I am sorry to say but most historians who come up with these top 100 lists always fail to give Graham Hill the credit he truly deserved as a driver. Here are some of his accomplishments:
Two time WDC champion (1962 & 1968)
1966 Indy 500 winner in first attempt
1972 Le Mans winner
Won Monaco Grand Prix five times (1963,1964,1965,1968 and 1969)
Part of the problem with Graham Hill is stuck around in uncompetitive rides for too long. Therefore, his career numbers are watered down considerably. As far as famous British drivers that he competed against, I think Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart were better but Graham wasn't far off in talent from those guys in my opinion. I think his blue collar background may have hurt his image in a sport closely followed by the affluent. Graham should be ranked much higher in almost any top 100 list I have seen. What do you all think? I'll post more later.
Graham Hill - is there any driver more underrated by historians?
Started by
Joe Fan
, Nov 27 1999 02:59
52 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Fast One
-
- 600 posts
- Joined: October 99
Member
Posted 27 November 1999 - 03:08
I could not agree more. Graham may not have been as fast as a couple of other guys from the era, but he was close, and he could bring it home. One of these days soon I'm gonna post a system I cooked up to measure career achievement. I was shocked how it came out, and the most shocking guy in a positive sense was Graham Hill. Graham and John Surtees both suffered somewhat for not being of the well-bred gentry. Graham started as a mechanic and Fearless John was...egad...a motorcyclist. Both were not considered appropriate for gentlemen of breeding. More later from me, too.
#3
Dennis David
-
- 2,483 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 27 November 1999 - 03:22
My boyhood hero!
"It's difficult to say why he was so special, but he had such a charisma, you know, with his cap, his moustache and his sense of humour. He would sit in the sun, enjoying a beer and when the fans came he would listen to them all and have a joke with everybody. Even the French were charmed by him, and you know sometimes we are not so good with humour."
Rosie Bernard, proprietor of the legendary Rosie's Bar, Manaco
The inclusion of Graham Hill on my list of the ten greatest drivers is probably the most controversial. It is easy to underestimate someone who has come from so humble a beginning. Hill came late to motor racing, in fact he had not even driven a car until he was 24. His early years marked by a profound lack of money and one of the first passenger cars that Hill owned was a 1929 Austin. The car was a wreck which is just about what you would expect for 70 dollars. Soon loosing its brakes Hill would have to scrub the car's tires against the curb in order to stop. He would later remark that all budding race car drivers should own such a car. "The chief qualities of a racing driver are concentration, determination and anticipation", he said "A 1929 Austin without brakes develops all three - anticipation rather more than the first two, perhaps."
Graham Hill joined Smiths, the instrument makers at the age of 16. He served a five-year apprenticeship and was called into the Navy at the age of 21. Two years later he returned to Smiths. During this time he had taken up rowing and met his future wife Bette. One day he saw an advertisement in a magazine for a new racing school which said that anyone interested could drive a racing car at Brands Hatch for five shillings a lap. Hill went down and raced four laps and as he would later remark "everything changed." The school was called the Universal Motor Racing Club where he suggested to the owner that he was willing to exchange his labor as a mechanic in exchange for letting him drive one of the race cars. Unfortunately he was taken advantage of and the owner soon left without Hill ever getting close to driving a race car. Hill would not give up on his dream and soon entered into a similar arrangement with another person he had only just met. This time he actually did race one of the cars and soon this new school, taking advantage of Hill's limited success, had its first group of students. Hill being the veteran of a handful of races and besides the owner the only other employee, would be their instructor! Hill was now ready for bigger and better opportunities and at one race he hitched a ride back to London with one of the other entrants, a man by the name of Colin Chapman. He started at Lotus working for Colin Chapman as a mechanic and was paid one pound a day. Unable to convince Chapman for a chance to race one of his cars he actually quit Lotus temporarily before finally convincing Chapman. After much cajoling he was elevated to full-time driving and in 1958 he made his debut in Formula 1. That could only happen today if he had a couple extra million in his back pocket! After limited success and too many mechanical failures for his tastes, Hill left for BRM in 1960. In 1962 He won his first race at Zandvoort and went on to claim the World Championship. The next two years he continued to battle for the title but his remaining years at BRM was marked by mechanical failure. In 1967 he returned to Lotus and formed a "super team" with double World Champion Jimmy Clark. After Clark’s tragic death at Hockenheim, Graham Hill scored victories in the next two Grand Prix races and was crowned World Champion. The next year was not a good year for Hill and was marked by his last win at Monaco. This was his fifth win on this difficult circuit; a record that was not surpassed until Ayrton Senna captured his sixth victory in 1993. At Watkins Glen he was injured in a terrible accident that saw him confined to a wheelchair. After he recovered from his injuries he continued racing but without any further success, eventually starting his own team. In 1975 Graham Hill was killed when the plane he was piloting went down after getting lost in the fog. The world would never again see the famous helmet with the rowing stripes. But in 1993 his son Damon Hill resurrected that famous icon in Formula 1.
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
"It's difficult to say why he was so special, but he had such a charisma, you know, with his cap, his moustache and his sense of humour. He would sit in the sun, enjoying a beer and when the fans came he would listen to them all and have a joke with everybody. Even the French were charmed by him, and you know sometimes we are not so good with humour."
Rosie Bernard, proprietor of the legendary Rosie's Bar, Manaco
The inclusion of Graham Hill on my list of the ten greatest drivers is probably the most controversial. It is easy to underestimate someone who has come from so humble a beginning. Hill came late to motor racing, in fact he had not even driven a car until he was 24. His early years marked by a profound lack of money and one of the first passenger cars that Hill owned was a 1929 Austin. The car was a wreck which is just about what you would expect for 70 dollars. Soon loosing its brakes Hill would have to scrub the car's tires against the curb in order to stop. He would later remark that all budding race car drivers should own such a car. "The chief qualities of a racing driver are concentration, determination and anticipation", he said "A 1929 Austin without brakes develops all three - anticipation rather more than the first two, perhaps."
Graham Hill joined Smiths, the instrument makers at the age of 16. He served a five-year apprenticeship and was called into the Navy at the age of 21. Two years later he returned to Smiths. During this time he had taken up rowing and met his future wife Bette. One day he saw an advertisement in a magazine for a new racing school which said that anyone interested could drive a racing car at Brands Hatch for five shillings a lap. Hill went down and raced four laps and as he would later remark "everything changed." The school was called the Universal Motor Racing Club where he suggested to the owner that he was willing to exchange his labor as a mechanic in exchange for letting him drive one of the race cars. Unfortunately he was taken advantage of and the owner soon left without Hill ever getting close to driving a race car. Hill would not give up on his dream and soon entered into a similar arrangement with another person he had only just met. This time he actually did race one of the cars and soon this new school, taking advantage of Hill's limited success, had its first group of students. Hill being the veteran of a handful of races and besides the owner the only other employee, would be their instructor! Hill was now ready for bigger and better opportunities and at one race he hitched a ride back to London with one of the other entrants, a man by the name of Colin Chapman. He started at Lotus working for Colin Chapman as a mechanic and was paid one pound a day. Unable to convince Chapman for a chance to race one of his cars he actually quit Lotus temporarily before finally convincing Chapman. After much cajoling he was elevated to full-time driving and in 1958 he made his debut in Formula 1. That could only happen today if he had a couple extra million in his back pocket! After limited success and too many mechanical failures for his tastes, Hill left for BRM in 1960. In 1962 He won his first race at Zandvoort and went on to claim the World Championship. The next two years he continued to battle for the title but his remaining years at BRM was marked by mechanical failure. In 1967 he returned to Lotus and formed a "super team" with double World Champion Jimmy Clark. After Clark’s tragic death at Hockenheim, Graham Hill scored victories in the next two Grand Prix races and was crowned World Champion. The next year was not a good year for Hill and was marked by his last win at Monaco. This was his fifth win on this difficult circuit; a record that was not surpassed until Ayrton Senna captured his sixth victory in 1993. At Watkins Glen he was injured in a terrible accident that saw him confined to a wheelchair. After he recovered from his injuries he continued racing but without any further success, eventually starting his own team. In 1975 Graham Hill was killed when the plane he was piloting went down after getting lost in the fog. The world would never again see the famous helmet with the rowing stripes. But in 1993 his son Damon Hill resurrected that famous icon in Formula 1.
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
#4
Xaxor
-
- 61 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 27 November 1999 - 03:26
Yes, Graham Hill is underrated. He is still the only driver in history to win the Tripple Crown - WDC, Indy500 and LeMans. He was by far the best after-dinner-speaker motorsport has ever heard. Not as fast as Clark and Stewart, but Hill had legendary determination. And yes, it's true, he didn't know when to quit.
Any driver more underrated? Yes, I can think of one. He's the greatest driver never to win a GP, but that's another topic.
Any driver more underrated? Yes, I can think of one. He's the greatest driver never to win a GP, but that's another topic.
#5
Xaxor
-
- 61 posts
- Joined: August 99
Member
Posted 30 November 1999 - 06:23
Speaking of Graham Hill, I recall reading somewhere that Graham had a brother in Canada. Now, in the early seventies I worked with a guy named Hill and later I realized that he just may have been Graham's brother. He looked a bit like Graham, had an English accent and a characteristic wink. I know that this may sound a bit bizzare, but does anyone have any info on Graham's brother?
#6
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 30 November 1999 - 22:25
Interesting how drivers like Graham Hill, Jack Brabham, John Surtees, Dan Gurney, Alberto Ascari are now merely images on a page or two of the books.
Please pay attention how the books celebrating "50" yeras of F1 - the WDC actually - will have a few pages on GP/F1 up to about 1990 and the 6-8 pages a year after that.
Graham Hill is underrtated and unappreciated since he barely seems to exist in most of the stuff being churned out on F1 today.
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Please pay attention how the books celebrating "50" yeras of F1 - the WDC actually - will have a few pages on GP/F1 up to about 1990 and the 6-8 pages a year after that.
Graham Hill is underrtated and unappreciated since he barely seems to exist in most of the stuff being churned out on F1 today.
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
#7
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 10 December 1999 - 04:40
I was digging through some things in some of my files last night and came across some articles with Graham Hill in them. One had a bit about the German GP in 1962 when during practice the movie camera mounted on the Porsche of Carel de Beaufort fall off -- and into the path of Hill's BRM. It severed an oil line and off went Hill and the BRM into the shrubbery at a very rapid clip thanks to the oil that was dumped everywhere.
Somehow, Hill emerged unhurt and although the car he had planned to use in the race was now trashed, he got into the spare and pressed on. He also, in terrible conditions, won the race after a real ding-dong that lasted the entire race with Surtees in the Lola and Gurney in the Porsche. It was an impressive win. And ditto for the win at Monza.
Hill may not have been the most gifted driver of his time - imagine being a contemporary of Jim Clark! - but, he was better than most realize: his best drive, in my opinion, was during the 1968 Canadian GP where he drove most of the race in a Lotus that was being held together by only one of the bolts used to mate the Ford DFV and the chassis of the Lotus 49. That bolt and the suspension bits were all that held it together; the handling was beyond abysmal, yet Hill brought it home in fourth place! That took some amazing level of skill.
Even when Hill was perhaps past his shelf life, he would still 100% of what he had.
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Somehow, Hill emerged unhurt and although the car he had planned to use in the race was now trashed, he got into the spare and pressed on. He also, in terrible conditions, won the race after a real ding-dong that lasted the entire race with Surtees in the Lola and Gurney in the Porsche. It was an impressive win. And ditto for the win at Monza.
Hill may not have been the most gifted driver of his time - imagine being a contemporary of Jim Clark! - but, he was better than most realize: his best drive, in my opinion, was during the 1968 Canadian GP where he drove most of the race in a Lotus that was being held together by only one of the bolts used to mate the Ford DFV and the chassis of the Lotus 49. That bolt and the suspension bits were all that held it together; the handling was beyond abysmal, yet Hill brought it home in fourth place! That took some amazing level of skill.
Even when Hill was perhaps past his shelf life, he would still 100% of what he had.
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
#8
Dennis David
-
- 2,483 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 10 December 1999 - 04:57
He also returned to the pits after wrapping himself up in film and made light of a potential deadly incident.
"Graham enjoyed Indy because he enjoyed all the American hype. He loved Americans. That was the fun side of Graham, you see."
Bette Hill, wife and mother of Damon Hill
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
"Graham enjoyed Indy because he enjoyed all the American hype. He loved Americans. That was the fun side of Graham, you see."
Bette Hill, wife and mother of Damon Hill
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
#9
Ian McKean
-
- 480 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 12 December 1999 - 00:08
I remember reading that Graham Hill used to frequent a bar in London where motor racing people went, when he was an unknown with no money who wanted to become a driver. I think it was called "The Steering Wheel" club. Since he had no money he had to buy one beer and let it evaporate during the course of the evening.
He was certainly very determined, as he used to prove by cycling from Cheltenham to London each weekend to see a girlfriend. Must have been some girl.
One of the most amazing drives I ever saw was the British GP at Silverstone in 1960 when Hill was left at the start and got away about 30 seconds after everyone else had gone. Until then the rear-engined 2.5 litre BRM had certainly not been particularly impressive against the Lotus 19 and Brabham's Cooper. Sure enough Brabham sped off into the distance, pursued by the Ireland / Clark / Surtees Lotuses, the other BRMs and Tony Brooks' Ferrari. After a few laps Hill caught the backmarkers and started to move up, but it was not till after about twenty laps that we realised he was pulling in the leaders at a second a lap. Hill caught up and passed the entire field to lead until failing brakes put him off the circuit near the end.
People say he did not have the natural speed and talent of some others, but when Tony Brooks joined BRM from Ferrari for the 1961 season Hill blitzed him. That surprised me at the time because Brooks had been very quick in Aston Martins and Vanwalls driving alongside Moss and a Championship contender in 1959 and 1960 as leader of the Ferrari team. That was Brooks' last season, I think. The next year, Hill was joined at BRM by Ginther who had also been quick at Ferrari alongside von Trips and Phil Hill. But again, Hill (G) was consistently faster. Only Stewart could match Hill's pace as a team-mate at BRM.
When Hill joined Clark at Lotus (the "dream team") to drive the new 3 litre Lotus 49 in 1967 few people expected him to live with Clark. Everyone remembers the car's debut win at Zandvoort with Clark at the wheel, but it was Hill who was on pole and led till it broke down. Lotus appeared to have difficulty making Hill's car as reliable as Clark's.
So I agree, Graham Hill was under-estimated and in my opinion was a better driver than Damon. As a schoolboy I and two other enthusiast friends used to follow the 1963 F1 season. My favourite was Dan Gurney, Graham Sugg (you won't know him) used to support Jimmy Clark and Patrick Head used to support Graham Hill.
I sometimes wonder if Patrick ever admitted to Damon what a great fan of his father he had been as a schoolboy. Probably not!
Ian
He was certainly very determined, as he used to prove by cycling from Cheltenham to London each weekend to see a girlfriend. Must have been some girl.
One of the most amazing drives I ever saw was the British GP at Silverstone in 1960 when Hill was left at the start and got away about 30 seconds after everyone else had gone. Until then the rear-engined 2.5 litre BRM had certainly not been particularly impressive against the Lotus 19 and Brabham's Cooper. Sure enough Brabham sped off into the distance, pursued by the Ireland / Clark / Surtees Lotuses, the other BRMs and Tony Brooks' Ferrari. After a few laps Hill caught the backmarkers and started to move up, but it was not till after about twenty laps that we realised he was pulling in the leaders at a second a lap. Hill caught up and passed the entire field to lead until failing brakes put him off the circuit near the end.
People say he did not have the natural speed and talent of some others, but when Tony Brooks joined BRM from Ferrari for the 1961 season Hill blitzed him. That surprised me at the time because Brooks had been very quick in Aston Martins and Vanwalls driving alongside Moss and a Championship contender in 1959 and 1960 as leader of the Ferrari team. That was Brooks' last season, I think. The next year, Hill was joined at BRM by Ginther who had also been quick at Ferrari alongside von Trips and Phil Hill. But again, Hill (G) was consistently faster. Only Stewart could match Hill's pace as a team-mate at BRM.
When Hill joined Clark at Lotus (the "dream team") to drive the new 3 litre Lotus 49 in 1967 few people expected him to live with Clark. Everyone remembers the car's debut win at Zandvoort with Clark at the wheel, but it was Hill who was on pole and led till it broke down. Lotus appeared to have difficulty making Hill's car as reliable as Clark's.
So I agree, Graham Hill was under-estimated and in my opinion was a better driver than Damon. As a schoolboy I and two other enthusiast friends used to follow the 1963 F1 season. My favourite was Dan Gurney, Graham Sugg (you won't know him) used to support Jimmy Clark and Patrick Head used to support Graham Hill.
I sometimes wonder if Patrick ever admitted to Damon what a great fan of his father he had been as a schoolboy. Probably not!
Ian
#10
Ray Bell
-
- 81,450 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 12 December 1999 - 05:16
His speech after the Australian Grand Prix he won in 1966 (Lakeside) is one of my fond memories - not at the circuit, but at the party afterwards at the Chermside Caravilla. That day Stewart broke his gearbox while leading, Hill took over and won.
But I was really a fan of Fearless John, and I agree that these underrated drivers should be given more credit. What about Jo Siffert?
But I was really a fan of Fearless John, and I agree that these underrated drivers should be given more credit. What about Jo Siffert?
#11
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 12 December 1999 - 10:40
Ray,
I am convinced we could go forever on these wonderful drivers and darn well should!
Seppi Siffert was a Real Racer, just like Graham Hill and Fearless John.
I have often wondered why so many of these great Racers have just dropped off the map. I have always had a weak spot for Jean Behra among others. And Harry Schell was just fabulous - God alone knows what he would have accomplished if he ever gotten serious about it.
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
I am convinced we could go forever on these wonderful drivers and darn well should!
Seppi Siffert was a Real Racer, just like Graham Hill and Fearless John.
I have often wondered why so many of these great Racers have just dropped off the map. I have always had a weak spot for Jean Behra among others. And Harry Schell was just fabulous - God alone knows what he would have accomplished if he ever gotten serious about it.
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
#12
sterling49
-
- 10,917 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 17:00
Originally posted by Joe Fan
I am sorry to say but most historians who come up with these top 100 lists always fail to give Graham Hill the credit he truly deserved as a driver. Here are some of his accomplishments:
Two time WDC champion (1962 & 1968)
1966 Indy 500 winner in first attempt
1972 Le Mans winner
Won Monaco Grand Prix five times (1963,1964,1965,1968 and 1969)
Part of the problem with Graham Hill is stuck around in uncompetitive rides for too long. Therefore, his career numbers are watered down considerably. As far as famous British drivers that he competed against, I think Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart were better but Graham wasn't far off in talent from those guys in my opinion. I think his blue collar background may have hurt his image in a sport closely followed by the affluent. Graham should be ranked much higher in almost any top 100 list I have seen. What do you all think? I'll post more later.
Sorry guys for bumping this thread, but I was not a member when this was"live" and thought it was a great topic to revive!There is only a couple of names that regularly post now so could be some good opinions out there on one of my favourite drivers. I saw Graham in many cars, BRM, Lotus,Brabham, Hill, Group 7 Sports Cars, Lotus Cortinas, works Porsches, he could drive anything, and usually bang on the pace with a great tale to tell afterwards, I used to so enjoy his being interviewed after a race by Anthony Marsh at Brands, he was such an acerbic wit! My favourite memories of Graham are in the GLTL 49 at the British GP 1968, line astern, Hill, Oliver, Siffert and also of throwing the works Lotus Mark 2 Cortina into South Bank Bend with the front wheel cocked high in the air and the back end dug deeply into the tarmac.....halcyon days
#13
john aston
-
- 2,817 posts
- Joined: March 04
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 17:56
The answer is yes. And his name is Keke Rosberg.And the most overated? That'd be the overhyped mistake prone Gilles Villeneuve then.Loved watching him but cannot even begin to accept his near deification.The words 'cat ' and 'pigeons' spring to mind...
#14
Ray Bell
-
- 81,450 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 20:02
Originally posted by sterling49
Sorry guys for bumping this thread, but I was not a member when this was"live" and thought it was a great topic to revive!There is only a couple of names that regularly post now so could be some good opinions out there on one of my favourite drivers. I saw Graham in many cars, BRM, Lotus,Brabham, Hill, Group 7 Sports Cars, Lotus Cortinas, works Porsches, he could drive anything, and usually bang on the pace with a great tale to tell afterwards, I used to so enjoy his being interviewed after a race by Anthony Marsh at Brands, he was such an acerbic wit! My favourite memories of Graham are in the GLTL 49 at the British GP 1968, line astern, Hill, Oliver, Siffert and also of throwing the works Lotus Mark 2 Cortina into South Bank Bend with the front wheel cocked high in the air and the back end dug deeply into the tarmac.....halcyon days
I think it's great when these very early threads are resurrected...
Usually they have been 'underdeveloped'... as has this one and the one about DSJ that's now had more posts in the last month than in its first six years. So dig them out and let's get some more into them.
As far as Keke Rosberg is concerned, yes, I'd have to say that he's been somewhat underrated, and for Gilles Villeneuve it's a matter of which angle you're looking from.
But even though things have (historically) developed from the time when Joe asked this question, and he's gone on to produce his book on Masten Gregory principally because Masten effectively overtook Graham Hill in his mind regarding being underrated, the reasons and the excuses used for under-rating G Hill mean that it still goes on.
He is always said to have to work harder to get a lap time. He is remembered for being a mechanic that grew into a Formula 1 driver. He lived in the shadow of Jim Clark.
These things always tend to detract from the mental image of the reader, usually today being a reader who never saw him race.
It's interesting that sterling mentions his non-winning drive at Brands as a favourite. And that Ian McKean mentions his drive at Silverstone in 1960.
Of course, most of us remember that '68 British GP for the sentimental and long overdue win by Seppi. And Silverstone saw great 'tiger' but a fruitless finish. Recall, however, what Bette Hill said in relation to this drive?
"Graham's lazy. You have to make him work, and when you do..."
#15
kayemod
-
- 9,655 posts
- Joined: August 05
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 20:12
Originally posted by john aston
The answer is yes. And his name is Keke Rosberg.And the most overated? That'd be the overhyped mistake prone Gilles Villeneuve then.Loved watching him but cannot even begin to accept his near deification.The words 'cat ' and 'pigeons' spring to mind...
We're getting dangerously close to Racing Comments territory here, but I agree absolutely, Keke has always been one of my favourites, and in a similar vein, another under appreciated driver I'd like to mention is Denny Hulme, who I've always felt was rather more significant than he's usually given credit for. Maybe you had to see him working something like an M8B to really appreciate his talent. Top bloke as well, if you were lucky enough to meet or work with him, very much nicer and much more friendly than most people would imagine from what's been written about 'The Bear'. On Gilles Villeneuve, I honestly don't know, I'd agree that he may have been somewhat over-praised in retrospect, but a great driver all the same. On Graham Hill, maybe the ultimate journeyman, if you can use that term in connection with a two times WDC who also came second in the championship three times and won 14 GPs, but it was his misfortune to be around at the same time as an all-time great like Jim Clark. It's true that Graham has been somewhat forgotten by history, but at the time, say 1962 to 68, I think he was given every bit of his due. Graham has only been underestimated by some historians in retrospect, and I really don't think he was ever under regarded while he was racing and winning. I suppose he rather spoiled things for himself by only making up the numbers in the last years of his career, following the Watkins Glen accident, that would have ended the career of lesser drivers.
#16
sterling49
-
- 10,917 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 20:14
Originally posted by Ray Bell
I think it's great when these very early threads are resurrected...
Usually they have been 'underdeveloped'... as has this one and the one about DSJ that's now had more posts in the last month than in its first six years. So dig them out and let's get some more into them.
It's interesting that sterling mentions his non-winning drive at Brands as a favourite. And that Ian McKean mentions his drive at Silverstone in 1960.
I did wonder why this thread had only a few postings....such a great subject, most, in fact, all of the motor racing world saw, or had the opportunity to see, Graham in action, be it the USA, the Antipodes,Continental Europe, especially Monaco ;) and there must still be a lot of fans out there.
Did you get to see him in the Tasman series Ray? I so enjoyed reading of the exploits of the drivers, whilst tucked up in bed, with the North Wind blowing and the snow piling up around........I understand that he was not too bad with his whites on either.......
#17
T54
-
- 2,506 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 21:01
is there any driver more underrated by historians?
How about the OTHER Hill?
Recently in here, someone put him in a listing of the the "least deserving world champions".
The argument was that von Trips was so much better. If this is true, why did Hill out-qualified von Trips in all but one GP in 1961?
That's for starters.
As far as Graham, he sure was something.
T54
#18
petefenelon
-
- 4,815 posts
- Joined: August 02
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 21:14
Or of multiple champions, Mika Häkkinen was criminally underrated in my opinion. He was the one driver Schumacher couldn't intimidate (and the only one he never tried playing mind games with). For several seasons he was the quickest man out there.
And yet the British press maintained that he was thick as two short planks and had the charisma of a damp handkerchief...
He's probably the most "unfashionable" world champion since Denny Hulme. I hope the long lens of history will look back and say "Blimey! Mika on a qualifying lap made everyone but Senna look pedestrian!"
And yet the British press maintained that he was thick as two short planks and had the charisma of a damp handkerchief...
He's probably the most "unfashionable" world champion since Denny Hulme. I hope the long lens of history will look back and say "Blimey! Mika on a qualifying lap made everyone but Senna look pedestrian!"
#19
sterling49
-
- 10,917 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 21:40
Originally posted by kayemod
We're getting dangerously close to Racing Comments territory here, but I agree absolutely, Keke has always been one of my favourites, and in a similar vein, another under appreciated driver I'd like to mention is Denny Hulme, who I've always felt was rather more significant than he's usually given credit for. Maybe you had to see him working something like an M8B to really appreciate his talent. Top bloke as well, if you were lucky enough to meet or work with him, very much nicer and much more friendly than most people would imagine from what's been written about 'The Bear'.
Originally posted by T54
How about the OTHER Hill?
Recently in here, someone put him in a listing of the the "least deserving world champions".
The argument was that von Trips was so much better. If this is true, why did Hill out-qualified von Trips in all but one GP in 1961?
That's for starters.
As far as Graham, he sure was something.
T54
Agree with your choice of Keke and especially Phil Hill. as I stated in my post in that quite disparaging thread. Loved Keke's rebellious and "direct" streak and that he chain smoked Marlboros, probably against the wishes of the boss! Denny to, saw him on so many occassions and he was, in my books, so very good, Brabhams, McLarens, Lola T70, Porsche 917, the guy could drive and also had a good sense of compassion (David Brodie said that he turned up at hospital to visit him after the '73 Silverstone GP Saloon smash, and Denny had a long drive to get there).Giles, I loved, but he made some mistakes, but wasn't his spirit just divine, who said "it ain't over till it's over"......scripted for Monsieur Villeneuve
Advertisement
#20
Disco Stu
-
- 198 posts
- Joined: July 02
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 21:45
I'm not sure Graham is the most underrated driver in his own family. Damon could be blindingly quick, but for the most part he seems to be regarded as just some guy who happened to stumble into the right car.
#21
Barry Boor
-
- 11,553 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 21:51
Which could be said of quite a few World Champions down the years...
#22
JohnS
-
- 295 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 23 January 2007 - 22:22
Originally posted by Disco Stu
I'm not sure Graham is the most underrated driver in his own family. Damon could be blindingly quick, but for the most part he seems to be regarded as just some guy who happened to stumble into the right car.
I agree that Damon was underrated. I mean, he won in a Jordan, and as near-as-damn-it in an Arrows!
#23
cosworth bdg
-
- 1,350 posts
- Joined: December 04
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 01:55
Damon in my mind was never underated, i think he was out of his depth.....Originally posted by JohnS
I agree that Damon was underrated. I mean, he won in a Jordan, and as near-as-damn-it in an Arrows!
#24
Ray Bell
-
- 81,450 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 04:35
Originally posted by sterling49
.....Did you get to see him in the Tasman series Ray? I so enjoyed reading of the exploits of the drivers, whilst tucked up in bed, with the North Wind blowing and the snow piling up around........I understand that he was not too bad with his whites on either......
Oh yes, I saw him... many times...
Check 'search' for the word 'Chermside' and you can read a little about it. Ignore the entry in this thread, by the way, there's more.
#25
Manel Baró
-
- 134 posts
- Joined: July 06
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 19:18
Originally posted by kayemod
...I suppose he rather spoiled things for himself by only making up the numbers in the last years of his career, following the Watkins Glen accident, that would have ended the career of lesser drivers.
This is also my own opinion.
Retirement on time is the most difficult decission to take by celebrities.
#26
sterling49
-
- 10,917 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 19:22
Share your thinking Cosworth? I think that Damon lacked the "killer" instinct that Schumacher so obviously has, but I think he acquitted himself well and achieved a lot, like his father, from a relatively late start. I also think that his "heritage" was as much a disadvantage as advantage, he had a lot to live up to. He worked his way up. I spoke with him at a business exhibition when his FF car was sponsored by Ricoh, and from the hours he kept there, he was certainly not workshy.Originally posted by cosworth bdg
Damon in my mind was never underated, i think he was out of his depth.....
#27
rl1856
-
- 383 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 21:30
Graham was indeed an underrated driver, consistantly in the shadow of others.
He drove for Lotus and then BRM at times when neither were considered top tier teams.
By 1962, Clark and Lotus had emerged to become the yardstick by which others were measured. Yet Hill won the '62 WDC in part due to the reliability of the car he was driving. Clark and Lotus on the other hand, would have won had the 25 stayed together more frequently. To finish first, first one must finish...
From 1962-1965 the perception was BRM reliability vs Lotus speed and fragility.
As team #1 for 1961, Hill was superior to Tony Brooks, But as Mr. Nye's BRM v-1 makes plain, the team was not run as efficiently as it would be in 1962, Mr. Brooks consistently complained of inferior equipment, and for the year BRM was a mid field runner at best. All were factors in Brook's lack of performance and ultimate decision to retire.
There should not be any doubt that from 1962-64 Hill was a better driver than Ritchie Ginther. Mr. Ginther on the other hand was an excellent test driver, who did much to make the 1962 and later cars as good as they could be. Ginther was clearly #2 within the team and on the track.
With the arrival of JYS however, things change. I think by all accounts, by the end of 1965 JYS had supplanted Hill as the better driver even though Hill was the nominal #1. Hill's move back to Lotus for 1967 looked great on paper, and significantly benefited Lotus who needed a UK based test driver. Hill did the majority of development work on the 49 and it is he who should be credited with making it raceworthy. But once Clark was put in the car, it was clear who was better. Hill certainly aquited himself very well indeed, but who won 4 races in the 49 during 1967; it wasn't Hill.
1968 should really be considered Hill's year. Arguably, Stewart , Hulme, and at times Amon and Ickx had equal or better cars. Yet it was Hill who was consistently competitive all year and finally emerged with the WDC. His leadership and tenacity in ensuring the survival of Lotus should be given stature equal with his achievement of his 2nd WDC.
Yet in 1969, Hill was outdriven by his new #2, Jochen Rindt and was considered by most to have slipped back a bit. In mid 1969, Hill decided to move to Rob Walker's stable for 1970. Even though Walker had won the '68 British GP, by 1970 his team was not using the top spec of 49 or likely a top spec Cosworth. I raise these points because when viewed in that light, Hill's performance in 1970 was very good. The state of the art for year had advanced considerably from 1969, to the point where front line speed in 1969 was only capable of back marker status by 1970. With Walker for 1970, Hill was essentially driving a 1969 spec car. Looking at Hill's qualification times for 1970 show that he was matching the pace of the front row qualifiers for 1969 meaning that he had recovered from his accident and was still a capable driver, if given the right equipment.
His performance during 1970, in a year old car, likely encouraged Brabham to engage Hill for 1971-2. Unfortunately for Hill, the 1971 Brabham was not the best of cars. Yet he did manage a non champianship GP victory did he not ?? While he may have slipped a bit as a driver, there was still considerable skill left.
By 1972 and certainly by 1973 however, the signs were there that it was time to hang up the gloves.
Wouldn't it have been a perfect ending if he had retired after winning LeMans ?
Best,
Ross
He drove for Lotus and then BRM at times when neither were considered top tier teams.
By 1962, Clark and Lotus had emerged to become the yardstick by which others were measured. Yet Hill won the '62 WDC in part due to the reliability of the car he was driving. Clark and Lotus on the other hand, would have won had the 25 stayed together more frequently. To finish first, first one must finish...
From 1962-1965 the perception was BRM reliability vs Lotus speed and fragility.
As team #1 for 1961, Hill was superior to Tony Brooks, But as Mr. Nye's BRM v-1 makes plain, the team was not run as efficiently as it would be in 1962, Mr. Brooks consistently complained of inferior equipment, and for the year BRM was a mid field runner at best. All were factors in Brook's lack of performance and ultimate decision to retire.
There should not be any doubt that from 1962-64 Hill was a better driver than Ritchie Ginther. Mr. Ginther on the other hand was an excellent test driver, who did much to make the 1962 and later cars as good as they could be. Ginther was clearly #2 within the team and on the track.
With the arrival of JYS however, things change. I think by all accounts, by the end of 1965 JYS had supplanted Hill as the better driver even though Hill was the nominal #1. Hill's move back to Lotus for 1967 looked great on paper, and significantly benefited Lotus who needed a UK based test driver. Hill did the majority of development work on the 49 and it is he who should be credited with making it raceworthy. But once Clark was put in the car, it was clear who was better. Hill certainly aquited himself very well indeed, but who won 4 races in the 49 during 1967; it wasn't Hill.
1968 should really be considered Hill's year. Arguably, Stewart , Hulme, and at times Amon and Ickx had equal or better cars. Yet it was Hill who was consistently competitive all year and finally emerged with the WDC. His leadership and tenacity in ensuring the survival of Lotus should be given stature equal with his achievement of his 2nd WDC.
Yet in 1969, Hill was outdriven by his new #2, Jochen Rindt and was considered by most to have slipped back a bit. In mid 1969, Hill decided to move to Rob Walker's stable for 1970. Even though Walker had won the '68 British GP, by 1970 his team was not using the top spec of 49 or likely a top spec Cosworth. I raise these points because when viewed in that light, Hill's performance in 1970 was very good. The state of the art for year had advanced considerably from 1969, to the point where front line speed in 1969 was only capable of back marker status by 1970. With Walker for 1970, Hill was essentially driving a 1969 spec car. Looking at Hill's qualification times for 1970 show that he was matching the pace of the front row qualifiers for 1969 meaning that he had recovered from his accident and was still a capable driver, if given the right equipment.
His performance during 1970, in a year old car, likely encouraged Brabham to engage Hill for 1971-2. Unfortunately for Hill, the 1971 Brabham was not the best of cars. Yet he did manage a non champianship GP victory did he not ?? While he may have slipped a bit as a driver, there was still considerable skill left.
By 1972 and certainly by 1973 however, the signs were there that it was time to hang up the gloves.
Wouldn't it have been a perfect ending if he had retired after winning LeMans ?
Best,
Ross
#28
Roger Clark
-
- 7,539 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 23:07
This is often said, but does it stand up to examination? South Africa was the only race where Clark retired from what looked like a wining position. Hill was similarly unfortunate in Monaco and France. The 1962 World Championship was won on sped as much as reliability. We shouldn't let our admiration for Jim Clark, and the fact that he suffered misfortune in the final race, blind us to that.Originally posted by rl1856
By 1962, Clark and Lotus had emerged to become the yardstick by which others were measured. Yet Hill won the '62 WDC in part due to the reliability of the car he was driving. Clark and Lotus on the other hand, would have won had the 25 stayed together more frequently. To finish first, first one must finish...
With regard to Ginther's role as test driver for BRM, I don't want to denigrate the American's ability, but Tony Rudd's autobiography makes it clear that it was Hill's testing ability and his relationship with Rudd, that really made the BRM as good as it could be.
#29
WGD706
-
- 956 posts
- Joined: August 02
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 23:50
Originally posted by rl1856
In mid 1969, Hill decided to move to Rob Walker's stable for 1970. Even though Walker had won the '68 British GP, by 1970 his team was not using the top spec of 49 or likely a top spec Cosworth.
Before his accident at the Glen? I was under the impression that he was moved to the Walker team because of the accident, that Chapman didn't want to throw him out but offered him a non-factory drive in one of his cars. Sort of a 'thanks for the work you did, but you're no longer competitive and I don't want to look like a jerk for tossing you out after your serious accident.'
#30
kayemod
-
- 9,655 posts
- Joined: August 05
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 00:03
Originally posted by WGD706
Before his accident at the Glen? I was under the impression that he was moved to the Walker team because of the accident, that Chapman didn't want to throw him out but offered him a non-factory drive in one of his cars. Sort of a 'thanks for the work you did, but you're no longer competitive and I don't want to look like a jerk for tossing you out after your serious accident.'
That's certainly the situation as I remember it. I don't think any driver has ever fully recovered from leg injuries of the kind that Graham suffered, and Chapman knew it, as did most others, including Graham. I would think he must have considered himself lucky to have a drive of any kind in F1, lucky indeed to possess two legs and still be walking on them. He had a terrible limp for years after the Glen crash, and admitted to having big problems with braking.
#31
stevewf1
-
- 3,259 posts
- Joined: December 05
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 00:31
I still have his book, "Life at the Limit".
After all these years, I still take it from the shelf occasionally and read some of it again... Very entertaining.
After all these years, I still take it from the shelf occasionally and read some of it again... Very entertaining.
#32
Bruno
-
- 563 posts
- Joined: June 06
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:12
never not quoted, and yet it was one of the large whole parmis the large ones. I saw it more once in Monaco, in particular at the time of a interwieu that it had to give to Stewart in 1975 for the BBC:
#33
Vitesse2
-
- 42,882 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:46
According to John Tipler's book on Graham, Chapman approached Rob Walker before Graham's accident - Rob said it was on a long flight - "Canada, possibly" - suggesting Graham drive for him. At the time Rob was still hoping Siffert would stay, but Porsche came up with the money to buy him a March. Meanwhile, Graham had had his big shunt and it all just dropped into place.
Apparently, Chunky also offered Graham a team management role after the accident, assuming Graham wouldn't be driving again (Ford wanted him to retire too). Jochen had been promised number one status for 1970, so Colin had a bit of a dilemma: Tipler says Graham wasn't aware at the time that Chapman had approached Walker before the accident.
Apparently, Chunky also offered Graham a team management role after the accident, assuming Graham wouldn't be driving again (Ford wanted him to retire too). Jochen had been promised number one status for 1970, so Colin had a bit of a dilemma: Tipler says Graham wasn't aware at the time that Chapman had approached Walker before the accident.
#34
Huw Jadvantich
-
- 602 posts
- Joined: July 04
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 10:47
I think thats a good point made about Hill's times versus the previous years times, it didn't look good but the point about the standard of your Cosworth is a very important one. In 68-69 it didn't make a huge amount of difference but by 1970 and onwards I believe there was a big gap between the top teams and the lower ranking ones, and also that the low budget teams had to make their equipment last longer between rebuilds.
Considering what he was operating against in 1971, Hill was not doing badly -sheken might not have been WDC material but he was up with Peterson etc in F2 indeed hill was up with them in F2. 1973 and a Shadow -worse- a private Shadow. What sort of season did Oliver and Follmer have in 73? hardly stellar and they had UOP's works budget.
I'll agree, if you put him in a top car against a top driver in those years he would probably have finished 2nd to them, but I think his equipment made him look a lot worse than he was.
As for claiming that Damon Hill was talentless , well actually it doesn't even rate a reply. Short of Schumacher possibly, but name a driver who wasn't.
These two drivers were technical grafters who mastered their craft by atention to detail and self discipline in their driving - to me it is all the more impressive that they harnessed what talent they had got rather to achieve what they had rather than wasted it.
I also admire the fact that they both (Damon more than Graham) had integrity and a sense of sportsmanship.
Considering what he was operating against in 1971, Hill was not doing badly -sheken might not have been WDC material but he was up with Peterson etc in F2 indeed hill was up with them in F2. 1973 and a Shadow -worse- a private Shadow. What sort of season did Oliver and Follmer have in 73? hardly stellar and they had UOP's works budget.
I'll agree, if you put him in a top car against a top driver in those years he would probably have finished 2nd to them, but I think his equipment made him look a lot worse than he was.
As for claiming that Damon Hill was talentless , well actually it doesn't even rate a reply. Short of Schumacher possibly, but name a driver who wasn't.
These two drivers were technical grafters who mastered their craft by atention to detail and self discipline in their driving - to me it is all the more impressive that they harnessed what talent they had got rather to achieve what they had rather than wasted it.
I also admire the fact that they both (Damon more than Graham) had integrity and a sense of sportsmanship.
#35
kayemod
-
- 9,655 posts
- Joined: August 05
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 14:02
Originally posted by Huw Jadvantich
These two drivers were technical grafters who mastered their craft by atention to detail and self discipline in their driving - to me it is all the more impressive that they harnessed what talent they had got rather to achieve what they had rather than wasted it.
I also admire the fact that they both (Damon more than Graham) had integrity and a sense of sportsmanship.
Well put Huw, that's more or less what I meant when I described Graham earlier as 'the ultimate journeyman'. The phrase was meant as a real compliment, certainly not to be disparaging in any way, and I think the same thing applied to Damon to a similar extent. I'd also agree with your point about the integrity and sportsmanship of both men. It's regrettable that there haven't been a few more like them in recent years.
#36
sterling49
-
- 10,917 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 18:37
Originally posted by kayemod
That's certainly the situation as I remember it. I don't think any driver has ever fully recovered from leg injuries of the kind that Graham suffered, and Chapman knew it, as did most others, including Graham. I would think he must have considered himself lucky to have a drive of any kind in F1, lucky indeed to possess two legs and still be walking on them. He had a terrible limp for years after the Glen crash, and admitted to having big problems with braking.
The saddest thing was watching Graham when he had driven a few races too many, I grew up watching him race often, and I was a big fan, he did open our school bank after all (in between practice sessions at the 1965 Race of Champions) but to see him struggle around in the later years was so sad, but not nearly, as that awful day when the crash took the lives of so many talented people, including local guy Tony Brise. Other posters have said it also, about father and sons integrity and sportsmanship, so compromised now.
#37
rl1856
-
- 383 posts
- Joined: November 03
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 20:23
Originally posted by Roger Clark
This is often said, but does it stand up to examination? South Africa was the only race where Clark retired from what looked like a wining position. Hill was similarly unfortunate in Monaco and France. The 1962 World Championship was won on sped as much as reliability. We shouldn't let our admiration for Jim Clark, and the fact that he suffered misfortune in the final race, blind us to that.
Well the record for 1962 shows Clark with 3 victories + a 4th place finish. Hill technically finished every race, even though he was -8 laps in Monaco and -10 laps in France.
Looking at Clark's results for the year show his car braking down while he was leading the French GP and of course in South Africa.
Gear box problems cost Clark probable placings in the Dutch (while fighting for the lead), Monaco and Italian Grand Prix (after 3 laps). Without Clark in the race, Hill went on to win the Dutch and Italian GP, with Gurney taking the French and McLaren taking the Monaco races.
A starting line mistake at the German GP caused Clark to begin the first lap at the back of the field. He proceeded to make up almost all of the lost ground and finished 4th.
The facts above are from the official records of the season.
Clark finished 5 times and retired 4 times, for a rate of retirement of 45%. Hill technically finished all of his races for a 100% record. A more conservative view of the results would consider his retirement rate to be 22%, taking into account how far back he was in Monaco and France. Still, Hill's retirement rate for the year was less than 1/2 that of Clark. A striking difference.
A reasonable what if gives Clark a victory in France and South Africa, for a season total of 5 victories. Since only a driver's best 5 results for the year counted towards his point total, Clark would have scored the maximum total of 45 points.
Even if you don't consider that Clark should have won in France, more reasonable results from say Holland and Monaco along with victory in South Africa would still have tipped the balance in favor of Clark. Give Clark SA for 9pts, then deduct 3pts from Hill who would have finished 2nd. Give Clark a pair of 3rds (4pts ea) for Monaco and Holland, with retirements in France and Italy.
Clark's total would have been (4 x 9) + (1 x 4pts) = 40
Hill's total would have been (3 x 9) + (2 x 6pts) = 39
Then again, Clark started in South Africa with a chance to win the WDC. All he had to do was win the race, which he was on his way to doing, when a $.50 bolt fell out of his car.
Slightly better reliability would have given Clark the 1962 WDC.
Best,
Ross
#38
Ray Bell
-
- 81,450 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 22:28
The old 50c bolt, eh? Doesn't it get you every time!
You know, most parts that break don't cost much. Not really. A big end bolt... a couple of bucks... a valve stem... a couple of bucks... a gear selector, what, thirty bucks? In those days, of course.
I think it's silly rationalising someone's lost race to the cost of the component that broke. Excuse material, as frequently used by Allan Moffat...
You know, most parts that break don't cost much. Not really. A big end bolt... a couple of bucks... a valve stem... a couple of bucks... a gear selector, what, thirty bucks? In those days, of course.
I think it's silly rationalising someone's lost race to the cost of the component that broke. Excuse material, as frequently used by Allan Moffat...
#39
Ralliart
-
- 669 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 05:31
In regards to Chapman's wanting to replace Hill (before the North American races) it's not suprising. Chapman had wanted Surtees but after Surtees saw Ireland getting screwed around - Chapman saying one thing to Surtees re: Ireland's set-up and Ireland saying something else - and, I've read, that Chapman told Reutemann that he's drop Andretti if he'd return in '80. F1 is cuthroat.
No fault of Hill's certainly but without Ferrari at Le Mans in '72, his victory there was against a ligtweight field I think. I don't think we'll ever determine for certainty who won the '66 Indy 500, again no fault of Hill's. I always thought it was unfortunate that Clark didn't win the title in '62 and Hill in '64. Hill was awfully unlucky in '67 also. But underrated? I don't know. What about Vic Elford? Walter Rohrl? John Surtees? Many great drivers have been underrated but I guess it depends on what list is consulted. I don't think Villeneuve was overrated.
No fault of Hill's certainly but without Ferrari at Le Mans in '72, his victory there was against a ligtweight field I think. I don't think we'll ever determine for certainty who won the '66 Indy 500, again no fault of Hill's. I always thought it was unfortunate that Clark didn't win the title in '62 and Hill in '64. Hill was awfully unlucky in '67 also. But underrated? I don't know. What about Vic Elford? Walter Rohrl? John Surtees? Many great drivers have been underrated but I guess it depends on what list is consulted. I don't think Villeneuve was overrated.
Advertisement
#40
Roger Clark
-
- 7,539 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 06:53
Originally posted by rl1856
Well the record for 1962 shows Clark with 3 victories + a 4th place finish. Hill technically finished every race, even though he was -8 laps in Monaco and -10 laps in France.
Looking at Clark's results for the year show his car braking down while he was leading the French GP and of course in South Africa.
Gear box problems cost Clark probable placings in the Dutch (while fighting for the lead), Monaco and Italian Grand Prix (after 3 laps). Without Clark in the race, Hill went on to win the Dutch and Italian GP, with Gurney taking the French and McLaren taking the Monaco races.
A starting line mistake at the German GP caused Clark to begin the first lap at the back of the field. He proceeded to make up almost all of the lost ground and finished 4th.
The facts above are from the official records of the season.
Clark finished 5 times and retired 4 times, for a rate of retirement of 45%. Hill technically finished all of his races for a 100% record. A more conservative view of the results would consider his retirement rate to be 22%, taking into account how far back he was in Monaco and France. Still, Hill's retirement rate for the year was less than 1/2 that of Clark. A striking difference.
A reasonable what if gives Clark a victory in France and South Africa, for a season total of 5 victories. Since only a driver's best 5 results for the year counted towards his point total, Clark would have scored the maximum total of 45 points.
Even if you don't consider that Clark should have won in France, more reasonable results from say Holland and Monaco along with victory in South Africa would still have tipped the balance in favor of Clark. Give Clark SA for 9pts, then deduct 3pts from Hill who would have finished 2nd. Give Clark a pair of 3rds (4pts ea) for Monaco and Holland, with retirements in France and Italy.
Clark's total would have been (4 x 9) + (1 x 4pts) = 40
Hill's total would have been (3 x 9) + (2 x 6pts) = 39
Then again, Clark started in South Africa with a chance to win the WDC. All he had to do was win the race, which he was on his way to doing, when a $.50 bolt fell out of his car.
Slightly better reliability would have given Clark the 1962 WDC.
Best,
Ross
At Zandvoort, Clark led the first 11 laps before he had clutch problems. I think this is far to early to make any judgement about who would otherwise have won.
At Monaco, Clark retired from second place not long after half distance. Hill retired while leading 8 laps from the finish.
Clark was clearly fastest at Spa, Aintree and Watkins Glen.
In France Hill was well in the lead until he collided with Lewis, whose brakes had failed. This let Clark into the lead. Hill rapidly caught him, setting the fastest lap in the process. Clark led for three laps before he ran into trouble. Hill then led until lap 41 of 54 when he had fuel injection trouble which effectively finished his race. you may see this as a reasonable "what if" victory for Clark but I don't.
In Germany, Clark made a mistake and drove superbly to catch up, but Hill led most of the race and made fastest lap.
At Monza, DSJ awarded Lotus the Team Shambles trophy, but the BRMs were in a class of their own all race.
Clark was clearly unlucky in South Africa, but if you're going to indulge in "what if" fantasy you have to give Hill wins in Monaco and France. In both races he had trouble closer to the end than did Clark in South Africa.
#41
simonlewisbooks
-
- 2,118 posts
- Joined: January 02
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:32
Originally posted by kayemod
that's more or less what I meant when I described Graham earlier as 'the ultimate journeyman'. The phrase was meant as a real compliment, certainly not to be disparaging in any way, .
But not a great choice of phrase there kayemod... 'journeyman' brings to mind someone like Ginther or Bonnier who were solid drivers, good team men and, in their prime, regular point scorers with the ocassional GP victory in them . It doesn't seem to fit world champions & Indy 500 winners who regularly beat Jim Clark.
In fact you have, by accident I'm sure, rather neatly summed up this thread's point.
#42
EcosseF1
-
- 144 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 17:41
I've always been a bit puzzled by the "not a natural talent" comments directed at Graham. Given his late start and fairly rapid progress it would seem to me he had considerable talent.
#43
Macca
-
- 3,745 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 18:20
In Belgium in 1962 NGH ahould have been way fastest with a brilliant set-up and the most powerful engine, but had that misfire which turned out to be the fuel filter being clogged with dye from the local petrol..................
Paul M
Paul M
#44
kayemod
-
- 9,655 posts
- Joined: August 05
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 18:47
Originally posted by EcosseF1
I've always been a bit puzzled by the "not a natural talent" comments directed at Graham. Given his late start and fairly rapid progress it would seem to me he had considerable talent.
I've only ever seen that 'not a natural talent' comment with '....compared to Jim Clark' either added on the end or implied. Clark has always been a strong contender in a lot of peoples' all-time top 5, while Graham was a bloody good driver who undeniably lacked a very small part of Jim's God-given natural talent, more recently it's all a bit reminiscent of Prost v Senna. I suppose that Simon was right to carp at my use of the word 'journeyman' in this contest, guilty as charged yer Honour, though I hope he noticed that I qualified that by listing his two WDCs, three WDC runners up and 14 GP wins, so in no way was I trying to belittle Graham's achievements, I just saw the journeyman aspect as a fundamental part of Graham's approach and style, and I really think that was a large part of his popular appeal back in the 60s. The public love a colourful character who succeeds against the odds to some extent, and Graham Hill exemplified that better than anyone.
#45
Glengavel
-
- 1,337 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 18:48
Originally posted by Ralliart
I don't think we'll ever determine for certainty who won the '66 Indy 500, again no fault of Hill's.
The unfortunate one at 1966 Indy wasn't Clark - it was Stewart!
#46
dretceterini
-
- 2,991 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 20:48
Although I agree that Hill is probably the most underated of all, I think Wimille would give him a good contest in that area.
#47
Vitesse2
-
- 42,882 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 26 January 2007 - 21:35
I don't think you'd find many who would disagree there Stu. His post-war form is but a tantalising glimpse of how good he must have been in the late 30s. Politics, politics ..... :Originally posted by dretceterini
Although I agree that Hill is probably the most underated of all, I think Wimille would give him a good contest in that area.
#48
Andrew Ford &F1
-
- 246 posts
- Joined: May 05
Member
Posted 02 February 2007 - 12:43
Graham Hill, one of my all-time favourites. The mustached Londoner could find his rythm in any type of machinery fate threw at him. Winner in every category he participated in, Graham is the sole member (at the moment, at least) of an elite club of drivers to win the big three events : the Monaco GP, the Indy 500 and the the Le Mans 24h. In addition, Graham won 14 World Championship events on his way to 1962 and 1968 World Titles. Hill also set a record of Grand Prix starts (176) before retiring to managing his F1 team. Ironically, death found his even outside a racing car.
Another driver that is underrated, in my opinion, is Jacques Villeneuve. The 1997 World Champion has always been cheapened by the British press. But hey, do slouches become World Champions?
Definitely, not. JV became World Champion and did that in style, beating Michael Schumacher fair and square. What other proves of talent one should look for?
Another driver that is underrated, in my opinion, is Jacques Villeneuve. The 1997 World Champion has always been cheapened by the British press. But hey, do slouches become World Champions?
Definitely, not. JV became World Champion and did that in style, beating Michael Schumacher fair and square. What other proves of talent one should look for?
#49
simonlewisbooks
-
- 2,118 posts
- Joined: January 02
Member
Posted 02 February 2007 - 13:13
Originally posted by Andrew, Ford &F1
JV became World Champion and did that in style, beating Michael Schumacher fair and square. What other proves of talent one should look for?
Certainly fair and square on JV's part - MS, as usual, wasn't playing by those rules I seem to recall...
#50
Mallory Dan
-
- 3,128 posts
- Joined: September 03
Member
Posted 02 February 2007 - 13:57
Spot on Simon, MS was playing by the Senna rules...
