Was Prost a 'Racer' - Page 4

NiceGuyEddie · 18 Jun 2004, 07:25 (Ref:1007604)

Still, I find it remarkable that everyone is defending Prost against critizism that was never expressed. It is about assessing what type of driver Prost was and it is in no way judgemental. Tried to explain it several times, but I suppose it is not leaking through.

And why do people think that racing is synonimous to spectaculair but brainless driving or even ´throwing it into the scenery´?

Well, to give you something to moan about: I watch F1 form Spa 1989 on, so as far as my opinion is based upon my own view, I am not too impressed with Prost. He did OK in 1990. In 1991 he was totally out of the picture. He couldn´t do anything in that Ferrari. Surely a driver of his calibre could´ve done more, even if the car drove like a truck? 1993 brought him the title, but he wasn´t exactly the best driver. It was indeed the time to quit.

**Adam43** · 18 Jun 2004, 08:33 (Ref:1007631)

I'm pretty sure that this is trying to 'assess what type of driver Prost is'.

And of course Prost started in F1 in 1980, scoring points in his first two races. He finished second in the championship in '83 and '84 (by 1/2 point!). He finally won a championship in '85 and again in a vastly inferior car in '86. He claimed the record for most wins from Stewart in '87 and battled with Senna in '88 (scoring more points, but losing on best scores rule).

None of that points to racer or not, but a lot of water had passed under the Prosty bridge before '89.

something again that is off the topic of racer is 1991 and doing more with that Truck. the team did not help any ofit and IMHO it wasted Prost when trying to maximise the situation (of having a bad car) - at a wet/dry GP they had a chance, but over rules Prost's gamble on tyres. Prost was trying to race, but was stiffled.

Kicking-back · 18 Jun 2004, 10:17 (Ref:1007707)

I'd venture that those who are suggesting that Prost was not a racer are simply those who don't or didn't like him, for whatever reason.

krt917 · 18 Jun 2004, 11:46 (Ref:1007791)

Quote:

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
I am not too impressed with Prost. He did OK in 1990. In 1991 he was totally out of the picture. He couldn´t do anything in that Ferrari. Surely a driver of his calibre could´ve done more, even if the car drove like a truck?

Why would a driver of his calibre have done more? With all the internal politics at Ferrari at the time we can't know what deal Prost was getting. He did pretty well against the 'new sensation', despite the fact that Alesi was getting the better equipment by the end of the year.

I can see what you mean about a great driver having different skills, of which one is the ability to 'race', though it does depend on your definition of racer - which I think has caused much of the debate on this thread. I do associate 'racer' quite closely to being able to fight wheel to wheel too. Where I part company with you, is where you say Prost was not able to do this. He was not as aggressive as the likes of Senna and Mansell, and indeed, I feel that it did get to the stage where he was not aggressie enough against Senn (for understandable reasons), but he did overtake. Yes, he was a good tactician, but part of that involved conserving a car so that it was capable of passing other cars later in the race.

= Racer.

NiceGuyEddie · 18 Jun 2004, 12:01 (Ref:1007803)

I have no problem whatsoever in acknowledging that Prost is among the best drivers of the (semi-) modern era. This is not about putting him and his achievements down in any way.

But if we can honestly claim that Gilles Villeneuve was a highly spectacular racer, why can´t we say that Prost wasn´t? Or would you claim that both have the exact same drivingtechniques and outlooks on racing?

**Adam43** · 18 Jun 2004, 12:21 (Ref:1007822)

Quote:

Originally posted by krt917
Yes, he was a good tactician, but part of that involved conserving a car so that it was capable of passing other cars later in the race.

I thought this. Prost's tactics required him to be able to overtake. If he wasn't a racer then his plans would not have worked!

ttc · 18 Jun 2004, 12:26 (Ref:1007828)

I would classify GV as a highly SPECTACULAR racer, just as I would AS. I would classify AP and indeed MS as highly SUCCESSFUL racers.

They ALL have the necessary skills. GV and AS could have and would have done more if circumstances were a little different, but you would have to agree that their accidental departure has something to do with how they perform ontrack. AP and MS simply chose the more cautious manner, fighting the fights that they knew they could win and staying close enough to take advantage of other drivers' error when their chances aren't too good.

**Adam43** · 18 Jun 2004, 12:33 (Ref:1007834)

Gilles and Alain did have quite a different driving styles (in terms of car dynamics and setup) in many ways, although both desired to win and race. Firstly a lot of the discussion about this natural leads to the 'define a racer' part of this thread. Secondly the situation between them was very different. Gilles spent a lot of the time in a terrible car and his only chance was to drag it by the scruff of the neck. Prost (especially laterly) was within striking distance of a good result and the racer in him knew he had a chance to maximise his result by being canny early on and them racing to the flag.

Great drivers both and great racers too.

NiceGuyEddie · 18 Jun 2004, 12:49 (Ref:1007848)

So there you have it than. If Prost differs from Gilles Villeneuve, and if you have the opinion that Gilles Villeneuve constitutes and defines a ´racer´ than Prost is not a racer. Perhaps he could´ve been a racer, but I Prost never made me think of Villeneuve.

Kicking-back · 18 Jun 2004, 13:03 (Ref:1007865)

As far as I can see, the issue of racer/not a racer rides heavily on definition.

What I object to is the implication that "not a racer" means Prost is worse for it.

NiceGuyEddie · 18 Jun 2004, 13:18 (Ref:1007880)

We can´t all be racers.

BootsOntheSide · 18 Jun 2004, 13:46 (Ref:1007909)

Quote:

Originally posted by Kicking-back
As far as I can see, the issue of racer/not a racer rides heavily on definition.

What I object to is the implication that "not a racer" means Prost is worse for it.

I certainly have never suggested that, and I'm not sure anyone has. Driving styles and philosophies werea lways meant to be the subject, not actual abilities (Prost is undoubtedly in the all-time top 10, probably top 5)

**Adam43** · 18 Jun 2004, 13:52 (Ref:1007913)

Quote:

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
If Prost differs from Gilles Villeneuve, and if you have the opinion that Gilles Villeneuve constitutes and defines a ´racer´ than Prost is not a racer.

That reminds me http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-05.htm
:

Quote:

CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]

CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH:
It's a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3:
Burn her!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...

Gilles is a racer. Prost drives differently, therefore Prost isn't a racer? Or maybe Prost is a different kind of racer. The passion, skill and desire to win are all there they just manifest themselves in a different way.

NiceGuyEddie · 18 Jun 2004, 14:44 (Ref:1007952)

Quote:

Gilles is a racer. Prost drives differently, therefore Prost isn't a racer? Or maybe Prost is a different kind of racer. The passion, skill and desire to win are all there they just manifest themselves in a different way.

No, I would name them all racingdrivers. There for racingdriver being the general term, racer being the specific term for Villeneuve-esque racingdrivers. As said before, this drives on definition, but don´t take stand against the claim that Prost isn´t a racer arguing that it devalues Prost as a racingdriver, because it doesn´t.

**garcon** · 18 Jun 2004, 14:47 (Ref:1007955)

:confused:

Burn 'im!!!

**Adam43** · 18 Jun 2004, 15:02 (Ref:1007974)

1987 Japanese GP: Prost in a position where he had to be a racer, much like Gilles was when his car wasn't in a position to win. All that effort and a sublime drive to claim seventh. Never give-up balls out racing.

NiceGuyEddie · 18 Jun 2004, 15:10 (Ref:1007986)

Ah yes, I heard about that one. Is it enough to characterize him as a racer though?

alesi95 · 18 Jun 2004, 17:51 (Ref:1008137)

Prost was a racer, but not as much as Senna, Mansell and Takuma Sato.

**Adam43** · 18 Jun 2004, 18:02 (Ref:1008145)

Quote:

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Ah yes, I heard about that one. Is it enough to characterize him as a racer though?

Yes

BootsOntheSide · 18 Jun 2004, 20:59 (Ref:1008286)

Japan 1987 is the kind of situation most racers love - endof the season, result not directly important, in a good well-handling car, lots of guys ahead to try and overtake. It was certainly an impressive one, but not enough to change my overall view.

alesi95 · 19 Jun 2004, 12:41 (Ref:1008637)

Quote:

Originally posted by krt917
Why would a driver of his calibre have done more? With all the internal politics at Ferrari at the time we can't know what deal Prost was getting. He did pretty well against the 'new sensation', despite the fact that Alesi was getting the better equipment by the end of the year.

I can see what you mean about a great driver having different skills, of which one is the ability to 'race', though it does depend on your definition of racer - which I think has caused much of the debate on this thread. I do associate 'racer' quite closely to being able to fight wheel to wheel too. Where I part company with you, is where you say Prost was not able to do this. He was not as aggressive as the likes of Senna and Mansell, and indeed, I feel that it did get to the stage where he was not aggressie enough against Senn (for understandable reasons), but he did overtake. Yes, he was a good tactician, but part of that involved conserving a car so that it was capable of passing other cars later in the race.

= Racer.

Jean was getting better equipment at the end of the year?

krt917 · 21 Jun 2004, 14:23 (Ref:1010799)

I seem to remember something along those lines, but I'm not near my books and videos at the moment, so I can't point you to any evidence. Apologies for that!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
You Might Be A Racer If...	KC	Racers Forum	13	7 Feb 2001 11:25
A racer is a racer no matter his mount	KC	Sportscar & GT Racing	4	17 Dec 2000 16:15
Road racer vs. Oval racer	KC	NASCAR & Stock Car Racing	6	12 Jul 2000 13:56