Opinions & Scribes

Scribes have opinions, even those third or fourth-rate ones like me. This is why we are usually scribes in the first place, since we put pen to paper - or fingertips to keys these days - and record either the events of the world around us or our observations concerning those events. Some scribes are like cameras and record as literal a word picture of what is happening as it happens as is possible. There are the scribes that are generally known to one and all as journalists. They focus on and dwell in the moment, submit articles to newspapers and other periodicals on contemporary issues and subjects.

Then there are scribes which create something we now refer to as "instant history." They can be journalists attempting to place recent events into a larger context or telling a story in more depth. The scribes who create "instant history" produce their works on contemporary subjects with little passage of time to see or feel the second, third or even fourth order of effects that an action or actor might have on the grand scheme of things.

Then there are the scribes whose labors are the products of what might be loosely termed "true history." This might be best described as works which focus on subjects or actions which are often not likely to be remotely considered as "current events," even if some of the effects of that action or events set in place by that actor affect the current scheme of things.

Which is where the business of opinions come into play.

In the very grand scheme of things in the Halls of Clio, motor sports history is but the merest of motes in Clio's eye. I think it is safe to say that there is not a chair for motor sports history at any university or college with even the most remote of national or international renown. Motor sports history is simply an element of the publishing world versus that of the academic world.

In the academic world, especially Clio's Domain, opinions tend to be present even despite the efforts of many to repress, suppress, eliminate, or minimize them. This is due to Clio's Acolytes, the historians, being flesh and blood human beings and possessing all the failings thereof. Even in the best and most authoritative of histories that historians produce, opinion enters the picture since decisions must be made as to what should be included or not, how an event should be portrayed, and so forth and so on. Decisions must be made and even the most gray, unemotional, and dullest of historians has an opinion on these weighty matters, that opinion being a considered opinion, one based upon a broad range of factors. These factors include knowledge of the context, the multiplicity of issues shaping and being shaped by the event or actor, and that sense of proportion that comes with an intimate familiarity of the material.

Which begs the question of exactly what might this all have to do with a fourth-rate hack like me. Opinions are not always based solely on some visceral, emotional embrace of a viewpoint. This seems to be the approach which many in the motor sports world seem to embrace opinions. Recalling that there really isn't any foundation of generally accepted or shared body of knowledge in motor sports history, opinion is the real ruler of the rudderless notion we call motor sorts history.

Given that the focus of motor racing in any form is focused - indeed, intensely focused - on the Here and Now, it should be no surprise that motor sports history is generally an activity of a relative few scribes for an audience whose interests scarcely reflects that of the vast majority of those with an interest in motor sports. However, somewhere between two and three decades ago there was a significant increase in the interest of motor sports history. This was the result of two very different groups having their interests overlap, converge, or perhaps collide.

One of the groups which emerged was as the result of the growing interest in historical racing cars as investment commodities. This group was composed of those who were looking for newer and more lucrative ways to increase their personal wealth, the actual commodity being less important than its ability to create more wealth. This group was distinct in most ways from an earlier group who collected cars because they had both the financial wherewithal to do so and the interest. This group was less interested in the idea of the cars as commodities and more interested in the cars themselves, especially in the cars as individual machines, especially their histories.

Another group that gets tossed into the fray is the group that was perhaps a subset of the last mentioned group, but had an interest that included racing the cars since that was what they were designed to be used for, not sit about on display in a museum or someone's garage. This group has grown significantly in recent years.

Lastly, there was a group of those whose interests were in asking questions about motor sports and finding that they usually had to dig for those very answers themselves, or found that there was a few out there who could answer those questions. Any sense of commonality as far as inclinations, interests, or background of this group seems to simply not exist. At some point they emerged as something besides just a few odd-balls here or there and many began to dig up information and present it that while generally not of very much interest to most others other than in passing, often sparked an interest to join in the digging by others.

This last group, from which many of the scribes who toil in the tiny vineyard that Clio set aside for motor sports emerge, are naturally intermingled with the other groups on many occasions. Those in the earlier mentioned groups with the finances often have the resources available to either commission or themselves create books on various marques or subjects that benefit the last group. That the last group often lacks the necessary funds to purchase those books is somewhat irrelevant to the other groups since their interests - those with the money - are usually not only relatively narrow, but one of the true purposes for these rather expensive and lavish books is to legitimize and establish the credentials of the machines being peddled.

So, just what does this all have to do with scribes and opinions? That this whole business - note the term - of motor sports history is scarcely without its faults. Some "facts" are established and formed in response to the notion, "What do you want the answer to be?" Not very many "facts" were created this way to be sure, but once again the human element plays a role.

Informed opinion, a notion mentioned earlier, is difficult to quantify or even explain in most cases.

As one amongst the lowest levels of the genus scribe, tend to be a bit more up front and blunt about my opinions, informed and otherwise. Some drivers, teams, series, and so forth and so and on I have just never warmed up to for whatever the reason. Some things I simply enjoy without any real inclination to dig too deep or become too involved into their past. Some series I may only have a limited interest in, perhaps only a period of time in which a driver or team competed; or there might be an interest in a particular circuit.

One of the drivers, for example, for whom I never seemed to find a particular warm spot for is Bobby Unser. Why? Beats me a week from Sunday as to why. I certainly don't dislike him or wish to cast a pox upon his house. I liked him as a driver, have always enjoyed his commentary on television, and when I met him enjoyed talking with him. He never committed a heinous act which would cause me to cast scorn his direction - being a Novi driver is a great Plus in his column, in fact - or offended me or whatever else might usually trigger a rather lackluster acceptance of someone who was perhaps one of the more talented Americans to ever sit in a racing car. Even as I write these words I am more than a bit baffled by this.

On the other hand, there are some drivers I actually seem to think very highly of and which many others seem to denigrate and belittle at any and every opportunity. Among these is Damon Hill. Whereas even today very few seem willing to run counter to the prevailing opinion and say something nice about Hill, I thought he was quite a bit more than a Racer than most were willing to admit, openly or otherwise. The usual thinking that he was lucky to fall into the Williams ride and only did well since he was in the best machine. I have always thought that there was far more to Damon Hill than met the eye. That so few others seem to have accepted or noticed that is a bit baffling to me.

Then there are those considered opinions which are the result of shifts which took place over a period of time and wound up being rather different than what have otherwise been anticipated. Nigel Mansell and Ayrton Senna da Silva - or simply Ayrton Senna as he chose to refer to himself after his first few seasons - both ended up being considered far from the original notions and opinions I held about them. Some of the reasons might certainly be a part of both the changing nature of motor sports and my own approach to motor sports.

Of the two, my personal disappointment was the greatest with Senna da Silva. Something about the move to McLaren in 1988 and being the teammate to Alain Prost brought out more of the darkness in his nature. Senna da Silva suffered much at the hands of the press in the early days of 1986 when he rejected the adding of Derek Warwick as his teammate at Lotus when Elio de Angelis departed for Brabham. I thought it was pretty silly stuff and dismissed it as just the sort of thing that happens when some folks have way too much time on their hands.

The celebrated - infamous to some - incident at the chicane at Suzuka with scarcely a half dozen laps to go in 1989 was, in my opinion, a racing incident. All the talk about Prost "slamming the door" or "deliberately" running into Senna da Silva and therefore "behaving in an unsporting matter" was complete nonsense at the time and is utter nonsense now. Senna da Silva simply tried to fit his car into a gap that was just that wee bit too small for his McLaren. As a Racer, Senna da Silva had an instinctive urge to go for it, even if it was bit less of a gap than he wanted, but with the laps running out and few opportunities on the track to pass, One Does What One Has To Do. That he was later disqualified for cutting the chicane just floored me at the time and still does. I still think, to this day, that it was a decision with some very questionable logic behind it, much as I did at the time.

I never had an ill thought about Senna da Silva and the resulting collision with Prost at Suzuka, and the same of Prost. These things happen in racing, even with the best of them. I was becoming more and more unsettled in my own mind as to what to think about Senna da Silva. Denis Jenkinson raved and cheered about him at every opportunity. Until 1988, frankly so did I. However, the aftermath of the incident at the chicane at Suzuka in 1989 led to a stormy aftermath.

Senna da Silva and the President of the Federation Internationale de Sport Automobile (FISA), Jean-Marie Balestre, seemed to lock horns and it became a contest of wills between the two towering egos over matters big and small, but usually very petty and calculated to infuriate the other. Then came Suzuka 1990 and The Incident. It was an absolute shock to see both of the cars of Prost and Senna da Silva go flying off the track at perhaps 150 mph or more, especially with a full grid of cars hot in pursuit.

That Senna da Silva was able to convince no end of people to accept his contention that it was an accident and basically the fault of Prost for not leaving enough room, despite the evidence to the contrary, is evidence to his utterly convincing skills as a passionate speaker and his actual possession of a quality often spoken about but rarely held, charisma.

A year later at Suzuka, during what became a most memorable press conference, Senna da Silva openly admitted that he had indeed pushed Prost right off the track, in part because the FISA - in the form of Balestre - refused to move the pole position to the "clean" side of the track. Therefore, Senna da Silva took matters into his owns hands and ensured that the championship was his.

My very much considered opinion at the time was that this was one driver for whom I had little use.

As for Mansell, he was such a Drama Queen at times and that became rather annoying. Added to that was his role, not much noted at the time by most but certainly by me, of taking the focus of the Newman Haas team away from Mario Andretti in such a way as to leave Andretti boiling and then making the decision to depart from CART at the end of the 1994 season, Mansell also departing at the end of the season much to Andretti's surprise (and disgust). This does not mean that Mansell was not an excellent driver, just that at some point personal bias enters the equation and in this case as a negative factor. The same could be said for Senna da Silva.

My opinion, considered or otherwise, as to the current state of Formula One is scarcely one that should be a surprise to most: I simply don't think very highly of it. It has become something that I have little real interest in - much less any true passion for. I also don't care very much for some forms of music or certain public figures. I am also of the opinion that Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia is the best ice cream currently available on this Earth.

So, as at best a fourth-rate scribe, my opinions really don't matter very much. My considered opinions obviously fall into the same category. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered, just that often folks don't like to have to deal with opinions that might run not only counter to theirs, but many others as well when it comes to certain subjects.

Scribes are like that at times.

Contact the Author Contact the Editor