Prost has ball, Gilles was intelligent

[angst]

Hello, I'm new to this forum business so I'll apologise for starting my correspondence with a bit of a grumble - especially as I believe it is on an old subject. It regards a couple of comments I noticed while reading through previous threads which I have to take umbrage with. The first one is with regards to an imagined battle between TGF and Alain Prost. One of the comments from somebody called neutral was that Prost wouldn't have the balls to take on TGF. Considering that after testing Tambays 1983 Ferrari TGF stated that he couldn't really push as in the back of his mind was the thought of the dangers if he had a crash in that car, the same safety standards with which the Ball-less Alain Prost won poles, wins, fastest laps etc.
The second was a comment from somebody (I can't remember who) that Jacques Villeneuve was "Gilles with brains" - Gilles won two races in 1981 with a car that was powerful but far, far from the best handling car (as shown by teammate Pironi's speed) by racing two very intelligent well thought out races....when the opportunity was there Gilles would do the business.
So there.
P.S - JUst my opinion, obviously.

[KC]

I guess it all depends on what you think a racer driver should be. Certainly Prost's style was less than flamboyant and seemingly very conservative, but he consistently beat all comers save Senna. Gilles Villeneuve drove like a wild man at times but was still mostly within his limits. The big difference between these two is in strategy. Every other racer knew that Prost would be fast, possibly not fastest, but would most likely win through sheer consistency and excellent pacing. Every other racer knew Villeneuve would be fast, most likely fastest, and could at times totally dominate.

As far as Jacques being somehow smarter than his father, I'm not so sure. The one thing that Gilles would have been able to do was take Eau Rouge and Copse flat out while his son has not been able to pull it off without having a major shunt. Gilles' car control ability was much greater than Jacques has demonstrated especially when conditions get slippery. I do think that the latest breed of F1 cars do not favor a driver who likes to slide his car around the turns as much as the previous slick shod machines did and Gilles may not have been able to beat his son in the BAR with grooved tires. I do think that a driver like Prost would be a hard man to beat in the current machines because they fit his style much better than a super-aggressive racer.

The one thing that I think sets Schumacher apart from some of his peers is his ability to adapt his driving style to fit the car. He is able to turn on extra speed at will and his car control in the wet is as good as Senna's. He is able to increase or decrease his pace with uncanny precision and his on-track strategy is by far the best of all the teams and drivers.

[angst]

I agree with what you say about the cars these days favouring one driving style which, in my opinion, is one of the main problems we have these days in judging driver ability (I believe that in todays cars Gilles would have had trouble pulling an uncompetitive dog of a car, as in 1980, into a competitive position and be able to demonstrate his ability properly). As for MS judging races and changing style to suit conditions you might like to read Alain Prost (quoted on "ask Nigel" on Autosport's site) regarding his views on the sort of races that are run to todays regs.
By the way I'm not an MS hater by any means(though I do question his racing 'ethics' at times) and I believe him to e one of the VERY best talents to have competed in F1. The point of my original posting was that sometimes the past is not always viewed in its fullness and therefore not with the fullest respect. For instance everyone views Gilles (who is, I have to admit, my all time fave) as a wild thug throwing his car around like a lunatic. This is based mostly on his drives throughout 1980, and 1981 to a certain extent. But his wins in Spain and Monaco '81 were won through a combination of his speed (grid position) and tactical racing. And his views on his 1980 season were that its better to be fighting at the front of the field with an uncompetitive car and finishing ninth or wherever than plodding around in an uncompetitive car and finishing ninth or wherever (a view I'm sure Ferraris sponsors agreed with)

[EERO]

Welcome aboard, angst. You make some keen points and we look forward to your continued presence.

Your comments about a driver's abilities and style adapting to the cars of an era brings to mind some interesting thoughts. I'm convinced that Alesi's very obvious loss of form is due to the precision that the current cars demand, and I suspect that Hakinnen's success over the past three seasons is due to the match of his precise style to the current batch of cars.

But I agree with you, no matter what he is driving, our ethical buddy MS will be fast.

[angst]

Thanks for the welcome EERO, I agree with you completely about Alesi, the sad thing being (and that was the point I was making about Gilles) that everybody thinks Alesi is a chump. But in any other era regardless of how competitive the car was a driver of Alesi's skill could still have shown how good he was by grabbing the thing by the scruff of the neck and blow everyone away with some stunning performances. I really think it is incredibly difficult to judge drivers talents with the cars as they are currently.

[Roy2]

That comment about Prost being short of the necessary balls is uninformed, to put it charitably. He won 4 world championships, 51 GPs, and more points than anyone. Think of what he would have done if he had any guts. No, like all great drivers he had loads of courage, brains and technical sense. Had he and TGF had met anywhere near Prost's prime, Prost would have put more heat on him than any of his current rivals. It would be a question of whether The Shoe could stand the heat or not.

When I first began to watch him he was not known as the Professor. He was actually regarded as being somewhat accident prone. I recall Nicki Lauda saying he'd like to see the 1984 Prost versus Senna in qualifying, that Prost in his opinion took hair-raising risks to put his McLaren at the sharp end of the grid. But he had the brains and the technique and quickly matured into the Professor, the master of all the variables available to a driver in the turbo era, and the strategies and tactics needed to win then.

He never lost a drop of blood in the car. He'll live to dandle his grand children on his knees. If he only had more balls maybe he'd be a dead legend instead of a living one.

[Roy2]

Re my post above: Sorry - mistake prone not accident prone.

[Liz]

I agree with most of the above although I think Jacques is "Gilles with too much caution" - that is, he stops to think about what will happen if he does A or B, where Gilles just DID it and if it worked, good, and if not, next time he would try it a little differently and get it more nearly right.

But the one thing that both Gilles and Alain had that TGF does not and never will is - they were honorable men. Neither of them deliberately risked other peoples' careers, not to mention their lives, in a cold-blooded attempt to win a race at any cost. Mario Andretti said once that although Gilles would sometimes scare the life out of him, he could count on Gilles never to come across him or put any life at risk but his own. Prost always drove well within himself and the one thing he hated most about Senna was the way Senna would have literally killed someone (preferably his teammate) to win a race. Perhaps this is a different kind of champion - the kind who puts winning above living. But Prost and Villeneuve are the sort of racers I admire - and the sort of human beings as well.

[EERO]

Liz, you'll get no debate from me on that one.

[downforce]

Didn't Prost go into a race planning to take Senna out?

[angst]

No, Prost went into the chicane at Suzuka sick of Senna's "move over or we crash" attitude and decided on this occasion not to be muscled out of the way.
Liz, I agree completely, you put it wonderfully - honorable men.

[Liz]

We need more honour among men and women in all sports.