About MS's skills...

They most certainly did. I suggest you read some of the motorsports journalism from that day. Drivers felt the exact same pressure from the media that they do today, with the added effects of living in a life or death situation.

Stewart is as qualified as anyone on this planet, and more so than most, to discuss another driver's skill. He doesn't need to couch his criticism.

 

That's my point... teams have a finite amount of money...

Let's say for example, let's say you have $1 million. And you want to try to ensure a win. Chances are, you'll want to concentrate that money (as well as your people and technology resources) to making sure at least 1 person wins. Suppose you have 1 clear driver that is better than the other and has a much greater chance at winning -- then you can spend your money that way.

If you have 2 equally good drivers, then how would you spend your money? 1/2 to each driver? In the end, that may result in neither one winning because neither one has the support (s)he needs to win. If there was only 1 main driver, then most of the money could go to that driver.

An example is, suppose you have $1000 budgeted to the lottery that occurs once a week. There are 2000 ways to win, and each chance costs $1.

Do you put all $1000 into 1 drawing (hence buying 1000 chances... with 2000 ways to win, you have a 50% chance of winning), or do you buy $500 in chances one week, and $500 chances the next (hence only giving yourself 25% chance to win each week)?

 

F1 doesn't work that way: The reality is a lot more complex than this because drivers come with money and sponsor contracts. You might have to pay more for two top drivers, but you also get more money from sponsors etc.

Some little bird told me that one (if not the) main reason for Alonso switching to McLaren was sponsorship involvement.

Another example is MS: He is basically "free" to the Scuderia as Marlboro picks up his fee.

 

Once again, wrong.

Ask Richard Nixon how antagonistic the press was back in the 1970s. Ask Ted Williams about sports reporters in the 1950s. Take a look at political reporting from the 1800s and tell me that the media is far more antagonistic than ever. If anything, the media is more civil now than it has ever been.

 

This is way off topic, isn't it?

How would you compare that to Clinton? Or any of the Bushes, in particular George W.? A movie was made about bringing down Bush (Fahrenheit 911)? And all the media hype around Clinton? Or Bush? Plus, there are additional channels for this -- there was no internet, email, etc... back then... or cell phones with streaming media (or cell phones at all!) for that matter....

this is once again something that's tough to compare anyway, as technology makes it much easier to get the word out and get it out fast.

Plus, since it's so interactive now, so many sides can immediately fight/argue/debate about how lousy and evil MS is or isn't.

All that in mind, it still looks to me that it's a lot worse now than it could be then....

 

Good point. Maybe it just seems like MS is more dirty than previous drivers because [thanks to modern media capabilities] we can see each and every time he chops someone's nose off at race start, punts someone off the track, blocks someone who threatens his qualy times, etc.

 

The tires are a HUGE factor. Put both of them in exactly equal cars, and Michael will win, "old man" or not. Since that is not possible in F1, the ball is thrown back and forth. Kimi is certainly more error prone than Michael and not as consistent. Alonso isn't quite there either unless he has a superior car, which he no longer has, witness 3 arse kickings in a row until last weekend.

 

So you're saying:

1) it's not possible that the media sensationalizes more than before and to a wider audience and bigger, INTERACTIVE channels

2) no other racer that was considered great EVER punted someone, chopped, or blocked, intentionally or no?

3) the media's technological capabilities haven't allowed us, the viewers, to more than ever see more of races than ever before (i.e. we don't miss much)?

4) the culture today (especially in the U.S.) isn't "wimpier" than older generations (e.g. the need to be PC, not being able to say anything that can be slightly construed as offensive, not being "allowed" to fail children because they'll "feel bad", etc...), where the younger poeple see actions that have been around since the dawn of racing as being more heinous than those before them?

 

Wrong IMHO. Ferrari was far supperior to the rest of the field the last 3 GPs, if were not for te rain they would have been also this weekend. Alonso has demonstrated several times that oin handling tracks he has the edge even with slower cars, and a good example of that has been this race or his first GP win at this same track.

Don't judge so easily, Ferrari/Bridegestone package on dry conditions seems to be right now 1 second faster (if no more) per lap than the rest of the field. Judging Alonso abilities for the last 3 GPs is completly misleading.

On equal conditions I don't think MS will be able to beat Alonso or Kimi, I think both of them are faster than MS. In a full race Alonso is very low on mistakes and very consistent on his laps. Now if you are talking just about one lap or pole, then maybe MS is faster than FA, but even then, on equal conditions I think Kimi will beat MS on a single lap if they had the same car.

Why not? They do it in Ralling with the Rally Masters events. All it is necessary is to get the main pilots to race in a event like that Rally Masters, quite posibly in non F1 cars, maybe in GP2 cars or similar, all with the same car.

- Julio.

 

There is absolutely no way you're going to tell me that the media pressure in the 60s was equal to what we see today. Modern drivers are scrutinized 24/7. Not only is the sheer volume greater, but they have to answer for sponsors, as well. There used to be a more casual approach to the media, since crowds didn't approach the numbers we see today. They had easier access to the drivers, perhaps, but in general the media wasn't as insatiably gluttonous as the modern press.

 

well said. i couldn't agree more.

joseph

 

So what you are saying is that drivers have it tougher today because they face greater media scrutiny when they make a mistake whereas in the old days all the drivers had to worry about was burning to death...

 

So what you're saying is that a driver today doesn't have to worry about burning to death?

 

No, you're the one making this about death-risk. I'm saying that a driver from 40 years ago didn't have every inch of his life micro-analyzed the way a driver does today. That's not unique to racing, it's the nature of being a celebrity of any kind today. The media have eliminated the lines that used to exist behind which popular figures once went about their personal affairs.

Going back to my original point, when a questionable move took place on the track in 1967, it was witnessed by the drivers, whatever fans were seated in that section of the track, and any handful of television viewers, if the race happened to be televised at all. Today, well, I don't need to explain the myriad replays, ESPN, SpeedTV, chatsites such as this, plus any number of subsequent publications that beat the issues into the ground.

You're getting hung up on this issue of burning to death. Another big difference between then and now is that those drivers were gladiators, IMO. Today's breed of driver is usually as much a polished media creation as anything else. I have a greater respect for the bygone era of drivers, but we always tend to romanticize the old days. What is Jackie Stewart's motive for pointing out mistakes? And technically, Bernie Ecclestone is the reason F1 is where it is today. The sport bumbled along for 10 years after JYS' retirement before being steered into the modern age of global sport that it is today.

 

Gilles:

Your points are well taken. My original point was that JYS is certainly qualified to comment on another's drivers propensity to make mistakes. That mistakes are more visible in this era due to wider media coverage is besides the point. Mistakes were particularly glaring in Stewarts day because the repurcussions of driver error were far, far more serious than a few critical jabs by the press.

I don't think that Schumachers errors are being blown out of proportion and that he is no more error-prone than other multiple champions. I happen to agree with Stewart, MS seems to be involved in more incidents than just about any previous champion in the last 20 years, save Nigel Mansell. And even then, Mansell raced cleaner than MS. I can't imagine anyone going wheel to wheel with Schumacher the way Senna did with mansell at (I believe) Estoril. The last time someone tried that, MS drove them onto the grass, I think Alonso was the most recent but even Ralf has had this done to him. MS will run his own brother off the road for a win?!?

MS PR problems stem from the way he chooses to compete, not from the success he ahs enjoyed. I know I rooted for him in his early days. It was refreshing to see new blood come into the sport and immediately mix it up with Senna, Prost and Mansell. But his antics dating back to intentionally running into Hill and JV have soured my impressions of MS. The fact that he now drives for Ferrari has done nothing to alleviate this. I think there are a lot of people here who support MS becuase he is a Ferrari driver, but had he spent his entire career with Benetton/Renault and enjoyed the same degree of success, a lot less contributors here would be on the MS bandwagon.

 

I think with Michael, it boils down to 3 big moments (unless I'm forgetting some):

Australia 1994 vs. Damon Hill
Estoril 1996 vs. Jacques
Monaco 2006 vs. Alonso

And what I really have a hard time understanding is why he felt compelled to pull these stunts. Now, these ignore the lesser issues of team orders (don't necessarily disagree), starting line sweeps (kind of cheap, but he didn't invent the move), his brother (not that there's anything wrong with that!), and random incidents like when he took out Frentzen in Montreal '98 after exiting the pits and lunging into the path of H.H. (only remember that because I was sitting right there).

But for a guy who has all the talent in the world, why would he feel the need to lower himself to such levels on occasion? Save for a couple seasons of dodgy machinery, there was never a time in his career when he couldn't out drive his competition. In a weird way, it's almost a credit to his skill that he was lambasted so hard for these moments. There have been far too many drivers who, in the wake of a wreck, have claimed "Oops" and we never second guessed them. Michael, on the other hand, is too good to pass off these as brain farts.

 

I think it's more about what's good for MS not so much the team. To have an arrangement in which you have two equal drivers fighting for the title is ideal in anyone's book. If MS is truly not scared of any other driver and feels he is the best out there then it shouldn't matter to him who's in the other car. The paring of Senna and Prost even worked for a little while...........

 

To me his move on RB at monaco in 05 was a little questionable too. You forgot Monaco this year in qualifying.

 

who says so? schumi has said many times this past few weeks that he doens't care whose his teammate should he race next season.

 

I agree with you there assuming that the two of them weren't so competitive with eachother that they would hurt each other's chances to win for their own glory instead of working together for the benefit of the team.

It would be very weird if in a race, if Alonso and Schumacher were both vying so hard for first place that they were racing against eachother so hard that one caused the other to crash, or even worse, both of them to crash. I often felt sorry for Barrichelo being second to Schumacher -- having to hold back and block traffic instead of taking a win... (or in some cases, intentionally giving up the first spot!!)

 

That was the "Alonso" one.

 

Lol, gotcha!

 

It wouldn't be weird, it would be great. Anyone rememebering the Senna/Prost years can say it was seriously entertaining. Better than watching one maybe two cars that can win at every race.