Who decides who is more talented than the next guy?

[RE30B#16]

So who decides who is supremely talented? I think it is the press.

Michael Schumacher came into Formula 1 with hype. Karl Wendlinger, his old Mercedes teammate, got his F1 break first. Everyone said, "Hey that Austrian kid's talented, but wait until you see this Michael Schumacher kid from Germany!" Jan Magnussen was supposed to be the second coming of Senna. Rubens Barrichello was supposed to be the new Senna. The press said, "Sure Mika Hakkinen is good, but wait until you see that other Mika [Salo]!" Nowadays, for some reason, Felipe Massa is supposed to be the man on the move. No one said a thing about Fernando Alonso being a potential world champion while he was impressing in the Minardi, yet Kimi Raikonnen was supposed to be the new Hakkinen.

Sometimes, they pan out sometimes they don't, but what I find interesting is that the ones that do, all have that same certain something. A self-assuredness in addition to their supreme talent. Schumacher expects to win. Alonso expects to win. The others hope to win. Even in crappy cars, Damon Hill saw himself winning races, as opposed to thinking, "I'm good. I've got a great car. I should win." The Sennas, Schumachers and Alonsos think, "This car isn't bad. I will win!" That mental edge is the difference.

Damon Hill, IMHO, should've been at least a 3 times world champion. Well, we've been arguing about what happened in 1994 ad nauseum. In 1995, Frank Williams and Patrick Head lost their minds, started believing the David Coulthard hype, and lost the WC with arguably the best car on the grid and a driver good enough to win the championship for them [Hill]. They got it together in 1996 only to fire the man after he won it for them [that move cost them Adrian Newey, the genius behind championship winning cars for Nigel Mansell, Alain Prost, Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and Mika Hakkinen]. Newey left a car on the drawing board when he left Williams which carried Villeneuve to his title in '97, but by 1998, Williams was in trouble.

I think, however, Hill has never been done justice in the press for his talent. Mansell wasn't considered super talented until 1989 when the Italian tifosi dubbed him "Il Lione." Nelson piquet was considered the best i the world until te arrival of his countryman Ayrton Senna. Now he has almost been written out of the F1 history books.

Anyway, this might be a stupid thread, but it would be interesting to see how some of you might weigh in on this topic.

Cheers

Chris

I'm off to Long Beach!!

PS: Go Katie Legge!!

[Snowy]

Everything you said there was right on We are as one mind on this. You should write something on the pleasant comments thread it needs just this kind of input, I don't think anyone could argue with what you've said so it's going to be enjoyable watching the others reply I wonder if anyone is gonna get on a role and embarrass themselves?

[<T-K>]

I am actually not going to argue with you.....for one reason, and one reason only........................You are absolutely right, well at least in my opinion...

I think a driver is noted as talented A) because they actually do have talent and show it on the track, at which point everybody looks and goes..wow, that kid is good..........

B) Throughout your existance you may not have heard of a certain driver, and then all of a sudden he pops up in a drivers seat at a high end team such as McLaren, Williams etc. and then you just have to look and say gee, this kid must be good........

and C) when either of the previous factors are visible the Media will take it and extort it to the point where we all think that he is the next world champion...............

and finally D) and this is a big one........The MotorSport press will do anything for a story,and they will easil put someone on a pedestal and write about how good he is, just so they can fill the pages (and in certain cases cause a bit of conspiracy )

In the end RE, I have to say

[JayVee]

I think you need a bit of luck but in the end it is up to the driver to show their supreme talent.

Every season we see maybe a handful of masterful moves/drives during the season and they stick to our minds, Alonso at San Marino showed the supreme talent of Alonso but had Raikkonen not retired and had Alonso tyres not gone off, we wouldn't have seen that and that is were luck comes into it.

The media helps for sure but they get it more wrong than right. Just remember how much hype surrounded Montoya and to a lesser degree Button. And still the media fools itself into beleiving Kimi is the fastest man on earth, but based on what ? and is being fastest on a single lap considered supreme talent or is it consistency over a race distance and looking after your tyres and winning ?

[RE30B#16]

The media helps for sure but they get it more wrong than right. Just remember how much hype surrounded Montoya and to a lesser degree Button. And still the media fools itself into beleiving Kimi is the fastest man on earth, but based on what ? and is being fastest on a single lap considered supreme talent or is it consistency over a race distance and looking after your tyres and winning ?

Hey, JayVee, you hit the nail on the head!


Drivers that are the best at caring for their tires often do the best. I recently read something about NASCAR mechanics laughing at Tony Stewart for suggesting they use different tire pressures on all four tires. I hear Jeff Gordon wanted to do the same thing, but was persuaded out of it. Now everyone in NASCAR is trying it.

Obviously, the current Renault [Benetton-Toleman] is particularly good on tires. Combine with that the expertise of Alonso at finding a good setup, and what else is left? This may explain why Hakkinen and Schumacher were so far ahead of the rest. Jarno Trulli makes my theory fall apart, however!

Chris

[backmarker]

I think a talented driver is one who does not care about anything else but being first, be it in qualifying or the race. Now that tyre changes are in a driver can be as aggressive as he likes, tear the car apart and just go for the win.
I remember Senna as being the worst team player, the worst p.r. guy to toe the line, the most politically incorrect, tell it how it is, but he was a f_cking great race driver!!!

[RE30B#16]

I remember Senna as being the worst team player, the worst p.r. guy to toe the line, the most politically incorrect, tell it how it is, but he was a f_cking great race driver!!!

You know, I don't think Senna was portrayed fairly by the press. Senna had that "Barry Bonds"-type disdain for the media, and they made him pay for it.

Actually, backmarker, Senna was a great team guy. He was a meticulous tester. Team McLaren, Renault, and especially Honda adored him. Alain Prost couldn't handle how he took over the team including Ron Dennis, so he used the press to try to tarnish the image. Senna did a couple of things that tarnished his own image for sure, but he did his talking on the track. No one can argue that. The guy had more people at his funeral than the entire population of a few African nations!

He was actually a good teammate to Elio deAngelis, Gerhard Berger, Michael Andretti and Damon Hill.

Chris

[Snowy]

I remember Senna as being the worst team player, the worst p.r. guy to toe the line, the most politically incorrect, tell it how it is, but he was a f_cking great race driver!!!

You know, I don't think Senna was portrayed fairly by the press. Senna had that "Barry Bonds"-type disdain for the media, and they made him pay for it.


He was actually a good teammate to Elio deAngelis, Gerhard Berger, Michael Andretti and Damon Hill.

Chris

If memory serves Aryton was distant with the media because he had very strong religious beliefs, however he always conducted himself with consumate ease and good grace. Alain didn't like him taking over Mclaren with his absorbing personality. He took every opportunity to discredit and upset him. It didn't work though because Ayrton was never held in the kind of regard that some have for say; Schuey. Even when he admitted he had taken Alain out nobody really thought 'what a cad and a bounder' or any less of him. Because quite plainly everyone could see that he was a genuine race driver and a stand up guy. Which could not be said for Alain who was just weird and intense and bitter and manipulative, apart from that he was a nice guy.

Come to think of it they were very much alike, very sensitive and vunerable, Ayrton however was more confident that he was the greatest driver on earth so he didn't stay upset or depressed for long.

[JayVee]

Now that tyre changes are in a driver can be as aggressive as he likes, tear the car apart and just go for the win.

That is a theory that has proved to be very wrong!
Raikkonen in Australia was aggressive passing Button, he flat spotted his tyre which then damaged part of his front wing from the vibration. He was very lucky with the safety car otherwise he wouldn't have finished second!

Both Michael and Juan Pablo ended their races as a result of pushing too hard on tyres with not much grip.

No, even with tyre changes, the driver still has to take care of them if he wants to win!

[backmarker]

That is a theory that has proved to be very wrong!
What I mean is that a driver can take a more aggressive race strategy rather than a conservative one. Michael's 5 championships with Ferrari were due to aggressive strategies, or can't you remember itv commentators creaming themselves with disbelief that Michael can pull out a lead of 25 seconds in 10 laps!!

[RE30B#16]

Because quite plainly everyone could see that he was a genuine race driver and a stand up guy. Which could not be said for Alain who was just weird and intense and bitter and manipulative, apart from that he was a nice guy.

I like that!

Prost had difficulties with several teammates including Rene Arnoux and Nigel Mansell in addition to Senna. Lauda and Rosberg gave him a wide berth at McLaren, and Damon Hill had class.

More to unnerve Prost lovers. These remaks are from a site called ironically www.prostfan.com:

"Alain Prost began his career with Team McLaren, but conflicts of opinion made the French driver to break his two year deal and find a seat in Renault."

"His first victory was all a French driver could dream of, as it was on his home soil in the 1981 French Grand Prix at Dijon while driving a French car. He added 8 more victories during his three full seasons at Renault and was in contention for both the 1982 and 1983 World Championships but conflicts within the team, particularly with teammate Rene Arnoux, and frustration with Renault's inability to solve various technical problems made him return to the British-based Team McLaren."

"With Senna came the powerful Honda engines and a poisonous brew of conflicting personalities. The rivalry between Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna is widely considered the most exciting between two sportsmen, and the most bitter as well, and both were drivers clearly a class ahead of any other."

"In 1991, Ferrari was not on pace. After vocal public criticism of the Italian F1 icon, Prost was fired before the season ended."

"In 1997 he bought the Ligier F1 team and renamed it Prost Grand Prix. Of course, great drivers don't necessarily make great businessmen and so it proved to be with four times world champion Alain Prost."

Unlike, Madonna, Prost is not at all good at using controversy.

The following are the words of Prost himself:

"In the very first pre-season test the did together, in Rio, Prost saw that Senna was emphatically not doing this for the fun of it. "We were tyre-testing, just using one car. I did the first run, and he was then due to take it over. I came into the pits, and the mechanics began to change the wheels. I could see Ayrton there, helmet on, pacing around, waiting for me to get out, so I decided to stay in the car just a little longer. And he got furious, telling everyone, 'It's not fair, it's not fair!' Then I got out, and I was laughing. He was not..."

Prost could be a real stinker sometimes!

"Something else people should remember is that, 15 years ago, there were a lot more very good drivers in F1 than there are now. For sure Ayrton did well from the beginning, but he showed nothing that was truly exceptional before Monaco. Monaco was the thing: after that everyone discovered him, and talked about him. Without that, it might have taken a little longer, but the impressive thing, as I say, was that he looked so good at a time when there were so many top drivers..."

I couldn''t agree more. IMHO, if Schumacher had to deal with Reutemann, Jones, G & J Villeneuve, Prost, Senna, Arnoux, Alboreto, Mansell, Tambay, Lauda, Watson, Laffitte, Berger, Alesi, AND Hakkinen, Hill, Coulthard, Alonso, and Irvine at the same time, he might have won 3 championships max.

Chris

[backmarker]

I couldn''t agree more. IMHO, if Schumacher had to deal with Reutemann, Jones, G & J Villeneuve, Prost, Senna, Arnoux, Alboreto, Mansell, Tambay, Lauda, Watson, Laffitte, Berger, Alesi, AND Hakkinen, Hill, Coulthard, Alonso, and Irvine at the same time, he might have won 3 championships max.

Chris[/quote]

I am not sure what you are talking about. The drivers you have mentioned, some of them are champions, but most are not, and not only that, but did not make that much of an impact in the sport. A champion is always a champion. It is easy to say Schumi would have one only 3, but then Prost should have won 5, Lauda should have won 4, Hill should have won two. Should've, could've, sounds like pub talk...

[Snowy]

I am not sure what you are talking about.

Chris is just saying that if schuey was up against a F1 grid made up entirely of these people during the last 7 or 8 seasons he would not have had the kind of success he has had. Because he is saying these people would all be taking race wins and points and being consistent challengers. He is saying schuey hasn't had to put up with the kind of quality in depth that past champions have had throughout their careers.

This is in all probability a good point, however is it realistic to say that Fisi, Schu jr, Trulli, Rubens, and a host of others are or were really inferior. Perhaps the bar has been raised? But I suspect it has something to do with feeder series and driver funding not producing quality in depth for F1 to thrive on. Added to that there are fewer cars on the grid in F1 today which limits opportunities to place promising drivers, for example Kovi is still test driving! How sane is that? Not very!


PS All of the drivers Chris mentioned made very significant impacts upon F1. Winning a GP is quite an achievement, winning multiple GP's is considered quite significant.

[JayVee]

That is a theory that has proved to be very wrong!
What I mean is that a driver can take a more aggressive race strategy rather than a conservative one. Michael's 5 championships with Ferrari were due to aggressive strategies, or can't you remember itv commentators creaming themselves with disbelief that Michael can pull out a lead of 25 seconds in 10 laps!!

Agressive strategy is one thing, "as aggressive as he likes, tear the car apart" is a lot different and only a few drivers have the ability to push the car to its absolute limit without going over it.

ITV commentators, sorry but I filter their commentary out when watching

[Julian Mayo]

Whilst I agree with a lot of what has been posted the prime example of "great" in my humble opinion, is exemplified by Jack Brabham. A couple of wdc's, a couple of constructors titles, on a miniscule budget. While he was as quick as any of his rivals, his saying was "win as slowly as possible".
A variation, I guess, of "to finish first, first you must finish".
Kimi would do well to take note.