Greatest Racing Legend

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by John Turner

There is nothing wrong with having the highest desire to win or having self belief, but that should manifest itself in the ability to beat others cleanly and with superior driving skill. It is weaving, forcing drivers onto the grass, or into pit walls, making them take evasive action at high speed, or just plain running them off the road that devalues that skill. That is the flaw; it should have no place in a sport which is already inherently dangerous.

That's why I have my doubts about Schumacher's status - anyone who isn't prepared to compete with his team-mate and has no qualms about pushing others out of the way isn't competing fairly.
Senna might have been hard but his abilities were so exceptional that he tended to leave people just enough space, if others judgement wasn't as good they could over-react.
This business of moving across the track at the start seems pathetic, but so is having a car that gets itself off the line.

[krt917]

I really don't see how you can say that Senna left just enough room, compared to what Schuey does. I think that some of the things Senna did, particularly to Prost, were well beyond what Michael has done. Both drivers, in my opinion, are/were flawed in quite a similar way, though for different reasons. Senna did some of the things he did because of his beliefs - because he believed he was the best and should always win. That's one reason why he got so over the top with Prost - on his day, Prost could beat Senna fair and square.

Schuey does his moves for slightly different reasons. He pushes the envelope everwhere, whether it be with his driving or his work-rate within the team. Unfortunately, he also pushes well over the line when it comes to track behaviour. And because he (like Senna) always gets away with it, he continues to drive in that way.

Both Schumacher and Senna will stand-out as great and legendary (though I agree with D-type, the two can be different), but there are elements of their careers which mean I will always be reluctant to put them at the very top of the list.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

That's why I have my doubts about Schumacher's status - anyone who isn't prepared to compete with his team-mate and has no qualms about pushing others out of the way isn't competing fairly.
Senna might have been hard but his abilities were so exceptional that he tended to leave people just enough space, if others judgement wasn't as good they could over-react.
This business of moving across the track at the start seems pathetic, but so is having a car that gets itself off the line.

Hi, Peter; we're almost back to our debate on page 2 & 3. Actually, I do understand what you are saying; in fact I don't think we are that far apart in our views. I just don't think mine are quite so extreme! I think if you look back, you'll see that whilst I consider Michael S is/will become a great racing legend, I do not consider him in any way faultless.

I'm afraid, like KRT, I cannot agree with you about Senna; I think he was worse than Schuey. Someone with such incredible talent did not need to undertake some of the manoeuvres that he carried out. I think his ultimate sin, as D-Type mentions, on Prost at Suzuka in 1990, warranted nothing less than his being stripped of his WDC title that year. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to deny that he was either a great driver or has become a legend.

I agree with you about driver aids, but as I said in an earlier post, that is not the fault of the drivers, and not a reason to deny them a place in the history of the sport, if their driving and/or their achievements warrant it.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Hi, Peter; we're almost back to our debate on page 2 & 3. Actually, I do understand what you are saying; in fact I don't think we are that far apart in our views. I just don't think mine are quite so extreme!

Hi John

These discussions always end up going in circles and rarely reach anything close to a concensus!

It's always more fun being extreme. But as you say we're not far apart in our opinions.

It is easier to spot the outstanding talents from the past, whereas the present is much harder to judge.

I heard something on the radio talking about outstanding sports talents (started as Tiger Woods as godo as Nicklaus) and they mentioned several current cricket players (I have no interest in that game) as being amongst the greatest ever, I think that it is unlikely that there should be so many more stars these days than at one time in the past.

Why do so many people look good these days; are the standards lower, or is training etc.so good that you can make more people reach a high standard (which contradicts my idea of a star - those in the past tend to have been so good that they shone without loads of training).

F1 has tended to have roughly 1 superstar per decade and very rarely have you had more than 2 concurrently, which makes comparison really difficult.

Other sports are easier to judge because they rarely rely as much on equipment as in F1, and if they do the equipment tends to be much more eqqual.

[D-Type]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

It is easier to spot the outstanding talents from the past, whereas the present is much harder to judge.

I heard something on the radio talking about outstanding sports talents (started as Tiger Woods as godo as Nicklaus) and they mentioned several current cricket players (I have no interest in that game) as being amongst the greatest ever, I think that it is unlikely that there should be so many more stars these days than at one time in the past.

Why do so many people look good these days; are the standards lower, or is training etc.so good that you can make more people reach a high standard (which contradicts my idea of a star - those in the past tend to have been so good that they shone without loads of training).

At any point in time, the present stars are billed as superstars. Outside of Motor Sport I remember friends having Len Hutton cricket bats, then there was Rocky Marciano, Herb Elliot, Peter Snell, Muhammed Ali, Henry Cooper, Pele, Eusebio, Keegan, Gazza, etc. In time we realise who were simply top at the time, who were truly great, and who had that bit more to becomelegends. In Motor Sport there is another factor, shall we call it the Princess Di effect, in that if a driver is killed his 'greatness rating' rises by ten points and in time some acquire a reputation based as much on what they might have achieved later as on what they actually did achieve.

[valvebounce]

Originally Posted by krt917

That's one reason why he got so over the top with Prost - on his day, Prost could beat Senna fair and square.

Not a chance

Senna was the quicker driver out of the two, I don't think that can be debated. Unfortunately for Senna his super aggressive nature got him into trouble (and in most cases rightly so). To quote the man:

"Winning is the most important. Everything is a consequence of that." - Ayrton Senna

Peter I agree that comparing F1 drivers of different era's is extremely difficult, if possible at all. One thing is for sure though, the racing and overtaking is not like it used to be

[Ol'_Motorhead]

I'm not going to debate one driver over another but Senna definitely was intense/obsessed with his driving. My first thought when he went straight off in Italy was he'd committed suicide and I'm yet to be convinced it was a driving error or mechanical failure. MTCW.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Why do so many people look good these days; are the standards lower, or is training etc.so good that you can make more people reach a high standard.

I think it is that, in general, fitness and training regimes are much better these days and we live in such a competitive world that athletes, tennis stars, football players - you name it (including F1 racers) are so much more focused. It also earns them big money of course, whereas the likes of Hawthorn and Collins (for example), did it for the 'fun', and the money, what there was of it then, was a bonus! Now it's all so intense, driven by a materialistic culture which heightens exposure due to sponsorshop and massive media attention. In other words we hear and see so much more about sports personalities, and many more of them, too!

Originally Posted by valvebounce

Quote:
Originally Posted by krt917
That's one reason why he got so over the top with Prost - on his day, Prost could beat Senna fair and square.

Not a chance

Senna was the quicker driver out of the two, I don't think that can be debated. Unfortunately for Senna his super aggressive nature got him into trouble (and in most cases rightly so).

Yes, Senna was the quicker of the two, but not always, which is why he resorted to some of his tactics to try and dominate Prost - much of it, I believe to achieve a psychological superiority. It is also clear that when Prost retired, Senna missed his presence on the grid; he no longer had his target to beat. It is an irony that when he got into F1, Senna set out to destroy the one driver he had so much respect for. He just had to beat him by whatever means at his disposal. So, I think KRT's statement is a fair one, but I'll let him give you examples as my memory of individual races is somewhat limited!

Originally Posted by Ol'_ Motorhead

My first thought when he went straight off in Italy was he'd committed suicide and I'm yet to be convinced it was a driving error or mechanical failure. MTCW.

I don't believe for one moment that what happened at Imola was suicide; indeed, had it not been for part of the front right hand suspension breaking off and hitting him a fearful blow on the head, he may well have been able to climb unaided, albeit severely shaken, from the car. However, my own view has always been that he had been coming under increasing pressure from a young Michael Schumacher and was trying to remain competitive in what was a difficult car to drive. In other words Senna, the hunter (of Prost) had become the hunted (by Schuey) and took a risk too far. So, perhaps not a driving error as such, but a push beyond the skill envelope that even his great talent could not handle. We know that the FW16 had bottomed badly through the resurfaced Tamburello on the previous lap, and just maybe, he pushed a bit harder through there on that last fateful lap.

In the context of this thread, it is interesting to note that, at the time Alan Henry wrote ' .... what is beyond question is that Ayrton Senna was one of the all-time Grand Prix legends'. I suppose that what I have been trying to say all along, is that great drivers can become legends despite (or because of?) their shortcomings.

[krt917]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

It is easier to spot the outstanding talents from the past, whereas the present is much harder to judge.

I think that this is true. It's one of the reasons I don't like all the gizmo's. In the past, a Moss or Clark could make the difference with an uncompetitve car, but now Schuey is often only a few tenths up on Rubens. The car is worht that much more of the percentage

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Why do so many people look good these days

I think that this is largely because they are current and in the public mind. It's like when you ask people who are the greatest musicians/bands. Many people just mention some of the latest load of rubbish from the charts, but over time, the ones that stand (Beatles, 'Stones, Queen etc.) out are the ones that are remembered and the others fall away. Same with drivers.

Originally Posted by valvebounce

Not a chance

Senna was the quicker driver out of the two, I don't think that can be debated.

Senna was the outright fastest, I think that is generally ytrue, but I don't think that necessarily made him better. Quite apart from the ethical element discussed above, there were times when Prost got the set-up just right and flat beat Sena in a straight race. The 1988 French GP and Portuguese GP are just two examples, but there were quite a few races where Prost did beat Senna fair and square, either by driving a well set-up car beautifully or by being tactically astute.

Then there was the backmarker element. There were times when Senna definitely gained time on Prost in traffic (though not so much on Mansell I seem to remember!), but the other side of the coin was that occassionally he took too many chances. 1988 Monza and 1990 Brazil being two such examples.

Prost was a faster driver than some people give him credit for, perhaps partly due to his unflustered style. Both he and Senna are greats, and legends, which takes the thread back to where it began!

[emjaya]

Sir Henry R.S. "Tim" Birkin

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by emjaya

Sir Henry R.S. "Tim" Birkin

Yes, indeed. Even the manner of his death (and far too young) constitutes part of that legend.

[valvebounce]

Top posts John and krt917. Agree with you both.

It is a shame that many people seem to leave Prost out when it comes to the legends of F1. He was a brilliant driver with the correct tempermant to survive (literally) in F1. As they say, Senna needed Prost and vice versa to achieve the level of skill and concentration they are well known for.

To add to Johns post about the upcoming Schumacher he was also in a far superior car and from memory they had a hidden traction control program in the computer (not sure if that was 94). Whatever the case I believe with Prost gone and a young Schumacher coming through it may have pushed Senna too far in a car that was clearly dangerous. Schumacher did say that his idol Senna would have won in 94, I (even as a Senna fan) doubt it.

[rbs]

To much is made of modern drivers being called legends. Much of todays success is down to designers and the hi tech cars compared to the drivers. To me a legend is a
driver who you can only read about and his ability in the cars of the day and his life
out of the cockpit.

The pre great war cars and races produced several "legends" such as S.F.Edge,Louis
Wagner, Rene de Knyff, Felice Nazzaro, Ferenc Szisz,George Boillot and Christian
Lautenschlager. Their cars and the conditions they raced in can not be compared to
today in any way. Some of these cars will be in action at Mallory Park on Sunday, go and have a look. Then imagine them on unsurfaced roads.

Another group of "legends" appeared between the wars,these drivers seem to have
had their lives documented better than the earlier drivers. one or two posts have mentioned Nouvolari , Campbell and Varzi but what about John Cobb, Henry Seagrave,
Raymond Sommer,Albert Divo,Guiseppe Campari, Antonio Ascari,Jean Pierre Wimille and
for me the true legend Robert Benoist, a truely great driver in the car, a larger than life personality and finally a war hero.

[COLIN STUBBS]

anyone interested in a real legend should read Archie and the Listers. Mr Scott Browns story is what legends are all about. A kid with cruel disabilities dreaming of becoming a racing driver and succeeding against all adversity.wonder how many fit modern drivers would manage to wrestle a Lister Jaguar like he did.Its a helluva story.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by COLIN STUBBS

anyone interested in a real legend should read Archie and the Listers. Mr Scott Browns story is what legends are all about. A kid with cruel disabilities dreaming of becoming a racing driver and succeeding against all adversity.wonder how many fit modern drivers would manage to wrestle a Lister Jaguar like he did.Its a helluva story.

Agreed ..... and a great read!