Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davyboy
On the other side you could buy a GP car and show up to race... which is what many did. So, there was almost no selectivity to get to F1, the talent pool to draw from was small, so statistically [people will be calling me Mr. Statistics soon  ] it was easier to succeed in comparison to today. |
See, this is where I disagree, as I think it means that if you had the talent to get to F1, you did, as the opportunity was there. Albeit there were a load of others who got there and were sort of glacial (Ottorino Volonterio RIP). And that talent would be more obvious in lower formulae. So at the very top end we had a load of drivers who were very very meritorious.
It is perhaps no coincidence that so many drivers from the 50s and 60s in particular, when IMO it WAS easier to get to F1 through your talent, are considered world-class, compared to today. Someone like Jarno Trulli is probably around the 10th best in the world* today; in 1965 the top ten would have had Clark, Hill G, Stewart, Gurney, Brabham, Hulme, Spence, Surtees, Bandini and Rindt. Without even mentioning Hill P, Rodriguez, McLaren and many others. And also think of those who had been killed or grievously injured in recent years that would not have been in today's conditions - the would-be-Coulthards of 1965 would have included Musso, Collins, Allison and a certain S C Moss. It's no comparison at all.
Then again I'd put a Vettel or Bourdais ahead of a Bernard Collomb or Kurt Kuhnke.
And as for forging a team and working together with the same dedicated personnel around you...how do we rank someone who won titles in 4 consecutive years changing his team every time?
*not including NASCAR or similar things