>> Or the best, depending upon your point of view. The fact is that
>> almost everybody in the UK at least has heard of Stirling Moss, I'd
>> guess the
> vast
>> majority don't have the first clue who Mike Hawthorn is/was. Maybe
>> "winning" isn't everything after all.
>> I'm assuming by your critisism you meant that stirling lost out by
>> not being determined to win at any cost.
>> F1 champions come and go, a legend like Stirling lives on.
>> Make of that, what you will :o)
>> cheers
>> John
> And anyway, would you rather be as 'famous' as Stirling Moss, or as
> successful as Mike Hawthorn? Be _honest_.
"For Moss the manner in which the battle was fought was as important as the
outcome, and this sporting attitude cost him the 1958 World Championship
when he stood up for rival Mike Hawthorn, who faced a penalty in Portugal
that would, in retrospect, have denied him the points that he needed to
beat Moss. Stirling never for one moment entertained any thought of gaining
an advantage in such a way, and in any case his natural sense of justice
would not have allowed him to see Hawthorn unjustly penalized. So he
stepped forward to defend him. Hawthorn subsequently went on to beat Moss
by a mere point, even though he had only won one race that year to Moss's
four. It was sufficient to make Mike Hawthorn Britain's first World
Champion."
What amazes me, is that you used this as an argument as to how you think
Stirling is the LAST person who should criticize unsportsmanly conduct.
When clearly, it's the perfect argument to why Stirling would be the FIRST
EVERY TIME to speak against race fixing and poor conduct.
As to your question, I'll take the fame, the fortune, the love of my
country and the knighthood over the line in a history book and a gold cup
on the mantlepiece.
cheers
John