver of the three (or of that period for that matter). What I'm trying to say is that the 49 was a car that Clark knew could let him do what he did that day in Monza, and if he had an inferior car he wouldn't try that hard. This is how I understand Surtees' words.

Was the Lotus 33 superior to the opposition in 1965?

[oldtimer]

Originally posted by Dave Wright


Was the Lotus 33 superior to the opposition in 1965?

Especially with a mis-firing engine with low oil pressure? 1965 British GP.

[Wolf]

Originally posted by Dave Wright


Was the Lotus 33 superior to the opposition in 1965?

I'd rather use '66 Watkins Glen for example...;) Not only 48 wasn't nowhere near 33 compared to opposition, but that race showed that adversity in particular race (rear suspension trouble) didn't discourage him easily either.

I think the same (as FJ said of Clark) was also said of Ascari... Maybe thier problem was that they made winning look so easy.

Doug, would that be the same kind of wind-up,as when Jenks compiled his list of best drivers (presumably GP) which didn't include certain Juan Manuel Fangio?;)

And how about this quote on Jimmy (I'll be feindish enough to take it out of context) : 'Very well, in matched cars I'd beat him, but by 1961 it was plain that Jimmy Clark was just not the boy to take on if one were driving last year's motor car.'

[paulhooft]

That time - with the recent memory of Rouen - he probably concluded it wasn't a 'wind-up' in the jokey sense, and he headed into the pits for a fresh wheel and tyre. At Hockenheim the following April he didn't get that far. Jack is convinced to this day that Jim Clark's natural flair kept him out there despite his car's deteriorating handling, until the tyre's fatal collapse at high speed triggered a situation which even Jimmy could not control.

DCN


Doug:
You outspoke what I have been thinking for some time..
Paul Hooft

[Ray Bell]

I'll concur that FJ's manner of conversation is seemingly aimed at inducing argument...

As for Monza '67, don't forget that there are two sides to the slipstreaming duel... you get a tow down the straights all right, but oftentimes there's some tripping over each other in the corners. The trick is to break out of the bunch.

[David M. Kane]

Back in the '70s I had the pleasure of sitting down and having an extended conversation with Big
John at his Surtees Factory in Edenbridge. To say he was different, even difficult was an understatement. I also met Jack Brabham a few years back and he too was not your average cowboy. You have to take what these guys say with an ounce of reservation to say the least.
They are NOT like you and me and their egos are NOT like most of ours.

I remember Clark and Hill having some real ding dongs, I, however, do NOT remember any classic duels between Big John and Jimmy.

Subjectively, as we say in the States, Big John could not hold Jim Clark's jock strape. That is just MY
opinion. They were both great drivers, but my money would be on the Scot most of the time.

[Dave Wright]

Originally posted by ensign14
But Graham Hill did not lap the field at the other end when his was running properly.

Actually he wasn't too far off. I don't have Autocourse for the full race laptimes, but AutoSport gives Hill a 55 second lead over Brabham at Lap 50. With that kind of lead Graham didn't really need to lap the field. But we are digressing.

[Jim Thurman]

Interesting. My brother doesn't know John Surtees, never spoke to him...but, essentially said the same thing that Doug Nye posted in his follow-up.

I'm curious, by any chance did John's background in motorcycling, a more working class sport, contribute to his attitude?...

...or was it just something else for him to use?


Jim Thurman

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Wolf


I'd rather use '66 Watkins Glen for example...;) Not only 48 wasn't nowhere near 33 compared to opposition, but that race showed that adversity in particular race (rear suspension trouble) didn't discourage him easily either.

Now I'm sure you meant to type "43" not "48" ...

[oldtimer]

Originally posted by David M. Kane

Subjectively, as we say in the States, Big John could not hold Jim Clark's jock strape. That is just MY
opinion. They were both great drivers, but my money would be on the Scot most of the time.

Not much of a gambler, are you David?

In the years 1962 to 1965, JC collected 19 GPwins while JS collected 3.

[cabianca]

In the years 1962-1965, I'd say Big John was stuck with junk, while Jimmy was driving the hot set-up. Surt came to a gunfight with a knife.

[Joe Fan]

I think Surtees comments that Jimmy lacked a fighting spirit are an exaggeration but I have heard Jack Brabham make similiar comments before. So there might a bit of truth to them on occasion. No driver is perfect, all have had off days. I think drivers who have been killled in the sport we all love enjoy a bit of the halo effect where their shortcomings and negatives get swept under the rug. Especially when they were the caliber of human being and driver that Jimmy was. Clark is no doubt one of the greats but I don't think he shoud rank over Nuvolari, Fangio or Moss. In privateer Lotuses, Moss scored more points than any of the Team Lotus drivers for the 1960 and 1961 seasons. These two seasons, 1960 and 1961, are probably the closest we could get evaluating Clark and Moss's talent in equal machinery.

To say that Surtees couldn't hold Jimmy's jockstrap is an exaggeration too. Coming from bikes, Surtees won his first time out in single-seaters in a Formula Junior race. In the three World Championship Grand Prix that Clark and Surtees both competed in for Team Lotus in 1960 (the British GP, Portuguese GP and USA GP), Surtees scored the best finish between the two drivers with a second place finish in the Portuguese Grand Prix (Fearless John's second World Championship start). Surtees also posted the fastest race lap between the two drivers in these three World Championship Grand Prix: at British GP (1'35.8 vs. Clark's 1'36.0), at Portugal (2'27.53 vs. Clark's 2'29.56) and at the US GP (1'58.6 vs. Clark's 1.59.0).

Although Moss scored the first two poles in a Lotus make for a World Championship GP, it was Fearless John who scored the first pole for Team Lotus at the 1960 Portuguese GP. To compare Surtees and Clark after John left Lotus would be a bit unfair. Fearless John never had near the equipment that Clark had at Team Lotus. Driver debates are interesting but the only absolutes are in Mathmatics and Physics.

[Dave Wright]

Originally posted by cabianca
In the years 1962-1965, I'd say Big John was stuck with junk, while Jimmy was driving the hot set-up. Surt came to a gunfight with a knife.

Graham Gould interviewed Jim Clark after his win at Monza in 1963. Clark said "With Surtees I had a tow that was pulling me about 500 revs faster around the circuit than I could manage on my own. I think our poor top speed was highlighted at Monza, where even Innes Ireland's BRP-BRM was a good three, four mph faster than mine."

The Ferrari broke, so maybe that's what you mean by junk, but my point is that Clark made the Lotus look better than perhaps it was, and the Ferrari was hardly junk in 1964 and 1965.

[David Lawson]

Regarding Wolf's comment on Jim winning at Wakins Glen in the Lotus 43 - there was little adversity here other than the notorious unreliability of the H16 engine. It was in 1967 in the 49 when he finished the race with the rear suspension coming apart.

This is my first post - what a great forum

David

[Macca]

After Monza 1961 especially, Jimmy always wanted to go like mad from the first corner, to "get away from the maniacs", so IMHO if he couldn't do so, he would hang back a bit to see where he had an advantage.

Apart from Monza 1967 there were many other occasions when he 'tigered' (in DSJ's parlance), such as Nurburgring 1962 and 1963, Aintree 200 1963, Monaco 1966 and Zandvoort 1966, to list but a few.

When he was alive I didn't like him, solely because he kept beating my hero, Graham Hill, and I knew in my heart of hearts that he was a little bit better; but when he died I knew what had been lost, and things were never the same. He really was the last gentleman racer.


Paul

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
Driver debates are interesting but the only absolutes are in Mathmatics and Physics.

And not even there since Einstein upsert the apple cart - or did the apple fall on his head?

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Macca
When he was alive I didn't like him, solely because he kept beating my hero, Graham Hill, and I knew in my heart of hearts that he was a little bit better; but when he died I knew what had been lost, and things were never the same. He really was the last gentleman racer.


Paul

Amen. My feelings exactly Paul.

[Martyj]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
In privateer Lotuses, Moss scored more points than any of the Team Lotus drivers for the 1960 and 1961 seasons. These two seasons, 1960 and 1961, are probably the closest we could get evaluating Clark and Moss's talent in equal machinery.

I don' think there is any room for a FAIR comparision. Clark was in his first year and a half in grands prix, and only his 3 and 4th year as a professional driver. Moss, on the other hand, had so much more experience and was at the height of his abilities. It would have been a surprise for him to not have outdriven Jim during these years.

[Pine]

Dave and oldtimer, I think my poor choice of words made me sound like the Devil's Advocate... I didn't try to say that I agree with Surtees (I honestly don't know enough about Clark to know if Surtees was right or wrong) but reading what I wrote again it does sound like I did. My point was that Monza 1967 could not prove Surtees wrong. Indeed, in 1965 the Lotus wasn't the car to have, and still Clark did very well with it.

[RSNS]

I hope this will be relevant.

There was a definite differece between Clark and Surtees:

Big John, if we are to believe Moss, took huge risks.

Clark, if we are to believe what he said (about Masten Gregory's driving in Spa, for instance) or his refraining from speeding at the Nürburgring (the same race which was mentioned before: he said he did things he thought impossible - and gained a lot of ground - and then collected his wits and settled for 4th) or, again, his stating that he was not exploiting all the resources of the 3 litre formula, or even what Chapman said about him, if qwe take all that into account, it is possible to conclude that he never really drove in a risky way (all is relative, of course).

If we consider what Surtees and Brabham said about him in that light, it may be clearer.

RSNS

[Don Capps]

Gregory "Pappy" Boyington once stated: "Show me a hero and I'll show you a bum." What he was cautioning aganst was placing folks on pedestals, singing alleluias, and then being shocked when they turned out to be human. Whatever Fearless John's faults may have been -- being a cantankerous contrary cuss ranking among those, he was one helluva Racer. As has been cautioned, folks such as Clark, Surtees, the Hills, and others are not cut from the same bolt of cloth as most. For any number of reasons, they are different. They are often very competitive and quick to put the needle into someone -- or as DCN puts it so accurately, "wind up" someone. It is instinctive and simply integral to their being.

Doubtless, we like Our Heroes to be without fault, but always keep our good Pappy in mind.....


For those few who are unaware of Major Gregory Boyington, USMCR, and why he could get away with saying something like that, he earned the Medal of Honor as the CO of VMF 214 for the period just before he was shot down and captured. I recall his attributing to the fact that they thought he was dead as to why he got the Medal of Honor. In place of a fallen hero, the USMC got Pappy Boyington, whose "Black Sheep" were in reality a highly trained and disciplined squadron. It was Pappy who was the nightmare of the higher-ups, not his men. Pappy also earned the Navy Cross.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by RSNS
I hope this will be relevant.

There was a definite differece between Clark and Surtees:

Big John, if we are to believe Moss, took huge risks.

Clark, if we are to believe what he said (about Masten Gregory's driving in Spa, for instance) or his refraining from speeding at the Nürburgring (the same race which was mentioned before: he said he did things he thought impossible - and gained a lot of ground - and then collected his wits and settled for 4th) or, again, his stating that he was not exploiting all the resources of the 3 litre formula, or even what Chapman said about him, if qwe take all that into account, it is possible to conclude that he never really drove in a risky way (all is relative, of course).

If we consider what Surtees and Brabham said about him in that light, it may be clearer.

RSNS

Moss was speaking of Surtees' first year in car racing, specifically I believe the Portuguese Grand Prix. We shouldn't necessarily extrapolate that view to Surtees' entire career.

As for Clark, he admitted that he often took risks in the opening laps of a race in order to establish the leads he did. The 1964 Monaco Grand Prix is a good example. Once he had a commanding lead he was able to drive well within the limits of himself and his car.

Jackie Stewart has said that he 1968 US GP was the first championship race he won in the way Clark used to; by controlling the pace from the front. We should never forget that even the greatest natural talents (and Clark, Surtees and Stewart are all in this category) had a lot to learn about drivng a race.

[RSNS]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


Moss was speaking of Surtees' first year in car racing, specifically I believe the Portuguese Grand Prix. We shouldn't necessarily extrapolate that view to Surtees' entire career.

As for Clark, he admitted that he often took risks in the opening laps of a race in order to establish the leads he did. The 1964 Monaco Grand Prix is a good example. Once he had a commanding lead he was able to drive well within the limits of himself and his car.

Jackie Stewart has said that he 1968 US GP was the first championship race he won in the way Clark used to; by controlling the pace from the front. We should never forget that even the greatest natural talents (and Clark, Surtees and Stewart are all in this category) had a lot to learn about drivng a race.

So you mean Surtees and Clark did not differ in that aspect - or at the very least that there is no evidence of such difference?

I'm not old enough to remember Surtees' style of driving (Clark's I know only second hand), but I think they did differ, Clark being cooler and Surtees more aggressive. I think that might explain Surtees' remark - Clark took calculated risks in machines he knew quite well, but overall he was a cautious driver - I think there are several testimonies to that effect (mainly Colin Chapman's, who said Clark very seldom drove at 100%).

And with all due respect, I don't think a wind-up would kept being made several years after the adressee's death.

Of course this may be the consequence of big Egos. That is how I always understood the remark and it still seems to me the most probable explanation. I'm just trying to find out on what Surtees' remark was based.

RSNS

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


And not even there since Einstein upsert the apple cart - or did the apple fall on his head?

No, that wasn't Einstein who was hit on the head by an apple, that was an Englishman--Sir Isaac Newton.;)

[Arturo Pereira]

Clark's 10/10ths were equal to Surtees' 12/10ths, to use a well known convention This could perfectly explain many behaviours ;)

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
No, that wasn't Einstein that who was hit on the head by an apple, that was an Englishman--Sir Isaac Newton.;)

mmmm. I think Roger might know that....

[JohnH]

Originally posted by Don Capps
Gregory "Pappy" Boyington once stated: "Show me a hero and I'll show you a bum." What he was cautioning aganst was placing folks on pedestals, singing alleluias, and then being shocked when they turned out to be human. Whatever Fearless John's faults may have been -- being a cantankerous contrary cuss ranking among those, he was one helluva Racer. As has been cautioned, folks such as Clark, Surtees, the Hills, and others are not cut from the same bolt of cloth as most. For any number of reasons, they are different. They are often very competitive and quick to put the needle into someone -- or as DCN puts it so accurately, "wind up" someone. It is instinctive and simply integral to their being.

Doubtless, we like Our Heroes to be without fault, but always keep our good Pappy in mind.....


For those few who are unaware of Major Gregory Boyington, USMCR, and why he could get away with saying something like that, he earned the Medal of Honor as the CO of VMF 214 for the period just before he was shot down and captured. I recall his attributing to the fact that they thought he was dead as to why he got the Medal of Honor. In place of a fallen hero, the USMC got Pappy Boyington, whose "Black Sheep" were in reality a highly trained and disciplined squadron. It was Pappy who was the nightmare of the higher-ups, not his men. Pappy also earned the Navy Cross.

Thanks for that Don....That is one of my favorite quotes, that ends one of my favorite books and I often use it on bulletin boards during conversations like this....So it was cool to see someone else using it.....that hasn't happened before. One of the best quotes I ever read!

JH

[Ray Bell]

I think it might help many to read Jenks' report on that wet Solitude race between FJ and Clark... 1964 I think it was...

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I think it might help many to read Jenks' report on that wet Solitude race between FJ and Clark... 1964 I think it was...

As far as I recall, both of them went at it pretty much hammer and tongs, on an incredibly dangerous and demanding circuit, and in varying weather conditions.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by David Beard


mmmm. I think Roger might know that....

Indeed I did - Newton discovered gravity under that apple tree. Before that people didn't know about gravity and apples were liable to fly upwards as a result. This didn't happen again until the discovery of quantum mechanics in the 20th century and then only very occasionally depending on the state of the observer. I think

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Bladrian
As far as I recall, both of them went at it pretty much hammer and tongs, on an incredibly dangerous and demanding circuit, and in varying weather conditions.

The report highlighted the 'fingertip control' and delicacy of the efforts being put it, but it also made the point fairly strongly that Surtees was leading against the odds, the Ferrari's engine being more peaky than the Climax.

As it dried out, Clark got the upper hand.

[JohnB]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


Indeed I did - Newton discovered gravity under that apple tree. Before that people didn't know about gravity and apples were liable to fly upwards as a result. This didn't happen again until the discovery of quantum mechanics in the 20th century and then only very occasionally depending on the state of the observer. I think

Roger, but I think you might mean Heisenberg rather than Einstein.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I can't think of anything in Einstein's theories which means physics isn't 'absolute', just different.