Thread: Sir Stirling Moss retires at last

Originally Posted by D-Type

Well, for a start you said

I have asked you to clarify by saying exactly what Sir Stirling said.
Once you have clarified that, we will possibly be able to move on to some of the other opininions you have expressed but have not substantiated.

Here, have a read:
Moss slams Schumacher | Sky Sports | Formula 1 | News
Moss, of course, is ignoring the fact that most champions in history have won the title because they have been in the right car. That doesn’t belittle their achievements though like Moss is trying to do to Schumi with comments like these. He had the best car because he pushed the Ferrari team to build that car. He kept them motivated and had a team that worked for him because they knew he would deliver on track. As I said, he broke his balls and earned those titles. You don’t’ win 7 WDC by luck, you win it by sheer determination and skill.

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Here, have a read:
Moss slams Schumacher | Sky Sports | Formula 1 | News
Moss, of course, is ignoring the fact that most champions in history have won the title because they have been in the right car. That doesn’t belittle their achievements though like Moss is trying to do to Schumi with comments like these. He had the best car because he pushed the Ferrari team to build that car. He kept them motivated and had a team that worked for him because they knew he would deliver on track. As I said, he broke his balls and earned those titles. You don’t’ win 7 WDC by luck, you win it by sheer determination and skill.

The word "luck" or "lucky" does not appear anywhere in that article. I agree totally with you that a driver should not normally be considered "lucky" to be in the right car at the right time. Team owners aren't stupid - they want the best drivers they can get. Likewise drivers aren't stupid - they know how good they are and where they fit in the pecking order. The result is that generally the best drivers appear in the best cars. Luck doesn't come into it.

But to dismiss Sir Stirling's whole career as you are doing on the strength of his comments that Schumacher's statistics are misleading and possibly flattering is, shall we say, a rather extreme response.

Off the top of my head I can think of many competitive team pairings: Caracciola and Lang, Ascari and Farina, Fangio and Moss, Clark and Hill, Stewart and Cevert, Andretti and Peterson, Regazzoni and Lauda, Lauda and Prost, Mansell and Piquet, Prost and Mansell, Prost and Rosberg, Prost and Senna, Hamilton and Button, etc. But you won't find "Schumacher and ....." anywhere.

Had Moss said that Schumacher was lucky not to be disqualified for some of his on-track actions, I think there would be a grain of truth.

As to your assertion that as he never won a championship his opinions don't merit consideration - it does not even merit a response.

Originally Posted by D-Type

The word "luck" or "lucky" does not appear anywhere in that article. I agree totally with you that a driver should not normally be considered "lucky" to be in the right car at the right time. Team owners aren't stupid - they want the best drivers they can get. Likewise drivers aren't stupid - they know how good they are and where they fit in the pecking order. The result is that generally the best drivers appear in the best cars. Luck doesn't come into it.
But to dismiss Sir Stirling's whole career as you are doing on the strength of his comments that Schumacher's statistics are misleading and possibly flattering is, shall we say, a rather extreme response.
Off the top of my head I can think of many competitive team pairings: Caracciola and Lang, Ascari and Farina, Fangio and Moss, Clark and Hill, Stewart and Cevert, Andretti and Peterson, Regazzoni and Lauda, Lauda and Prost, Mansell and Piquet, Prost and Mansell, Prost and Rosberg, Prost and Senna, Hamilton and Button, etc. But you won't find "Schumacher and ....." anywhere.
Had Moss said that Schumacher was lucky not to be disqualified for some of his on-track actions, I think there would be a grain of truth.
As to your assertion that as he never won a championship his opinions don't merit consideration - it does not even merit a response.

I’m going to not bother replying to this properly because I’m only going to be repeating everything I said in this thread a couple of times already. Stirling Moss "lucky" comment is quoted there by another user too in this thread. If you want the answer to the questions you pose in this post then go back and read the thread from start to finish and read it properly this time.

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

I’m going to not bother replying to this properly because I’m only going to be repeating everything I said in this thread a couple of times already. Stirling Moss "lucky" comment is quoted there by another user too in this thread. If you want the answer to the questions you pose in this post then go back and read the thread from start to finish and read it properly this time.

But, luck or lucky does not feature in the article to which you supplied a link. Luck and lucky appear in the OED, but that is not what you referred to, and the comment made by D-Type was in direct reference to your link, which did not contain the lucky quote.

Originally Posted by D-Type

But you won't find "Schumacher and ....." anywhere.

In both Herbert and Verstappen, Micky had good opponents, but as soon as that became apparent, their ability to use that talent was snuffed out from within the team by not sharing setup info etc.

More th>n?

Originally Posted by SGWilko

But, luck or lucky does not feature in the article to which you supplied a link. Luck and lucky appear in the OED, but that is not what you referred to, and the comment made by D-Type was in direct reference to your link, which did not contain the lucky quote.

Yes, however, if D-Type looks through the thread he'll find the quote to which I refer. I couldn't be bothered looking for it when it has already been quoted. Also, I never said that the world luck or lucky was in that link. I simply stated that someone can't be lucky to win 7 WDC. That was in reference to something else Moss said, which, as I say, has already been quoted and I'm not going to repeat myself again. The debate isn't that important to me

Nigel Roebuck responds to the kind of points made by The Black Knight in his latest Q&As:

The fuss about Stirling