fully agree cc not being as good as clark does not exclude any driver from being included in the small band of greats that make up any all time great list , however when judging hill what other benchmark have we reasonably got when both drivers had a spell in the same machinery at the same time -- to be honest if hill had of been up there with the greats he would of been credited with it somewhere along the line by the historians in the many polls we have all read over the yrs , but as it allways seems to be the same half a dozen names that formulate these lists then clearly any all time great status aspirations by graham"s fans is suspect -- must hold my hands up -- i am indeed the culprit that was known as xiggly on the old bbc 606 , had alot of fun and lively debate on there , was not allways flavour of the month with some on there , fraid to say i can be like a rabid pit bull protecting a pork chop if i think i am right about a formula one point , i can see that this forum is much better with a more intelligent type of poster so i will try and curtail my competitive urges that at times put a bug up peoples ( where the sun dont shine ) on the old bbc forum --
I'd say this place has way more savvy posters and a lot more reasonable debate than the old 606 and its other spin offs... So don't feel the need to be contrary to out the twonks. They seem to out themselves.
i guess we will just have to disagree about nigels status at lotus and ferrari , to my knowledge mansell never had a contract for a no 2 at any of his teams , certainly at ferrari prost joined mansell as equal no 1 drivers and ferrari were certainly capable of fielding two competitive cars , but i seriously think prost just operated at higher level than nigel ever could - why are you struggling with the point of my topic bhaji , i am not english so i have no english patriotic stance on here , i created the topic because i thought it was a very valid point and would hopefully stimulate a lively debate , -------- which is after all what we all want on here ---
why should we have more greats than anyone else? we are a small island nation. compared to the population of other countries, it is to be expected that we would produce less greats. but our record speaks for itself at any level of motor racing.
without a doubt this forum is of a much higher standard than the old bbc 606 , seriously think some of those lot had a brussel sprout where there brain should have been , unfortunately some of those clowns dragged everybody else down with them , quite frankly it done everybody a favour when the bbc dropped a bomb on the whole lot --
Technically... you are right as far as the Ferrari #1 status goes. Mansell was actually signed and had a contract for '90 to be the #1 driver for Ferrari. Unfortunately those contracts were apparently changed and Mansell was asked to sign a new contract giving Prost equal #1. Mansell, being the twonk that he is, agreed.. opening the door for Prost to do his thing and take control. Now I have nothing that can back this up, It's all just what allegedly happened, but given Prost's track record of being able to manipulate certain situations and his political prowess... It's seems very feasible... especially considering Mansell's struggles that year and usual Ferrari form. As for the debate on English drivers... I guess I struggle because I'm trying to find which country England is supposed to be competing against and also why. I think we have more than any other nation. Why does France only have 1? why is it Italy only has 2? Who'd figure Australia would have three... the same as Brazil? Bonkers isn't it?
on the graham hill issue is it possible that peoples opinion of him is less favourable due to his lattet years struggling in uncompetitive machinery as he tried to build his own team? will the same happen to schuey? they both took sabaticals, in hill's case it was due to an accident, but in both cases many questioned if they should have returned.
that is exactly my point , we have such a rich history in motor racing at every level and our motor racing manufacturing base is second to none , but with the possible exception of moss we have never produced an all time great -- it has allways puzzled me -- hence why i created the topic -
I think that's where we have to draw the line on opinion... I think we have produced many greats. Some people just don't class them as great. Why do people class Senna as a great? He won three championships in superior machinery... If he were English... would we class him as great? Probably not. Also.. don't take that as disrespecting, Senna. It honestly isn't.
What makes up a 'great' is the question? What criteria should you meet to be elevated to such status? Nelson Piquet and Jack Brabham were both triple world champions, yet rarely, if ever, rank in the top ten, yet Moss & Villeneuve who never won WDC's, are both in the top ten. The subject of what makes a 'great' is a matter of people's opinions. It can;t be worked out based on facts and statistics. If it were the order would surely be Schuey, Fangio, Prost, 3x WDC's and so on. It just isn't as simple as that.
as i said i believe prost just performed at a higher level than mansell in and out of the car , and for me 1990 did show the limitations that nigel had when up against a driver with the calibre of prost , i am not saying mansell was unlucky in the era he drove in because we can say that about any driver , however nigel was unlucky in the fact he was a very good driver competing when there were maybe the two greatest drivers ever in F1 at the same time - probally no other driver has had such a double whammy hinderance to his career , take a close hard look at mansell"s career and then take prost and senna out of the equasion and nigels final status in the history books would of looked a whole lot more impressive --
Don't get me wrong... Moss is a great and was racing against the likes of Fangio, Ascari, Farina ect... but I'm curious why you consider him a great, Martial? And not the other English champions.
Hmm Mansell, never liked him much tbh, but he managed to get a few records, and did it at the time of Lauda, Piquet, Prost and Senna, each one a treble WDC. There's no doubt that he could match them, Prost actively sabotaged him at Ferrari, Piquet wanted team orders, that shows his level.
If you think Ferrari were able to build two cars and support two drivers equally and also think that Prost was happy with that situation and comfortable to race Mansell on equal terms, then that's your opinion and you're very welcome to it mate... No hard feelings. If the Williams team had been Mansell/Prost in '93... Who'd you have put yer money on?
i suppose for schumacher next year is the crunch year , if the aldo costa chassis is competitive micheal has to perform , if rosberg beats him and beats him easily then micheal should finally call it a day , i have a funny feeling he will probally hang around a bit longer until the new engine regs come in if he does well in 2012 --
I should probably say that Schucmacher isn't going to win bugger all for the rest of his career.... That likely means that he'll at least win 3 more.
i never saw any reason or indication that ferrari could not give both drivers equal status in 1990 , very likely both drivers would of liked team orders in there favour -- as for 93 -- who knows , could mansell have got himself into shape again for a battle with prost or senna in the same car at williams , i dont really think he wanted a fight with either of those two in the same machinery ----
<intermission> Ice cream.. popcorn... soda...</intermission> <cheesymusic>Toilet break</cheesymusic> /joke
