54 replies to this topic

[Quiet One]

AleHop, on 28 February 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Being a good driver, being a great driver and being a legend are three different things. Vettel is halfway between good and great. Far from being a legend yet.

This.

The potential is certainly there. He just never had  the option because the car shines too brightly. He needs a Ferrari or worse to ascertain just how much of it is his own genius.

Bah, everything else that was already said is mostly right.

[Autumnpuma]

It's not the number, but the quality. Kinda sounds like 'it's not the size, but how you use it', right? But we all know it's all about the size, right? What does this all mean. I dunno. Too many adverts from a fellow named Max Gentleman in my email, I suppose.

Anyway, in racing it really is the quality of racing that happens in a championship year that makes the champion memorable, not the number of championships. Case in point, Gilles Villeneuve is a legend and hadn't won any championships. Jacques and Hill each won a single championship but cannot hold a candle to Villeneuve sr.

Vettel's first win in a Torro Rosso is far more impressive to me that either of his championships.

[Quiet One]

Autumnpuma, on 28 February 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

It's not the number, but the quality. Kinda sounds like 'it's not the size, but how you use it', right? But we all know it's all about the size, right? What does this all mean. I dunno. Too many adverts from a fellow named Max Gentleman in my email, I suppose.

Anyway, in racing it really is the quality of racing that happens in a championship year that makes the champion memorable, not the number of championships. Case in point, Gilles Villeneuve is a legend and hadn't won any championships. Jacques and Hill each won a single championship but cannot hold a candle to Villeneuve sr.

Vettel's first win in a Torro Rosso is far more impressive to me that either of his championships.

Yes. Further to that: Craig, the usual pitfall there is trying to find a clearcut definition of that "quality", which makes us go to the numbers which brings us back to quantity...

The simplest way is to watch and "feel" (that's the kind of things most Americans with the curious exception of Mike find maddening: not having a thousand statistics around!). No numbers are in favour of Gilles, yet nobody who watched him in his days denied his genius. Piquet as succesful as Senna, yet nobody pays him much attention even now. Schumacher broke every record available and then some, but nobody feels too comfortable saying he was better tham Ayrton, Fangio or even Prost.

Don't get me wrong, numbers clearly need some talent from the driver. But there's a subjective part, some of it very personal (i.e.: "I think Schumi was so much better than Fangio, Ayrton and Prost"), some of it consensuated through ages people agreeing all over the world, all over the years ("Ayrton was better than Piquet", "Gilles was better than Keke Rosberg despite Keke's WDC).

Vettel has the numbers, you could certainly rate him as good as Alonso (both with 2 WDCs) or better than Lewis (with 1 WDC), but the feel that there's something he still needs to prove is there anyways, isn't it? Or look at Jenson: how many people didn't appraise him as much when he won his WDC as they appraise him now, when last year he won nothing?

Don't look for the exact definition. The "feel" is there (mostly)

Then again, I might have got it all wrong.

[yurp]

HandyNZL, on 25 February 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Will he be a good champion? A great? A legend? Lucky he was in the right car at the right time?

It'll always be a subjective judgement, but I tend to think 'legendary' status is never allotted until long after the fact. Vettel will have to wait until he's 60 or so before he knows if he's earned that title.

As for good/great/lucky.

You make your own luck to a certain extent. He impressed at TR and had that fantastic Monza win, so he made a space at RB for himself when DC moved aside. Many TR drivers before and since have not done nearly as well.

Yes he has the good fortune to be driving the car of the field, designed by the brains of the field, but as others have said, he outpaces Webber consistently and does enough to stick his car on pole more often than not. That takes nerve, bottle and consistency when you're doing it on the last run of Q3 week in week out.

Let's face it - he is a truly exceptional talent. To deny such an obvious fact would be fairly mean spirited, no matter how much the finger annoys. When compared with Hamilton, his consistency wins through, when compared with Alonso, the RB makes the difference, when compared with anyone else, I think he simply has the consistent pace during the race and qually performance to beat them.

If he makes it 3 WDC's then I would say he's earned the title 'great'. But that's 'great' not 'greater than X' or 'the greatest' and certainly not 'THE GREATEST ****ING DRIVER IN THE WORLD EVA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

I agree with what Mike and QO say and that's why it's always subjective. I would also like to see Vettel in Alonso's seat and see what he does. I think he'd do pretty well considering he consistently outperformed team mates at TR in the past, to see him in an equally matched car to Alonso would be fun.

EDIT typos

Edited by yurp, 29 February 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[HandyNZL]

HEY! I just posed the questions...led the debate so to speak....wasn't till a post back by me that I actually posted a feeling (that the car performance should be excluded).

But just to make you happy...

Vettel, to me, is very good.  He is knocking on what has historically been a line in the sand that determined the great from the good, that being three championships.  Yes, he could possibly improve on some of his racecraft, and if anyone was paying attention you would have noticed he took a large step between 2010, where he was nudging people out of the way around Melbourne, to 2011, where the times he did need to pass, he did the maneuver cleanly, which was more than you could say for Massa, Lewis, Schumacher etc last year.  Which could only lead one to wonder just where his skill set is going to plateau (he being young and all).

The term legend is generally applied after the fact, or in other words, after the driver has retired, and a generation of drivers and cars has come along after them.  So is Schumacher a legend?  I think so.  He has driven in three era's of F1 - the all-mad-all-screaming-all-engineering days of the early 90's, the V12/10 era that evolved into the rabbit-ear-wearing-get-your-downforce-from-on-top-of-the-car era of the late 90's and early to mid 2000's.  He is now in his third era of very very very refined innovation and flappy rear wings (or is this the tail end of the second era, with the third era the new V6 era?  But will he drive in that?).  He has been able to win, and win comprehensively at times, through two of those era's, and some are still holding out for a win in this, his last era of driving.

(For those keeping up, you'll notice that I am defining era by car formula, not specifically the decade the driver drove in, because all things being equal between the drivers in that each and every one of them has some sort of high end talent (even the buy-a-seat guys), and they all want to win, it is only ever the car that changes beneath them).

So the original question still remains...what will we think of him if he wins a third title...something that is perhaps a 3 to 1 possibility this year.  No one other than Schumacher in the modern era (wings and slicks) has taken three on the trot, and when he did, and even before he did to be honest, he was considered legend, even though the Ferrari was even more dominant than the RB's, and some would say he didn't have a teammate that was allowed to race him (Austria anyone???).

So, if Schumacher is legend, and he takes that mantle for driving qually time laps during races (as does Vettel now), strategised as he raced (as does Vettel now), had a dominant car (as Vetter does now), generally trounced his teammate (as Vettel did in 2011), had a team built around him (as Vettel seems to have - or at least, the future of RBR is being based around Vettel), just what is Vettel?  (finger pointing aside)

[HandyNZL]

Autumnpuma, on 28 February 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

It's not the number, but the quality. Kinda sounds like 'it's not the size, but how you use it', right? But we all know it's all about the size, right? What does this all mean. I dunno. Too many adverts from a fellow named Max Gentleman in my email, I suppose.

Anyway, in racing it really is the quality of racing that happens in a championship year that makes the champion memorable, not the number of championships. Case in point, Gilles Villeneuve is a legend and hadn't won any championships. Jacques and Hill each won a single championship but cannot hold a candle to Villeneuve sr.

Vettel's first win in a Torro Rosso is far more impressive to me that either of his championships.

Legend, noun:   a popular story handed down from earlier times whose truth has not been ascertained

Villenueve Snr dies whilst racing in F1, after showing some good overtakes now and again, and is considered a legendary driver
Many drivers win a single championship, and never get killed, but are considered only lucky/good/right-place-right-time drivers

Aryton Senna dies whilst driving in F1, has three WDC and is considered legend
Alain Prost doesn't get killed driving in F1, has four WDC and is only considered a great (if that)



How say you, Mike?  (and anyone else too, just that Mike brought up Gilles as a comparison and Mike always adds good colour to debates )

[Insider]

If Vettel wins again, what do I think?. Er, F1 is becoming BOOOORING!!!! Seriously, notwithstanding Barcelona, testing so far seems to have thrown up the following:

1. Ferrari are sandbagging. Their headline lap times and race pace are a gnat's whisker shy of Vettel's best, actually.
2. Mercedes are doing very well indeed, though few in the media appear to have noticed
3. Force India have a quick car and a budding WDC in Di Resta.
4. McLaren are at least half a minute to two minutes off RBR's full race distance pace. They must be concerned and I would expect to see a new exhaust layout at Barcelona and perhaps an ugly nose?
5. RBR look supreme............BOOOORING!!!!

[HandyNZL]

Insider, on 29 February 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

If Vettel wins again, what do I think?. Er, F1 is becoming BOOOORING!!!! Seriously, notwithstanding Barcelona, testing so far seems to have thrown up the following:

1. Ferrari are sandbagging. Their headline lap times and race pace are a gnat's whisker shy of Vettel's best, actually.
2. Mercedes are doing very well indeed, though few in the media appear to have noticed
3. Force India have a quick car and a budding WDC in Di Resta.
4. McLaren are at least half a minute to two minutes off RBR's full race distance pace. They must be concerned and I would expect to see a new exhaust layout at Barcelona and perhaps an ugly nose?
5. RBR look supreme............BOOOORING!!!!

We shall have to save this one to pull out at the end of the season and go nur-nur when you got it all wrong for posterity.  

And the 1986 World BMX Champion disagrees with you:

Red Bull remains in front, but McLaren is not too far behind.

That is the view of former grand prix driver Alex Wurz, who in 2012  returns to the Formula One paddock as a ‘driver mentor’ at Williams.

The Austrian kicked off his duties at the Barcelona test recently,  where he drew an initial impression of the likely pecking order for this  season.

“Red Bull is still on top,” he told the Sportwoche magazine, “but not as superior as they were in 2011.

“That it’s McLaren just behind them is remarkable, because they’ve  been too slow for the start of a season for many years,” added Wurz,  predicting a close battle between the two rivals.

Le Mans driver Wurz, 38, sees Mercedes as the third force in 2012:  “They’ve made a step forward,” he said, adding that Ferrari comes next.

Behind Ferrari, he says, are Williams, Lotus and Force India.

Referring to Vijay Mallya’s outfit, Wurz says: “They are really fast  and, for me, they really could be the unknown quantity that could be a  surprise.”

Toro Rosso and Sauber have been setting some good pre-season laptimes, but Wurz thinks both teams “have some problems”.

[BradSpeedMan]

HandyNZL, on 29 February 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

We shall have to save this one to pull out at the end of the season and go nur-nur when you got it all wrong for posterity.  

And the 1986 World BMX Champion disagrees with you:

Red Bull remains in front, but McLaren is not too far behind.

That is the view of former grand prix driver Alex Wurz, who in 2012  returns to the Formula One paddock as a ‘driver mentor’ at Williams.

The Austrian kicked off his duties at the Barcelona test recently,  where he drew an initial impression of the likely pecking order for this  season.

“Red Bull is still on top,” he told the Sportwoche magazine, “but not as superior as they were in 2011.

“That it’s McLaren just behind them is remarkable, because they’ve  been too slow for the start of a season for many years,” added Wurz,  predicting a close battle between the two rivals.

Le Mans driver Wurz, 38, sees Mercedes as the third force in 2012:  “They’ve made a step forward,” he said, adding that Ferrari comes next.

Behind Ferrari, he says, are Williams, Lotus and Force India.

Referring to Vijay Mallya’s outfit, Wurz says: “They are really fast  and, for me, they really could be the unknown quantity that could be a  surprise.”

Toro Rosso and Sauber have been setting some good pre-season laptimes, but Wurz thinks both teams “have some problems”.

and not only him, a million other...

I hope Ferrari is sandbagging, because the criticism they wil receive another another failed attempt will make a anti-Ferrari fan like me wince in compassion, not to mention the heads that will roll...


well, maybe not  

Edited by BradSpeedMan, 29 February 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[Rainmaster]

AleHop, on 28 February 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Being a good driver, being a great driver and being a legend are three different things. Vettel is halfway between good and great. Far from being a legend yet.

Yep!

[Quiet One]

Patrese's comments on Schumi are verry relevant to this thread:

http://www.planetf1....ent-driver-now-

[freaky2]

I can't judge on Schumi's performance but Patrese said it: in the past he could win in a car that was not the best. In the past he could measure up to the guys considered the very best. The ability he had to apply successful strategy to make up for his car's shortcomings (and not once or twice), and the ability to assemble a team who could all work towards the goal he had in mind are a big chunk of what makes Schumi a legend. (If I'm wrong, don't hesitate to laugh, point, and dissect me).
So far Vettel is up to the circumstances. That's quite a feat, but it was his team that recruited him, not Vettel that recruited his team. Their objective is also very straightforward: we are the best, let's keep it up. There isn't the spirit of overcoming difficulties, we're missing that kind of action. Again, he definitely has improved in many respects and he was also very good when he started. But getting all your championships in the best car, against the same competition three years in a row... the story feels the same!

As an aside, it only took a couple of races of watching Kimi start dead last and make it to the podium for me to admire him. Maybe Vettel could intentionally screw up a couple of qualifyings and pull a podium out of the hat. That would convince people

[AleHop]

yurp, on 29 February 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Let's face it - he is a truly exceptional talent. To deny such an obvious fact would be fairly mean spirited, no matter how much the finger annoys. When compared with Hamilton, his consistency wins through, when compared with Alonso, the RB makes the difference, when compared with anyone else, I think he simply has the consistent pace during the race and qually performance to beat them.

Talent is a very interesting subject for 2012. I think there was a thread about it last season. IMO, we have the most talented grid ever with drivers from many different countries, with very different careers, etc. Many WDC, others young but fast...

Problem is talent alone gets you nothing. It doesn't seem to be Vettel's problem but his talent together with a superb car makes an easy equation to solve: WDC. What people are eager to watch is a memorable championship with as many talented drivers as possible driving a competitive car.

That's how people crown their legends. With Raikkonen, Button, Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso and Schumacher fighting it out there would be a new legend crowned by November. 1, 2, 3... 7, 8 WDCs? That's not so important, a rookie could jump from zero to hero.

Edited by AleHop, 29 February 2012 - 10:25 PM.

[Autumnpuma]

HandyNZL, on 29 February 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

HEY! I just posed the questions...led the debate so to speak....wasn't till a post back by me that I actually posted a feeling (that the car performance should be excluded).

That's all well and good, but I would have preferred your honest feelings instead of an attempt to create a debate. Let your honesty create any debate, or not. Be genuine.

HandyNZL, on 29 February 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

Legend, noun:   a popular story handed down from earlier times whose truth has not been ascertained

Villenueve Snr dies whilst racing in F1, after showing some good overtakes now and again, and is considered a legendary driver
Many drivers win a single championship, and never get killed, but are considered only lucky/good/right-place-right-time drivers

Aryton Senna dies whilst driving in F1, has three WDC and is considered legend
Alain Prost doesn't get killed driving in F1, has four WDC and is only considered a great (if that)



How say you, Mike?  (and anyone else too, just that Mike brought up Gilles as a comparison and Mike always adds good colour to debates )

I reject the implication that a driver becomes a legend by dying...and you are down-playing Gilles' racing style to re-inforce your position. Not cool. Death behind the wheel of a racing car never makes one great. There have been a great many drivers that have died in F1 and only a few are considered Legends. It's because of their dynamic driving styles on-track, their ability to go beyond what we think is possible in a car. Prost is just as much of legend as Gilles and Senna. Unfortunately, most people don't see it because his driving style is so subdued. You have to know something about racing to 'grok' him.

It's all subjective but I believe the defining factor is quality of racing, not number of championships or death behind the wheel.

So my position is this: Vettel can win one more or a dozen more championships for all I care. He only raises to the level of Senna, Prost, Gilles, Alesi, Mika, Piquet, Clark, Amon, Bellof (the list goes on) when he puts in an incredible drive or series of drives. Those great drivers exist outside of championships.

[HandyNZL]

AleHop, on 29 February 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

Talent is a very interesting subject for 2012. I think there was a thread about it last season. IMO, we have the most talented grid ever with drivers from many different countries, with very different careers, etc. Many WDC, others young but fast...

Problem is talent alone gets you nothing. It doesn't seem to be Vettel's problem but his talent together with a superb car makes an easy equation to solve: WDC. What people are eager to watch is a memorable championship with as many talented drivers as possible driving a competitive car.

That's how people crown their legends. With Raikkonen, Button, Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso and Schumacher fighting it out there would be a new legend crowned by November. 1, 2, 3... 7, 8 WDCs? That's not so important, a rookie could jump from zero to hero.

Vettel just scraped into his first championship...had to fight it all the way, and only ever had the lead in the points after the flag at the final race.  Is that not a memorable championship?

[HandyNZL]

Autumnpuma, on 29 February 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

That's all well and good, but I would have preferred your honest feelings instead of an attempt to create a debate. Let your honesty create any debate, or not. Be genuine.



I reject the implication that a driver becomes a legend by dying...and you are down-playing Gilles' racing style to re-inforce your position. Not cool. Death behind the wheel of a racing car never makes one great. There have been a great many drivers that have died in F1 and only a few are considered Legends. It's because of their dynamic driving styles on-track, their ability to go beyond what we think is possible in a car. Prost is just as much of legend as Gilles and Senna. Unfortunately, most people don't see it because his driving style is so subdued. You have to know something about racing to 'grok' him.

It's all subjective but I believe the defining factor is quality of racing, not number of championships or death behind the wheel.

So my position is this: Vettel can win one more or a dozen more championships for all I care. He only raises to the level of Senna, Prost, Gilles, Alesi, Mika, Piquet, Clark, Amon, Bellof (the list goes on) when he puts in an incredible drive or series of drives. Those great drivers exist outside of championships.

All due respect, Mike, but not really anyone else around here trying to create a thread to discuss and debate.  Sorry if me starting a thread in such a way has got your undies in a knot.  I hope that comes across as genuine enough for you?

Regards legends and dying and stuff.....

Your legends all appear to be historical drivers, some near modern, but all currently sitting around a cafe table, and not in a c#ckpit.  So this suggests, to me, that you are looking back with some rose tinted glasses?  Hey, we all do it.  So is that what defines legendary?  I mean to say, no one called Chris Amon a legendary driver when he drove for Ferrari.  Nor did they call Gilles legendary whilst he was racing.  So must we wait until their careers are well and truly over, or they are dead?

Dying, too, whilst no doubt tragic, also allows one to romanticise about a driver, that never continued their career until it was in the duldrums and thus eliminated their former deeds from the fans collective memories **, or went on to win five titles.  We can romanticise that Gilles could have won five titles, and thus confirm our belief that he is legendary, because we think he could have done so, even though there is no proof that he may have.  (** Schumachers legend has been tarnished with this "comeback", and that  can not be denied...had he done a Lauda, well, that would be a different  story)

It seems to me, that with your statement "one more or a dozen more championships for all I care" shows a bias against Vettel.  If he did win a dozen titles, then surely, that would be legendary?  Or do we have to exclude him because he is Vettel?

And your statement regarding Prost "Unfortunately, most people don't see it because his driving style is so  subdued. You have to know something about racing to 'grok' him" comes across a little as if only you know a secret about what sort of driver he is, and dismiss everyone else...coming across as a bit arrogant, especially the bit where you say "you have to know something about racing".

At the start of last season you posted that Red Bull would suffer because of the rule changes with the double diffuser, and I, amongst others, said that they wouldn't as they had Newey.  You wanted to know why just stating "Newey" was enough for us to believe that the Red Bull would again be a dominant player...well, we just knew, because it was a gut feeling, a "knowing something about racing"...yet that didn't sit well with you at all.

[Kopite Girl]

If Vettel wins again, what would I think?

He's not going to.

[AleHop]

HandyNZL, on 01 March 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Vettel just scraped into his first championship...had to fight it all the way, and only ever had the lead in the points after the flag at the final race.  Is that not a memorable championship?

Indeed, it was memorable. Vettel was far from being the best driver that season so it doesn't help his cause. He crashed into Webber, he crashed into Button, he looked like a spoilt brat more than any other F1 World Champion. He drove the best car, got all the support from the team (front wing, blame on Webber, etc) and he just won it by a tiny margin. Definitely he won and in some way he rubbed all that out.


Alonso made all kind of mistakes, had all kind of mechanical problems, bad luck and a less competitive car but he achieved a memorable come back with some GPs that will remain in our memory for years to come. He lost and couldn't place himself halfway between a great and a legend but he earned a lot of respect from the F1 people.


That's how I see it, time will tell.

[BradSpeedMan]

AleHop, on 01 March 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Indeed, it was memorable. Vettel was far from being the best driver that season so it doesn't help his cause. He crashed into Webber, he crashed into Button, he looked like a spoilt brat more than any other F1 World Champion. He drove the best car, got all the support from the team (front wing, blame on Webber, etc) and he just won it by a tiny margin. Definitely he won and in some way he rubbed all that out.


Alonso made all kind of mistakes, had all kind of mechanical problems, bad luck and a less competitive car but he achieved a memorable come back with some GPs that will remain in our memory for years to come. He lost and couldn't place himself halfway between a great and a legend but he earned a lot of respect from the F1 people.


That's how I see it, time will tell.

You forgot that Vettel showed some great maturity from Spa onwards and was certainly the best driver the latter half of the season.He could've won all the races from then onwards if it was'nt for bad luck and Alonso sneaking in another inherited win or two...

[AleHop]

HandyNZL, on 01 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

At the start of last season you posted that Red Bull would suffer because of the rule changes with the double diffuser, and I, amongst others, said that they wouldn't as they had Newey.  You wanted to know why just stating "Newey" was enough for us to believe that the Red Bull would again be a dominant player...well, we just knew, because it was a gut feeling, a "knowing something about racing"...yet that didn't sit well with you at all.

They developed a state of the art EBD together with Renault so they gained a lot more than they lost with the new rules. "They have Newey" was a no answer IMO.

They still have Newey and it doesn't mean the new rules won't hurt them more than others. They'll have a competive car but they might lose more competitiveness from 2011 than others.


Can you asure that RB8 will be as dominant as RB7? Certainly it might happen but not just because "they have Newey".

[AleHop]

BradSpeedMan, on 01 March 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

You forgot that Vettel showed some great maturity from Spa onwards and was certainly the best driver the latter half of the season.He could've won all the races from then onwards if it was'nt for bad luck and Alonso sneaking in another inherited win or two...

Brad, inherited wins don't exist, never existed and will never exist.

Stick it in your mind.

[BradSpeedMan]

AleHop, on 01 March 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Brad, inherited wins don't exist, never existed and will never exist.

Stick it in your mind.

Would'nt have been deserving of that 2010 title I tell you ... luckily this did'nt happen but he gained a title with inherited wins in 2005.

Edited by BradSpeedMan, 02 March 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[Autumnpuma]

HandyNZL, on 01 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Your legends all appear to be historical drivers, some near modern, but all currently sitting around a cafe table, and not in a c#ckpit.  So this suggests, to me, that you are looking back with some rose tinted glasses?  Hey, we all do it.  So is that what defines legendary?  I mean to say, no one called Chris Amon a legendary driver when he drove for Ferrari.  Nor did they call Gilles legendary whilst he was racing.  So must we wait until their careers are well and truly over, or they are dead?

Historical drivers? Some of those I listed were contemporaries of the current drivers. All of which, I feel, drove some legendary races, thus earning, for me, the title Legendary despite not having won multiple (or even any) championships. There have been some legendary drives from some of the currently active drivers.

HandyNZL, on 01 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Dying, too, whilst no doubt tragic, also allows one to romanticise about a driver, that never continued their career until it was in the duldrums and thus eliminated their former deeds from the fans collective memories **, or went on to win five titles.  We can romanticise that Gilles could have won five titles, and thus confirm our belief that he is legendary, because we think he could have done so, even though there is no proof that he may have.  (** Schumachers legend has been tarnished with this "comeback", and that  can not be denied...had he done a Lauda, well, that would be a different  story)

It's your opinion that Mikey's legend was tarnished. I'm not sure how you can justify that. His racing was legendary years ago and his performance now doesn't erase history or his great drives of the past.

But notice the bit in bold. Clearly you think being 'Legendary' is a championship title count. I disagree. Our discussion should end there because we wont likely convince each other of our views. If Vettel puts in a legendary drive, he'l rank up there for me. For you, it seems, it's only about championships won.

HandyNZL, on 01 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

It seems to me, that with your statement "one more or a dozen more championships for all I care" shows a bias against Vettel.  If he did win a dozen titles, then surely, that would be legendary?  Or do we have to exclude him because he is Vettel?

I believe I mentioned that Vettel's one win in a Toro Rosso was worth more than some Champion's title(s). Vettel has driven some Legendary drives. His status, for me, is based on those, not his championship tally.

HandyNZL, on 01 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

And your statement regarding Prost "Unfortunately, most people don't see it because his driving style is so  subdued. You have to know something about racing to 'grok' him" comes across a little as if only you know a secret about what sort of driver he is, and dismiss everyone else...coming across as a bit arrogant, especially the bit where you say "you have to know something about racing".

Now who's undies are in a bunch?

Anyway, the context was drivers' racing styles, so I didn't think my use of 'racing' in the next sentence would throw anyone. Guess I was wrong. To clarify, I wasn't suddenly broadening the scope of what I was saying to include the entirety of racing.

But most folks 'round these parts know something of racing and a handful know something about drivers' styles. You included. Not sure why all this 'you're arrogant' stuff is arising. What I said was true: most fans only identify Prost's greatness by his title count, not by his absolutely flawless driving. His beautiful precision of racing line and his absolute control of throttle/brake made him great.

About the only reason I can see for you to start throwing around the 'arrogant' thing is to set up for this:

HandyNZL, on 01 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

At the start of last season you posted that Red Bull would suffer because of the rule changes with the double diffuser, and I, amongst others, said that they wouldn't as they had Newey.  You wanted to know why just stating "Newey" was enough for us to believe that the Red Bull would again be a dominant player...well, we just knew, because it was a gut feeling, a "knowing something about racing"...yet that didn't sit well with you at all.

The difference is, I explained my thoughts and you didn't (at least at first). I always try to explain even my 'gut feelings'. There have been exceptions to that, but they are few and far between.

Too many people just cling on to the popular idea without thinking it through. I like to see that people have at least *some* reason for what they believe. I like to find out who is thinking and who isn't. Makes it easier to tell who I should bother to respond to on this forum. It also makes it easier to tell when I'm being trolled.

Now, have I provided enough 'color' yet? Can I have a cookie?

[Autumnpuma]

AleHop, on 01 March 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Brad, inherited wins don't exist, never existed and will never exist.

Gold.

[HandyNZL]

Autumnpuma, on 01 March 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Historical drivers? Some of those I listed were contemporaries of the current drivers. All of which, I feel, drove some legendary races, thus earning, for me, the title Legendary despite not having won multiple (or even any) championships. There have been some legendary drives from some of the currently active drivers.



It's your opinion that Mikey's legend was tarnished. I'm not sure how you can justify that. His racing was legendary years ago and his performance now doesn't erase history or his great drives of the past.

But notice the bit in bold. Clearly you think being 'Legendary' is a championship title count. I disagree. Our discussion should end there because we wont likely convince each other of our views. If Vettel puts in a legendary drive, he'l rank up there for me. For you, it seems, it's only about championships won.



I believe I mentioned that Vettel's one win in a Toro Rosso was worth more than some Champion's title(s). Vettel has driven some Legendary drives. His status, for me, is based on those, not his championship tally.



Now who's undies are in a bunch?

Anyway, the context was drivers' racing styles, so I didn't think my use of 'racing' in the next sentence would throw anyone. Guess I was wrong. To clarify, I wasn't suddenly broadening the scope of what I was saying to include the entirety of racing.

But most folks 'round these parts know something of racing and a handful know something about drivers' styles. You included. Not sure why all this 'you're arrogant' stuff is arising. What I said was true: most fans only identify Prost's greatness by his title count, not by his absolutely flawless driving. His beautiful precision of racing line and his absolute control of throttle/brake made him great.

About the only reason I can see for you to start throwing around the 'arrogant' thing is to set up for this:



The difference is, I explained my thoughts and you didn't (at least at first). I always try to explain even my 'gut feelings'. There have been exceptions to that, but they are few and far between.

Too many people just cling on to the popular idea without thinking it through. I like to see that people have at least *some* reason for what they believe. I like to find out who is thinking and who isn't. Makes it easier to tell who I should bother to respond to on this forum. It also makes it easier to tell when I'm being trolled.

Now, have I provided enough 'color' yet? Can I have a cookie?

No...but you can have a racing car.... one that is apro-pro for you