Was Prost a 'Racer'

[krt917]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
That was after the title was lost. Adelaide 1989 says a lot more - how do you think people who turned up to see the World Champion race felt when he pulled out?

But most of the drivers said that they should not have started. Berger, apparently, is still a little ashamed he didn't follow Prost into withdrawing and even Senna said the race should have been stopped once he was out and the title had been decided. I don't think that is a fair way assess Prost anyway.

I can remember loads of passing moves by Prost, but they tended to be clinical rather than 'ballsy'. Coming from behind to win (after a puncture) in Kyalami in 1982 is a good reminder that people often forget how quick Prost was in his early days. Coming from 13th place to win in Mexico 1990 involved a lot of 'racing' too, far more than we see these days with all the fuel stops.

Prost wasn't as good an overtaker as Mansell or Senna. He certainly wasn't as aggressive, but that sometimes worked in his favour. Perhaps the best way of describing him is that he was a racer, just a different kind to Senna. That's one of the things that made that period great.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
Adelaide 1989 says a lot more - how do you think people who turned up to see the World Champion race felt when he pulled out?

Well given what happened at Hockenheim 1982 in the wet qualifying, one can hardly blame Prost for pulling out of Adelaide 1989. I'd probably have done the same.

[Panzer]

Prost a very good driver... YES a good racer...nah.

[Heebeegeetee]

Originally posted by Panzer
Prost a very good driver... YES a good racer...nah.

Oh, come on.

You outpoint Senna in 2 straight years in the same team by being a "good driver"? You score more points in 2 years than Senna driving identical kit. Then you almost beat him in a ****box of a Ferrari, by being a "good driver"? Purleese!
If 88 and 89 ran under the current scoring system then Prost won it twice.

Many of the previous comments made against Prost completely miss out the fact that many of his wins came in the fuel consumption era. All Prost did was play to the rules. He was just about the only driver mentally strong enough to do so. All those other "racers" - Mansell, Arnoux, Tambay, de Cesaris, Patrese - doing all that wheel banging stuff and being mega quick 'till 2 laps from the end, when they ran out of fuel. What a bunch of herberts.

Prost blew Mansell out of the water at Ferrari simply because Mansell didn't have it between the ears to match him. Prost had just faught the other greatest driver of the time for 2 years, whereby both drivers employed every single tactic that could be thought of. They faught on track and off. The 2 of them were leagues ahead of those other "racers."

Formula 1 is not "after you Claude" or "it's not fair". Formula 1 is tough, and every single participant is a "good driver." But Prost and Senna were way ahead of that, and they faught each other with the gloves off.

And BTW, I've heard more than one driver say that Prost was the ONLY one of them who was brave enough to pull out of that wet Adelaide race. The others simply didn't have his strength of character. I can clearly recall Mansell blaming others for the decision that he (Mansell) had made, after he'd crashed out.

[Armco Bender]

Dont forget too a lot of races in the turbo era were "economy drives" trying to get the car home on a tankful of gas,no point going flat out if you ran out of gas on the last lap.Prost was smart enough to get it home first lots of times.

[N I Tram]

Prost ran out of fuel at times in that era as well (Imola 85 and Germany 86 for a start). And McLaren usually built cars with the best fuel consumption and reliability.

Considering how many times Senna beat Prost in 1988, and that he had 2 mechanical failures (counting Brazil, where he wouldn't've been disqualified were it not for that) to Prost's 1, I don't believe Alain would've been the right champion that year.

[Kicking-back]

Alain scored more points, though...

[climb]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Depends who you believe.

Prost's side of the story is that this is all simply Nigel's paranoia.

Both story fully believable

[Kicking-back]

Agreed.

[foreversideways]

If Prost was not a racer i am Shirley Temple

[Kicking-back]

There's a few here who'll no doubt be preparing to say: "Welcome, Shirley!"

[jj2728]

Originally posted by N I Tram
Prost ran out of fuel at times in that era as well (Imola 85 and Germany 86 for a start).

not to nit-pick, but prost won at imola in 1985....i was there and believe me the crowd was none too pleased....

[JohnSSC]

What I have learned in this thread (so far):

1) You can win 51 races and multiple WDCs and still have people ask: "Are you a racer?"

2) Apparently style and flash mean way more than substance, i.e. some would rather watch an Alesi spectacularly find a way to lose than to see a Prost not only outdrive the competition, but also outsmart them.

3) Further, "spectacular" automatically means "better" even if the results aren't there.

4) Winning races is somehow a separate activity from being a racer, as if one could be really good at being a race winner, but at the same time a lousy racer (on the surface, that would seem to be an oxymoron).

5) Apparently there are some few on the Forum who would prefer to watch a bunch of spectacular drivers who are completely unable to parlay that into a win (Nige being the Exception).

My point? How could Prost be anything BUT a "racer???" I mean, it is not like he hid in the bushes only to leap out at the very end and be declared the winner!

[KaiserSose]

That was good, John.

We should be able to hear crickets now.

[NiceGuyEddie]

John> If I am correct there´s a distinction between a racer and a racingdriver. In my view, Prost was by no means a racer, but that is not taking away from his championships and racewins.

[ASCII Man]

You are not correct.

[NiceGuyEddie]

So you´d say there is no distinction between a racer and a racingdriver? That´s funny, because in my view there certainly are examples of drivers who are clearly very capable of handling a Formula 1-car but seem to lack judgement in terms of ontrack duelling and -or perhaps therefor- aren´t to keen on taking them on. Prost would be an example and so would Damon Hill. Or Ralf for all I care. I see a clear distinction between a driver who seeks and recieves fullfilment in taking on a duel and winning it and is capable of doing so (which is a ´racer´) and a driver that sees such duels as a last resort and isn´t very capable in carrying them out.

In football we have all different types of players. A good defender can be a good footballplayer, without being a good attacking player, so why shouldn´t we accept that in racing there are different types of drivers and that a driver can be good -one of the alltime greatest even- without being per definition described as a good racer?

So it is useless to point out Prost´s result and conclude from them that he is a good racer. It concludes that he is a good (very) good driver, but that isn´t the debate here.

[Peter Mallett]

Sorry, but there speaks someone who apparently has never sat in any kind of racing car and tried to win a race.

There is no distinction between a spectacular winner and a non spectacular winner if they get the same results. Ergo they are both racers.

If points were given for aggressive style then I'm sure JPM and Sato and the others who provoked this thread would be WDCs. They aren't and even JPM has seen the light. His style is very different and more "pure" (if I may use that word) than previously.

So John SSC has hit the nail firmly on the head.

Then you talk about RS etc. Well let's look at the recent past WDCs. Oh there's only two. MS and MH. Neither could be called spectacular and yet they can/could outdrive most of the other racers out there. Y'know, keeping it between the kerbs, setting it up to take a corner without to much strain, those sort of things. Says something don't you think?

So of course Prost was a racer. He wouldn't have bothered getting into a car if he wasn't. He just knew how to get the best out of a car without crashing or wrecking it.

[Peter Mallett]

BTW. Senna was the same.

[Mattracer]

Perhaps the best way to describe the siyutaion is "there's more than one way to skin a cat".

Prost was exceedingly good- economical in the use of everything required to win in the same way Senna was wickedly ferocious and determined.

Who's to say which is/was the better way? Both styles got them to he top of the sport and kept them there for year- a rivalry yet to be seen agian in F1 if ever. The cars had a lot to do with it too, and I agree with the comments made about the fuel economy runs and playing to the rules. What else could you do if you wanted to win and needed the points?

How do you define "a racer" anyway?

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
there certainly are examples of drivers who are clearly very capable of handling a Formula 1-car but seem to lack judgement in terms of ontrack duelling

Lack judgement?

Surely Alain Prost's approach is a result having supreme judgement.

[Attila]

I do not understand how could anybody question Prost's fighter spirit when he won 4 WDCs. Maybe there were bigger fighters than him, but he still managed to beat very big name drivers in same or similar machienery. That takes skill, hard work, patience, speed and hunger for success. I think this argument about him is useless, he is one of the greats with the likes of Senna, TGF, Mansel, Piquet, Lauda, Stuart...etc.

[Ian Fisher]

I still think Prost had a brilliant racing brain and was a master tactician. I do beleive that his attitude to Risks (wet weather racing / traffic etc) changed as his career went on (as it did with many drivers - i.e. Lauda, Scheckter, Rosberg?), but don't forget that in his heyday he raced (mostly) in the days of non-pitstop GP's, and therefore had to pass his opponents on the track. As has been mentioned is a previous posting, he was THE one driver that Senna considered a threat, so he must have been ever so slightly better than average!!! - Give me a non-racer ability like his anyday!

[Peter Mallett]

Yep I wish I had his lack of talent.

[BootsOntheSide]

NO ONE is saying Prost lacks talent. You don't win 51 races and 4 titles and get hired by the three greatest teams of all time without it.

Also, name me one race where Alesi lost a winning position through any fault of his own. I can name you plenty where Prost won witout being the fastest, which is my point that his racecraft was better than his actual pace.

Ultimately it was Prost, not Alesi, Mansell, Berger, Irvine or Michael, who was fired by Ferrair (for criticising the team - a real error of judgment considering how volatile Ferrari were at the time)