Greatness.... or not

[Pup]

Are we really arguing the definition of 'great'? There's a race this weekend, so surely we should save such a debate for mid-january, when the forum can devote full attention to it.

Brawn has obviously been a valuable part of more than one successful organization. He's well respected on pit lane and I don't think anyone is going to argue that he's all hat and no horse. Maybe x will, but he does that. Whether casting his shadow over a front wing adds a half point of downforce is, I think, in question; but surely it would be of more use to rank his worth among current team principals, and not those plucked from F1 past.

Perhaps a separate topic on the relative technical knowhow, managerial skill, height, weight and shoe size of Brawn and Chapman (and Flavio) is warranted?

[GitanesBlondes]

zeph-

I've posed this question about Brawn's "greatness" to a number of people over the years. You know what every single response has in common? No one can actually tell me. Many have claimed to me he is great, but providing proof of it has become a tall order.

He's successful yes, but great? That's another story altogether.

Let me give an example. I'm going to make 2 lists of "greats" in F1 past and present. One list is drivers, the other are those who were technical designers/team managers. It's also no means all-inclusive.

Drivers
-Fangio
-Clark
-Senna
-Prost
-Schumacher
-Stewart
-G. Villeneuve

Technical/Managers
-Ron Dennis
-Bruce McLaren
-Mauro Forghieri
-Gordon Murray
-Colin Chapman
-John Barnard

Those men were great at what they did. They all redefined how people viewed drivers, car design, and management.

I'm afraid Ross with his successful career, has not redefined anything in F1.

[zeph]

Whether casting his shadow over a front wing adds a half point of downforce is, I think, in question;

=D>

Brilliant! You're alright, dude.

[xpensive]

F1 is no different than life outside in this one important regard; "It's not know-how as much as know-who"

In Bicester back in 1977, this milling machine operator made a for the business most important friend.

I rest my case. Dude.

[zeph]

Many have claimed to me he is great, but providing proof of it has become a tall order.

Right. Since greatness is not a quantifiable metric by any standard, providing supporting evidence becomes an exercise in persuading others to agree on just where to move the goalposts.

[FoxHound]

Like I said in my first post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Brawn

I think his record speaks for itself. I don't know how to define greatness, but he certainly has been extremely successful.

You have shown his team record. Which is impressive.
But how do you attribute his contribution to the team as a whole?
I'm not interested in splitting ball hairs over the definition of greatness.
I'm more interested in what he does that makes a difference, if you follow?

If we look at records as a way of distinguishing greatness, there is a huge flaw.
Nicky Butt won 6 premier league titles 3 fa cups and a european cup amongst other honorable achievements.
Yet Alan Shearer has 1 premier league title and is the very definition of a great.

Shearer did more than Nicky Butt ever did, and thats not to belittle Butt.
The difference is they had a huge variation in the personnel they worked with.

So my question remains, lets ascertain what Brawn physically did to get his records, rather than focus on the records. Because here, those records are not speaking for themselves.

[Manoah2u]

Many have claimed to me he is great, but providing proof of it has become a tall order.

Right. Since greatness is not a quantifiable metric by any standard, providing supporting evidence becomes an exercise in persuading others to agree on just where to move the goalposts.

+2.

I'll repeat what i said before because it seems to be pointed at deaf's ears instead of read the way it was intended;
Colin Chapman was a great. Adrian Newey is a great. Ross Brawn is a great.

I never ever said Ross Brawn equals Chapmans' greatness in any way, neither do I think Newey is as great as Chapman.
Chapman being greater then Brawn does not make Ross NOT a great.

I mentioned before and i agree to zeph's direction to what you can clearly find in the wiki article, and i've mentioned
the awards handed to Brawn aren't because he's not a great - it's because he DID do great. Again, he was paramount
in the Schumacher-Ferrari success era, he brought success with Benetton and he brought success with BrawnGP - for which he got several awards. There's your greatness right there. If not turning a mediocre honda works team of years before into a championship winner which was on the verge of completely collapsing and spooning in a different engine is great, then
there can't be held any discussion here.

Instead, in a monkey p**p-throwing contest some supposedly 'illegal' stuff and supposed 'friend politics diffuser-gate' are thrown into the subject trying to smear Ross? Like I said, nobody,s without flaws, and go ahead go as simple as wiki Chapman and you'll find the forementioned delorean scandal in which Colin would have gotten a 10-year sentence.

I never said Ross was an angel. But he earned his place in F1. And now it's suddenly Jean Todt? tell me, what has Jean Todt done recently, as FIA-president? If you look at that, Mosley and Ecclestone certainly were 'greater'.........but you see, that's
bringing in an endless futile discussion.

because as simple as this:

Many have claimed to me he is great, but providing proof of it has become a tall order.

vise versa could also be pointed out: providing proof he ISN'T great is a tall order aswell.

I'm glad others can read and understand though.

his record speaks for itself.

there you have it.

i guess fanboyism and haterism aren't saved just for the drivers.........

[GitanesBlondes]

As I already stated, I kept what I said to the realm of F1, something you still cannot - which is why the DeLorean issue has no bearing on this discussion.

You're incapable of providing any real proof of anything otherwise Manoah. You think repeating the same garbage ad nauseum somehow makes your point valid which it does not. Citing honorary doctorates, OBE's, and Wiki entries as de facto proof is hysterical to no end.

Try providing some facts to convince me of Brawn's supposed lofty achievements. I'm also certain you're not going to do that because...well...it's kind of hard to provide evidence where none exists.

[GitanesBlondes]

Many have claimed to me he is great, but providing proof of it has become a tall order.

Right. Since greatness is not a quantifiable metric by any standard, providing supporting evidence becomes an exercise in persuading others to agree on just where to move the goalposts.

Actually all one has to do is look at the list of achievements that guys like Chapman and Barnard had as an example.

You know....things like the monocoque....the semi-automatic gearbox in F1...the CFC chassis....etc.

[Helios]

Let me give an example. I'm going to make 2 lists of "greats" in F1 past and present. One list is drivers, the other are those who were technical designers/team managers. It's also no means all-inclusive.

Drivers
-Fangio
-Clark
-Senna
-Prost
-Schumacher
-Stewart
-G. Villeneuve

No Lauda? No Rindt? What a poor list.

[Manoah2u]

the DeLorean issue has no bearing on this discussion.

neither does your brawn smearing campaign.

ou're incapable of providing any real proof of anything otherwise

you seem incapable of giving the sh*tcampaign a rest in demanding proof of something you don't agree with.
so you don't think of ross as a great. good for you. other people think otherwise. if you think otherwise, you
are the one to provide evidence he isn't not the other way around.

repeating the same garbage

guess how many times you repeat your garbage?

Try providing some facts to convince me of Brawn's supposed lofty achievements. I'm also certain you're not going to do that because...well...it's kind of hard to provide evidence where none exists.

again, provide some facts why brawn is NOT great. sure, his honorary doctorates aren't evidence enough that he has
achieved great things. tell me, how many OBE's has your local mechanic recieved?

i suggest you'll take read here:

http://grandprix247.com/2010/11/27/in-d ... oss-brawn/

but you know what, if you won't give it a rest, then so be it, i could care less. we agree to disagree.
you clearly value your own opinion higher then anything anybody else states, so there's no future in discussing this
when all you hear is yourself.

In your fashion, you could redicule anything to be quite honest. Schumacher isn't great because he has his titles thanks to his buddy barrichello. Vettel isn't great because he got a good car thanks to newey. Newey isnt the great, pomodrou is.
Pomodrou isn't, newey is. So Newey has several rewards and achievements, that doesnt proof anything. thats your logic and i'm not joining in on it.

thank you.

[Manoah2u]

Many have claimed to me he is great, but providing proof of it has become a tall order.

Right. Since greatness is not a quantifiable metric by any standard, providing supporting evidence becomes an exercise in persuading others to agree on just where to move the goalposts.

Actually all one has to do is look at the list of achievements that guys like Chapman and Barnard had as an example.

You know....things like the monocoque....the semi-automatic gearbox in F1...the CFC chassis....etc.

again, Colin chapman achieving 'greater' things then Brawn does not mean Brawn isnt a great.

Sinche vettel achieved way more then alonso, does that mean alonso isn't a great?

[Manoah2u]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Brawn

I think his record speaks for itself. I don't know how to define greatness, but he certainly has been extremely successful.

To dismiss the fact that he was there for every single one of Schu's WDC's and attribute that solely to Todt/Byrne is ludicrous.



Manoah2u's point was crystal-clear to me, and it does appear to me that people are taking his post apart just for the hell of it.
He did not compare Brawn directly to Chapman or Newey. In the same sentence he mentioned drivers as well, so it was obvious he was talking about great F1 characters in a broader sense. Not sure why others want to sidestep the larger point just to take something out of context and bitf--k the s--t out of it.

thank you. it's not that hard, really.

[Manoah2u]

another small but interesting read.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/ross- ... -4878.html

trained as an engineer, quit his day job in the field of atomic research.
entered straight into the realm of Formula One, starting from the lowest level possible as a milling machine operator.
became a technician under Frank Dernie's research and development department, where he learned the basics of aerodynamics. became an aerodynamicist working in Williams' own aerodynamic tunnel. was offered a job as chief designer by the Arrows F1 team. managed to design two mildly successful cars for Arrows. he A10B managed to finish fourth in the 1988 World Formula One Championship. got him in the scope of Tom Walkinshaw, established a design center, which would go on to produce the state-of-the-art Jaguar XJR-14. The ground-breaking car managed to win the 1991 Sportscar World Championship. (surely, that was nothing, and no evidence of greatness).Walkinshaw bought a share into the Benetton F1 team and appointed Brawn as the team's technical director. Having this position in the Benetton Formula meant that he was in charge of just about all the team's technical aspects
With Brawn at the helm of the technical department and Byrne designing the cars, Schumacher managed to win both the 1994 and 1995 Formula One Championships. When Schuey moved to Ferrari in 1996, a lot of key-people from Benetton followed along. Among them were both Byrne and Brawn, who was to play a pretty important role in assembling a winning team over the years. stayed as a technical director at Ferrari from 1996 until 2007, during which time the Scuderia managed to win quite a hefty number of races, Constructor Championships and, of course, Driver Championships.
Ross Brawn has proved that he can be good at just about any imaginable job as long as it involves racing cars.

- mind you, this article was DURING the 2009 F1 season, which Brawn achieved the Championship.

need more? or still too cocky to accept Ross as a 'F1 Great'.

Now if i said Martin Whitmarsh was a 'great' you'd have all the right to completely doubt my sanity or why i would even dare mentioning him. Whitmars is a good guy, I'd say anybody being team principle in a F1-top-team is concidered a 'good' guy, especially in the high-tech saturated world of F1 today. But i didn't mention martin for a reason.

[GitanesBlondes]

*whoosh*

Right over your head.

Still no proof of what it is that Brawn brought to the table. I've already told you what makes a great technical mind by listing achievements that redefined the entire sport when they came about. Brawn's Mercedes tenure exposed him for what he really is.

That Auto Evolution link is a joke since it repeats the same stuff that the Wiki does.

I'm going to give you some advice that you will certainly ignore, but when citing "examples", make sure they actually have something of value to say. If I had used those examples when writing papers in graduate school, I would have been laughed out of the classroom and given a failing grade for using something so flimsy.

At the end of the day all you're left with is your opinion. The one which you can't even make a convincing case for.

My condolences.