This month's F1 Racing Magazine ''The top 100 drivers as voted by you''

hamilton 15th best ahahahahahaa

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Originally posted by BiH
I prefer this list. The number of WDC tells you all you need to know.

1. Michael Schumacher
2. Juan Manuel Fangio
3. Alain Prost
4. Ayrton Senna
5. Jackie Stewart
6. Niki Lauda
7. Nelson Piquet
8. Jack Brabham
9. Alberto Ascari
10. Jim Clark
11. Graham Hill
12. Emerson Fittipaldi
13. Mika Häkkinen
14. Fernando Alonso
15. Damon Hill
16. Mario Andretti
17.Keke Rosberg
18. Nigel Mansell
19. James Hunt
20. Kimi Räikkönen
21. Alan Jones
22. Nino Farina
23. Mike Hawthorn
24. Phil Hill
25. John Surtees
26. Denny Hulme
27. Jochen Rindt
28. Jody Scheckter
29. Jacques Villeneuve

I vote for this list, although I'd vote Senna in first place and Schumacher in second place. The rest is OK.

damon hill 15th??????? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



one of the the best threads ever, tears rolling down myc heecks of laughter.

Originally posted by Risil


C'mon, asking Sean to go through a whole chapter on Senna without repeatedly mentioning Schumacher would be like having Rambo go easy on Viet Cong. Sure, it would be a novelty, it might even be more socially acceptable, but what are you left with? Just some muscle-bound, troubled hero, shorn of the thing he loves.

SenValen´s article on Fangio and Senna had:

8 mentions of Schumacher
6 mentions of Senna
0 mentions of Fangio

;)

Originally posted by BMW_F1
My top 5,

Senna
Clark
Prost
Fangio
Shumi

Shumi, cannot be up there with the top guns, because most of his career he had a dominant car and always a weak teammate.

Fangio too spent most of his time in best/dominant cars, and won one of his titles when Peter Collins (Fangio´s teammate and de facto championship leader after Fangio retired from Italian GP) gave up his car - and thus, championship - to Fangio. Make no mistake about it, there were #2 drivers in the past as well, no matter how hard history buffs try to justify it with "respect" and "tradition". Can you imagine the outrage if Schumacher/Barrichello did the same?

Originally posted by Spunout


Fangio too spent most of his time in best/dominant cars, and won one of his titles when Peter Collins (Fangio´s teammate and de facto championship leader after Fangio retired from Italian GP) gave up his car - and thus, championship - to Fangio.

Had Collins not done that Fangio would still have been champion. It's an indication of the real worth of the title at the time - Collins thought Fangio would be a better bet for Ferrari to win the Italian GP, he couldn't catch Moss in the Maserati.

Fangio was a smart cookie and made friends with the mechanics, there was a time when they swapped his car with Bonetto's because of a problem, but Fangio made his mark at a time when he should have been past it by winning races in substandard cars. There was a reason why Fangio was a number one and that's because he WAS number one. If you wanted to show you were better, you could buy his car and race him...

Originally posted by ensign14

There was a reason why Fangio was a number one and that's because he WAS number one. If you wanted to show you were better, you could buy his car and race him...

Which is no different to MS. Ferrari didn't give him preferential treatment because they had a fetish for Germans or big chins; they did it because they knew damn well which basket to put their eggs in.

Originally posted by SeanValen



It's more subjective then that, there's more to Schumacher's career then his tally of titles, he did so many great drives, that if retired at the end of 2000, when he completed his mission to win with ferrari, he still would be up there with the best, because up until then, Michael was especially very driven. He didn't need to be the most successful driver to prove his driving skills, he already did that, no one was asking many questions of him, but winning with ferrari was important to him. When you think of Schumacher, you think of Spa 95, Hungary 98, Japan 2000, Spain 96, Spain 94-stuck in 5th gear to 2nd etc

The performances of a driver that impressed people. There's alot more quality in Jim Clark's career then say Mika Hakkinen, Jim Clark just was better, yet they both had titles, Even if you never saw Jim Clark race, if you read up on his career, what people said about him, his peers, what Senna said about him, you will put him alongside Schumacher, both were wet weather masters, especially great at Spa, it's more subjective then titles. Titles tell you that perhaps, you needed to be a bit lucky to stay alive and be in the right era to win the titles, I think Schumacher was born in the right era to get his titles, Senna and Roland died so he and others could continue, it's sad, but that's life, not Schumi's fault, someone had to play the tragic figure, it was Ayrton, Jim Clark was the leader of his generation, like Senna, died young, but did many impressive performances, he was quick in eveything, he was the first Schumi, born though in a dangerous era, I wouldn't of wanted to be foruming back in the 60s, every year or so almost a driver was dead.

Schumacher and Jim Clark, different eras. but great great talent. Titles are overatted to a extent when comparing different eras so further apart.

When the Formula One of today has gotten rid of tracks like Suzuka, the real challenge for the sport is making sure drivers are tested with rules and venues that allows them to showcase their talent, I don't think current f1 shows it as well as it should, the return to slicks in 2009 is a good move. The points system also these days is something that must be changed back to reward the winner more, it's changed the value of wins, and that's not right.

Excellent post Sean.

Originally posted by ensign14


Fangio was a smart cookie and made friends with the mechanics, there was a time when they swapped his car with Bonetto's because of a problem, but Fangio made his mark at a time when he should have been past it by winning races in substandard cars. There was a reason why Fangio was a number one and that's because he WAS number one.

As pointed out by Group B, this is 100% match with typical article by eg...Schumacher fan. I guess 50 years from now Schumacher will be glorified like Fangio. Nothing wrong with preferential treatment, cuz he earned it. Great team builder and all that. Austria? Nice gesture by Rubens to salute the best of the best. Dominant cars? Let´s forget that and focus on few races MS won with inferior car, instead.

Originally posted by Spunout


As pointed out by Group B, this is 100% match with typical article by eg...Schumacher fan. I guess 50 years from now Schumacher will be glorified like Fangio. Nothing wrong with preferential treatment, cuz he earned it. Great team builder and all that. Austria? Nice gesture by Rubens to salute the best of the best. Dominant cars? Let´s forget that and focus on few races MS won with inferior car, instead.

When was the last time MS won with an inferior car? The last time remember is 2005 in Indy. Although only because all the Michelin teams pulled out.

Who said anything about "the last time"? Or are you so obtuse as to suggest MS never won with an inferior car? Anyway, it's all moot; Spunout was simply making the point that glasses get evermore rose tinted as the years pass.

Those lists are becoming annoying, because most people have never seen Fangio and Clark race. There is no way of saying who was better, just who was more dominant relatively to the drivers who competed against him. The 'more dominant driver' was always Fangio.

For those who did not see him manhandle an almost gripless rocket in fast curves at 250 km per hour, closely followed by Moss (a little rougher and less precise but perhaps more spectacular) Fangio's talent remains meaningless.

Originally posted by WOOT
From here. (credit to weirdNumber)
http://forum.planet-...=63168&start=0

1) Ayrton Senna
2) Michael Schumacher
3) Juan Manuel Fangio

....Same old, same old. Who really gives a **** anymore about these "best driver" lists? Yes Senna is a legend, yes Shumi was good, Clark was the most effortless talent, but who is better than who...? -Bring back the dead, make them all the same age and put them all in E30 M3s on an annual track calander including Long Beach, Old Spa, Clermont Ferrand, Nordshleif, International brands...you get the picture. Even then we still probably couldn't decide.

Originally posted by thiscocks



....Same old, same old. Who really gives a **** anymore about these "best driver" lists? Yes Senna is a legend, yes Shumi was good, Clark was the most effortless talent, but who is better than who...? -Bring back the dead, make them all the same age and put them all in E30 M3s on an annual track calander including Long Beach, Old Spa, Clermont Ferrand, Nordshleif, International brands...you get the picture. Even then we still probably couldn't decide.

I don´t think anyone is seriously suggesting a top 10, 20, 100, list is relevant. It is fun though and that´s relevant.

Blinkered, dumb, ignorant cretins.

Moss - where's Moss?

Lists? Any such list composed in ignorance is worthless. Any such list comparing drivers from different periods is an utter waste of time. Any list combining both is complete *%$!

DCN

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Blinkered, dumb, ignorant cretins.

Moss - where's Moss?

Lists? Any such list composed in ignorance is worthless. Any such list comparing drivers from different periods is an utter waste of time. Any list combining both is complete *%$!

DCN

Please, Doug, don't hold back! Tell them how you really feel!

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Blinkered, dumb, ignorant cretins.

Moss - where's Moss?

Lists? Any such list composed in ignorance is worthless. Any such list comparing drivers from different periods is an utter waste of time. Any list combining both is complete *%$!

DCN

Of course Doug, as you might well have guessed, I´m in my seventh heaven not having to read Moss´s name in the top 20.

For me, the list would include the following drivers 1950-present, in no particular order (except alphabetic) :

- Ascari
- Clark
- Fangio
- Lauda
- Prost
- Schumacher
- Stewart

No Moss because he did his utmost to win the WDC, despite his claims, and hadn't succeeded. No Senna because he wasn't a driver but a wrestler on the track.
In fact, those are the only seven drivers that really left their mark for decades to come.
After them we could talk about the second league (and it's a compliment!) :

- Brabham
- Farina
- Hawthorn
- Moss
- G. Hill
- Fittipaldi
- Senna
- Piquet
- Alonso

Then the third one:

- P. Hill
- Surtees
- Hunt
- Andretti (purely as a F1 driver)
- Scheckter
- G. Villeneuve
- Jones
- Rosberg
- Mansell
- Häkkinen
- Räikkönen


The question marks still hang over Rindt and J. Villeneuve. Hamilton....there's plenty of time to judge him (I admit it's a nice way to say "who the f*** is Lewis Hamilton?" :-)). He still has a lot to do before he could be "classified". The same for the rest of today's drivers.

Rating drivers like items for a shopping list is really pointless.

(For me, it's pretty obvious MS is the best one though.)

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


****ing hell, who doesn't win without a dominant car? It's like you guys are intentionally stupid sometimes.

I'm guessing you're having a slow day to be posting in this thread.

I do not agree with those who put the old drivers above the current ones.

Nowadays, to be an f1 driver you have to defeat a lot of other very talanted and trained drivers than in those old days when just a bunch of privileges could compete in motor racing.
As in any other sport. As time goes by, the level increases by obvious reasons, so whom now reachs the top level reaches a better level than whom reached it before.

Raw talent is nothing itself and can not be analyzed alone.

Originally posted by GiancarloF1

(For me, it's pretty obvious MS is the best one though.)

Perhaps because you watched him race and not the others?

Originally posted by juandiego
I do not agree with those who put the old drivers above the current ones.

Nowadays, to be an f1 driver you have to defeat a lot of other very talanted and trained drivers than in those old days when just a bunch of privileges could compete in motor racing.
As in any other sport. As time goes by, the level increases by obvious reasons, so whom now reachs the top level reaches a better level than whom reached it before.

Raw talent is nothing itself and can not be analyzed alone.

That is not quite true. Fangio was not a privileged boy, neither were many others. And today it is also very useful to have money to get into F1. In the old days sponsorship was nothing of great importance.

On the other end, in the old times, drivers had to contend with death and fear. In order to be a great driver it greatly helped to be a man, not a boy. Nowadays I'm not so sure.

Originally posted by Spunout




SenValen´s article on Fangio and Senna had:

8 mentions of Schumacher
6 mentions of Senna
0 mentions of Fangio

;)

I didn't have time to go back and edit it, believe you me, when I get time, I'll like to do justice to more drivers, I perhaps shouldn't even have menstioned Fangio, since I forget to write a part on him. No need to make a big deal out of it Sir, If I had time to write a book on these drivers, I would rather get that published then use my best stuff on a forum, it just is a huge topic to cover, couldn't please everyone..

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer


Excellent post Sean.

Originally posted by PassWind


Yeah we get it, you read a book about Clark and think he is neat, enough already.

In front he was sublime, under pressure he wasn't and he also managed to kill himself racing. Some find it distastful but I put some merit in surviving as well.

Do you know the exact reasons why Jim Clark died? I find your comments disrespectul to a legend and his era.

And regarding under pressure, I want you to explore that comment and explain fully with quotes, descriptions of the races and incidents that made you include that. Then I want you to explore Clark's strengths, which he certainly had some, but if you don't have time for that, but can sneeze a comment about surviving, I pitty your lack of spiritual respect to the legend.

Originally posted by RSNS


That is not quite true. Fangio was not a privileged boy, neither were many others. And today it is also very useful to have money to get into F1. In the old days sponsorship was nothing of great importance.

On the other end, in the old times, drivers had to contend with death and fear. In order to be a great driver it greatly helped to be a man, not a boy. Nowadays I'm not so sure.

drivers in the Fangio era had to have some lose screws to get on those cars.

Originally posted by Spunout


As pointed out by Group B, this is 100% match with typical article by eg...Schumacher fan.

Not really.

Fangio was a gentleman.

Hi guys, I've not posted on this board for a while, and certainly not in my new role as Features Editor of F1 Racing. (In a previous life, I was the vociferous bpl of Renault fame/notoriety).

Thanks for such opinionated feedback on the feature (especially to Doug!!). Bob Lutz always says about new cars that violent opinions are to be valued, as it means people love it or hate it; indifference is a bad sign. On that scale, I think we've just about cracked it ;)

If you don't agree with the artifice of a top 100 list, that's a perfectly reasonable position but it doesn't invalidate the process for others: just like if you don't enjoy cricket, it doesn't make the game worthless. If you want to engage with the exercise, then disagreeing over the content of it is best done over a glass or two of your favourite tipple, among friends, I've always found - and in the spirit in which it was all intended.

Of course, it's a purely academic discussion, trying to compare drivers across eras; but that's the fun of it too, the whimsy, speculation and personal preference. All you need to do is look up and down the list of comments on this thread: some lament the absence of Moss (Doug again!) while others suggest we should just have used the table of title wins (on which he doesn't figure at all). Who's right, who's wrong? And who's to say?

What we do know is that the list was compiled thanks to the votes of nearly 1500 people; it's not just three of us sat in Haymarket towers, amusing ourselves on a quiet Friday. So there's some representation of what our community of readers thinks - and that was the whole point, to let the readers vote for their 100 greatest F1 drivers. After all, general elections are called on the basis of smaller polls than this one!

The feature is intended as a bit of fun - a provocative, slightly tongue-in-cheek invitation to talk about who was great in our wonderful sport, and why. Personally, I was simply delighted to see Eddie Irvine crop up at number 69; and I'm sure he was too!

Doug, would your opinion change if Moss was considered simply as an F1 driver, not as a racing driver in overall terms? Where would you place him?

I simply ask because for somebody from my generation, it's very hard to appreciate his genius. Yes he was versatile, committed, professional and everything else but as a pure F1 driver, how great was he? Better than Fangio, whom he himself says was better than him? Thank Clark? Than Senna? Impossible to judge I know, but give it a try! It would be fascinating to find out.

BTW, was the list composed in 'ignorance'? And if so, who are the guardians of 'knowledge'? It seems like the only ignorance is that of people who have passion, expressing their preferences; who are we to say they're 'ignorant' or not? Along with the odd daft brush who voted for Sakon Yamamoto, of course...

BBTW, for those who think Hamilton's inclusion is a little high up the list, this is the top five Sir Stirling gave us on the phone:

Fangio
Clark
Brooks
Senna
Hamilton

I can't print what he said about Michael!!

Not to lick ass too much, but I was reading the Kovalainen thing in the April issue. As I was reading, I was wondering who was the one who wrote it, it was very balanced and well done, something not very F1 Racingish. Therefore I wasn't expecting to see Windsor as the author but I went to see who it was, and then I saw "Bradley Lord"
Well, good luck with it.

Originally posted by bradleyl

I can't print what he said about Michael!!

Oh, PLEASE do.

Originally posted by PassWind

In front he was sublime, under pressure he wasn't and he also managed to kill himself racing. Some find it distastful but I put some merit in surviving as well.

Firstly, no one ever, "killed" themselves racing. They died as results of accidents. There is a profound difference which perhaps you don´t understand.
Secondly, it is widely believed both Clark and Senna died as a result of mechanical failure, as did countless others. How does this fit in with your merit awards, pray do tell?

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer

Firstly, no one ever, "killed" themselves racing. They died as results of accidents. There is a profound difference which perhaps you don´t understand.
Secondly, it is widely believed both Clark and Senna died as a result of mechanical failure, as did countless others. How does this fit in with your merit awards, pray do tell?

Well, one reason people have accident is because they don't fare well under pressure. As for "widely believed", are you saying they would never ever make mistakes?

I happen to be in firmly Doug's corner on this one.

I have a long memory that stretches back to the middle of the Fifties when it comes to racing. I saw Ascari, Moss, Fangio, Hawthorn, Collins, Schell, Behra, Hawthorn, Phil Hill, Brooks, and Musso and so forth and so on at places such as Reims, Torino, Monza, Spa, the Nurburgring, Aintree, Silverstone, Le Mans (keep in mind that in those days the grand prix boys also did sports cars), Zandvoort, Porto, and so on. I also saw Clark, Brabham, McLaren, Graham Hill, Surtees, Gurney, and that group as well as Rindt, Andretti, Fittipaldi, Peterson, Hunt, and so on from that group. However, I also saw Roberts (Fireball and Kenny), Lund, Lorenzen, Ward, Jarrett, Weatherly, Johnson, the Unsers, Petty, Foyt, Pearson, the Allisons, Turner, Jones, Donohue, and so forth and so on. I could also mention Gendebien, Gregory, Hulme, Parsons, the Bakers, Rosberg, Johncock, and a few others such as that.

I have no clue who might have been the best of those I saw -- everyone has "Their Day" just as there are days when nothing goes right, but people such as Moss, Fangio, Clark, Andretti, Gurney, Foyt, Brooks, Petty, Turner, and Donohue always seemed to be "right up there" as they say.

Tommy Milton, Jimmy Murphy, Tazio Nuvolari, Achille Varzi, Rudi Caracciola, Bernd Rosemeyer, Hermann Lang, Lois Chiron, Dario Resta, and J-P Wimille are just a few of the many names that ar generally ignored when readers or panels compile these "top" or "best" lists.

Heavens, I was even roped into several of those horrid lists that Motor Sport got so taken with seven or eight years ago. I always cast votes for whatever or whoever could be guaranteed to be ignored by the others.

Any way, I have actually seen drivers from a number of different eras and read and studied extensively those from even earlier eras. The basics remain the same, but the conditions vary so much that it is complete nonsense to think that any realistic, meaningful comparisons can actually be made.

As for the person who wrote, "In front he was sublime, under pressure he wasn't and he also managed to kill himself racing. Some find it distastful but I put some merit in surviving as well," words fail me at just how little you truly know about Clark and his era. Yes, there are many young, brave soldiers, but many more old, not-so-brave soldiers. It is often more a matter of circumstances than anything else. Oh, Clark could tiger from behind, contrary to what you might believe. He did it more times you can imagine -- mostly because you have blinkers only and fail to realize that CLark raced in many other forms of racing than grand prix (what formula 1 used to be commonly referred to as) events.

Oh, the point about mistakes is that today you walk away from them. Mistakes were not always of the driver's making -- mechanical gremlins being commonplace then. Plus, the margin for error was less than razor thin in many cases. Had Clark's crash happened at any number of other places, the consequences would have been dramatically different. A different world.

Mr. Bradley, yes, those utter wastes of time are all in good fun, but wouldn't be more interesting to spend a few inches of print once in awhile to discuss why some of those named from the deep, dark, obviously forgotten Past still resonate years later?

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I happen to be in firmly Doug's corner on this one.

I have a long memory that stretches back to the middle of the Fifties when it comes to racing. I saw Ascari, Moss, Fangio, Hawthorn, Collins, Schell, Behra, Hawthorn, Phil Hill, Brooks, and Musso and so forth and so on at places such as Reims, Torino, Monza, Spa, the Nurburgring, Aintree, Silverstone, Le Mans (keep in mind that in those days the grand prix boys also did sports cars), Zandvoort, Porto, and so on. I also saw Clark, Brabham, McLaren, Graham Hill, Surtees, Gurney, and that group as well as Rindt, Andretti, Fittipaldi, Peterson, Hunt, and so on from that group. However, I also saw Roberts (Fireball and Kenny), Lund, Lorenzen, Ward, Jarrett, Weatherly, Johnson, the Unsers, Petty, Foyt, Pearson, the Allisons, Turner, Jones, Donohue, and so forth and so on. I could also mention Gendebien, Gregory, Hulme, Parsons, the Bakers, Rosberg, Johncock, and a few others such as that.

I have no clue who might have been the best of those I saw -- everyone has "Their Day" just as there are days when nothing goes right, but people such as Moss, Fangio, Clark, Andretti, Gurney, Foyt, Brooks, Petty, Turner, and Donohue always seemed to be "right up there" as they say.

Tommy Milton, Jimmy Murphy, Tazio Nuvolari, Achille Varzi, Rudi Caracciola, Bernd Rosemeyer, Hermann Lang, Lois Chiron, Dario Resta, and J-P Wimille are just a few of the many names that ar generally ignored when readers or panels compile these "top" or "best" lists.

Heavens, I was even roped into several of those horrid lists that Motor Sport got so taken with seven or eight years ago. I always cast votes for whatever or whoever could be guaranteed to be ignored by the others.

Any way, I have actually seen drivers from a number of different eras and read and studied extensively those from even earlier eras. The basics remain the same, but the conditions vary so much that it is complete nonsense to think that any realistic, meaningful comparisons can actually be made.

As for the person who wrote, "In front he was sublime, under pressure he wasn't and he also managed to kill himself racing. Some find it distastful but I put some merit in surviving as well," words fail me at just how little you truly know about Clark and his era. Yes, there are many young, brave soldiers, but many more old, not-so-brave soldiers. It is often more a matter of circumstances than anything else. Oh, Clark could tiger from behind, contrary to what you might believe. He did it more times you can imagine -- mostly because you have blinkers only and fail to realize that CLark raced in many other forms of racing than grand prix (what formula 1 used to be commonly referred to as) events.

Oh, the point about mistakes is that today you walk away from them. Mistakes were not always of the driver's making -- mechanical gremlins being commonplace then. Plus, the margin for error was less than razor thin in many cases. Had Clark's crash happened at any number of other places, the consequences would have been dramatically different. A different world.

Mr. Bradley, yes, those utter wastes of time are all in good fun, but wouldn't be more interesting to spend a few inches of print once in awhile to discuss why some of those named from the deep, dark, obviously forgotten Past still resonate years later?

Originally posted by RSNS


That is not quite true. Fangio was not a privileged boy, neither were many others. And today it is also very useful to have money to get into F1. In the old days sponsorship was nothing of great importance.

In reality 99% of them were privileged boys. First of all, they were born in countries where racing was popular enough. Today somebody from Finland or Poland can move to F1 - without rich parents and all that. Back then chances of travelling to England or Italy weren´t great. Eg most Finns were too busy making sure they had food to eat and house to live in. Guys like Mika and Kimi had no chance in 50s or 60s. These "in the old days, anybody could race" rosy stories are utter BS. Very few were in position to even try. It´s amazing how often questioning people leads to answers like "well, to tell you the truth my dad had this racing garage and he knew some people...". Today lots of kids can at least go for junior karts, even if things become considerably more difficult from there. Sponsorship is must, but it can be gained by less wealthy youngsters as well. Certainly lots of talent gets dropped along the way (sometimes/often because of financial reasons), but when you have thousands and thousands of candidates going for 20+ seats, that happens.

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I happen to be in firmly Doug's corner on this one.

I have a long memory that stretches back to the middle of the Fifties when it comes to racing. I saw Ascari, Moss, Fangio, Hawthorn, Collins, Schell, Behra, Hawthorn, Phil Hill, Brooks, and Musso and so forth and so on at places such as Reims, Torino, Monza, Spa, the Nurburgring, Aintree, Silverstone, Le Mans (keep in mind that in those days the grand prix boys also did sports cars), Zandvoort, Porto, and so on. I also saw Clark, Brabham, McLaren, Graham Hill, Surtees, Gurney, and that group as well as Rindt, Andretti, Fittipaldi, Peterson, Hunt, and so on from that group. However, I also saw Roberts (Fireball and Kenny), Lund, Lorenzen, Ward, Jarrett, Weatherly, Johnson, the Unsers, Petty, Foyt, Pearson, the Allisons, Turner, Jones, Donohue, and so forth and so on. I could also mention Gendebien, Gregory, Hulme, Parsons, the Bakers, Rosberg, Johncock, and a few others such as that.

I have no clue who might have been the best of those I saw -- everyone has "Their Day" just as there are days when nothing goes right, but people such as Moss, Fangio, Clark, Andretti, Gurney, Foyt, Brooks, Petty, Turner, and Donohue always seemed to be "right up there" as they say.

Tommy Milton, Jimmy Murphy, Tazio Nuvolari, Achille Varzi, Rudi Caracciola, Bernd Rosemeyer, Hermann Lang, Lois Chiron, Dario Resta, and J-P Wimille are just a few of the many names that ar generally ignored when readers or panels compile these "top" or "best" lists.

Heavens, I was even roped into several of those horrid lists that Motor Sport got so taken with seven or eight years ago. I always cast votes for whatever or whoever could be guaranteed to be ignored by the others.

Any way, I have actually seen drivers from a number of different eras and read and studied extensively those from even earlier eras. The basics remain the same, but the conditions vary so much that it is complete nonsense to think that any realistic, meaningful comparisons can actually be made.

As for the person who wrote, "In front he was sublime, under pressure he wasn't and he also managed to kill himself racing. Some find it distastful but I put some merit in surviving as well," words fail me at just how little you truly know about Clark and his era. Yes, there are many young, brave soldiers, but many more old, not-so-brave soldiers. It is often more a matter of circumstances than anything else. Oh, Clark could tiger from behind, contrary to what you might believe. He did it more times you can imagine -- mostly because you have blinkers only and fail to realize that CLark raced in many other forms of racing than grand prix (what formula 1 used to be commonly referred to as) events.

Oh, the point about mistakes is that today you walk away from them. Mistakes were not always of the driver's making -- mechanical gremlins being commonplace then. Plus, the margin for error was less than razor thin in many cases. Had Clark's crash happened at any number of other places, the consequences would have been dramatically different. A different world.

Mr. Bradley, yes, those utter wastes of time are all in good fun, but wouldn't be more interesting to spend a few inches of print once in awhile to discuss why some of those named from the deep, dark, obviously forgotten Past still resonate years later?

Good post

Fisichella's position in 91th behind the likes of Salo, Verstappen, Vettel or Sato is the nadir of this ranking.

People also seem to have forgotten JP Montoya and Ralf Schumacher and their Williams heroics against Michael few years ago. JPM was only two engine woes away from his WDC in 2003.

Horrible list overall, even for a popularity contest. One more reason for not buying F1racing.

Originally posted by GiancarloF1
JPM was only two engine woes away from his WDC in 2003.

ummmmm no...

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Originally posted by GiancarloF1

Horrible list overall, even for a popularity contest. One more reason for not buying F1racing.

Why blame F1Racing for the public's vote?

Originally posted by WOOT


Why blame F1Racing for the public's vote?

How was their poll conducted? Were their readers given a full list of all the drivers and ask to rank them 1-100?

Originally posted by bradleyl
...

BBTW, for those who think Hamilton's inclusion is a little high up the list, this is the top five Sir Stirling gave us on the phone:

Fangio
Clark
Brooks
Senna
Hamilton

I can't print what he said about Michael!!

Then I can only say that Moss is an idiot. He may be the most versatile driver ever and it was a travesty and demeaning to the concept of WDC that he never won it. But an idot nevertheless.

As to the concept of this list being 'validated' by the fact that 1500 people voted. Purleeeeaze......... Even you guys can't be that stupid.

(whoa, is this a boring Tuesday morning at work, or what? )

Originally posted by Jason

How was their poll conducted? Were their readers given a full list of all the drivers and ask to rank them 1-100?

I'm pretty sure I saw some time ago that they advertised for a reader panel of whom they could ask questions of to get the 'public opinion'. So I don't know how representative that would be, as surely the public in this case have been self-selecting....and may not be demographically representative overall.

I think you nominated your favourites and they added up the votes, which explains the bemusing Sakon score.

It's a chicken and egg thing really.

Hi Don, great point about the names from the long forgotten past. I've always found the best book on the topic was William Court's "Grand Prix Requiem", a really haunting elegy to those young, brave soliders you mention. There's no doubt that the heroics of those days gone by were breathtaking, and I've always loved learning about them myself (especially the very, very early stuff when they were driving carts with engines at unimaginable speeds). The drivers you mention as being neglected were not eligible because, as the feature makes clear (who's actually read it?!), only F1 drivers (1950 onwards) were considered. We're F1 Racing, after all. The idea you mention is a fascinating one, exploring the people from the past; but probably an article for Motor Sport rather than F1 Racing, I'd have thought, given our respective foci.

As for your point about bravery, it's exactly the one Stirling Moss made - that speed used to be a combination of skill and bravery; now, you only need skill because the bravery element of the equation has been almost entirely eliminated. And that's a very powerful argument against the whole idea of a list indeed. But as I've already said, we know that...

I'd also argue, though, that much of this is a question of generations; I think we all have a 'sweet spot' in our interest in racing, no matter how much we research other eras. There are very few people who saw Moss racing in his prime, who are still close to F1 and able to comment with authority on current drivers; equally, many of the people in the sport now, don't know about the less well-known names from the past. That's inevitable, but I don't necessarily agree that age is always synonymous with wisdom and insight; I've seen too many people's views skewed by their (unfair) disenchantment with modern F1 to think it's as simple as that. And I think that, if we believe as you wrote that "the basics stay the same", there's probably some basis for comparison... after all, some guys had their day (Schumacher or Stewart) a lot more often than others (Alesi or Peter Gethin).

Chiara, the reader panel certainly is self-selecting, yes. It's composed of readers of the magazine, who are interested in racing. I think that's more likely to produce good results than a straw poll on the street given the sport's relative 'niche' status and it also allows us to poll internationally rather than nationally. But once again, just to reiterate the point, it doesn't pretend to be the ultimate definitive list, simply the 100 Greatest Drivers, voted for by our readers. There's no suggestion that this "validates" the vote because the notion of valid/invalid is redundant; that's simply the question of whether or not you agree with lists of this kind, reformulated.

As for Jason's question, the methodology is explained in the magazine.

Originally posted by pasadena
For me, the list would include the following drivers 1950-present, in no particular order (except alphabetic) :

- Ascari
- Clark
- Fangio
- Lauda
- Prost
- Schumacher
- Stewart

No Moss because he did his utmost to win the WDC, despite his claims, and hadn't succeeded. No Senna because he wasn't a driver but a wrestler on the track.
In fact, those are the only seven drivers that really left their mark for decades to come.
After them we could talk about the second league (and it's a compliment!) :

- Brabham
- Farina
- Hawthorn
- Moss
- G. Hill
- Fittipaldi
- Senna
- Piquet
- Alonso

Then the third one:

- P. Hill
- Surtees
- Hunt
- Andretti (purely as a F1 driver)
- Scheckter
- G. Villeneuve
- Jones
- Rosberg
- Mansell
- Häkkinen
- Räikkönen


The question marks still hang over Rindt and J. Villeneuve. Hamilton....there's plenty of time to judge him (I admit it's a nice way to say "who the f*** is Lewis Hamilton?" :-)). He still has a lot to do before he could be "classified". The same for the rest of today's drivers.

I agree with most of your list, but you surley can't list senna as a 'second league' driver! And for the reasons you move Senna to the second league, why is Shumi still in the first league??? Slighlty contradictory.

Originally posted by WOOT

Well, one reason people have accident is because they don't fare well under pressure.

Well, that´s only one reason. There are many, many more reasons why accidents happen. The whole idea of racing is to go as quickly as humanly possible without making a mistake, and no one yet has managed to remain error free. If a driver were to only make one mistake in his career, and die as a result, would that make him a bad driver?

Originally posted by WOOT

As for "widely believed", are you saying they would never ever make mistakes?

No (read above), I said "widely believed" because, although mechanical failures are thought to have caused both accidents, to my knowledge it has never been conclusively proven. In Clark´s case, the car veered off what was, for a F2 car at the time, a practically straight road, and in Senna´s case the video is there for all to see. He appears, for no apparent reason, to suddenly go straight on half-way around the corner, which would make a steering or suspension failure the most likely cause.

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I happen to be in firmly Doug's corner on this one.

I have a long memory that stretches back to the middle of the Fifties when it comes to racing. I saw Ascari, Moss, Fangio, Hawthorn, Collins, Schell, Behra, Hawthorn, Phil Hill, Brooks, and Musso and so forth and so on at places such as Reims, Torino, Monza, Spa, the Nurburgring, Aintree, Silverstone, Le Mans (keep in mind that in those days the grand prix boys also did sports cars), Zandvoort, Porto, and so on. I also saw Clark, Brabham, McLaren, Graham Hill, Surtees, Gurney, and that group as well as Rindt, Andretti, Fittipaldi, Peterson, Hunt, and so on from that group. However, I also saw Roberts (Fireball and Kenny), Lund, Lorenzen, Ward, Jarrett, Weatherly, Johnson, the Unsers, Petty, Foyt, Pearson, the Allisons, Turner, Jones, Donohue, and so forth and so on. I could also mention Gendebien, Gregory, Hulme, Parsons, the Bakers, Rosberg, Johncock, and a few others such as that.

I have no clue who might have been the best of those I saw -- everyone has "Their Day" just as there are days when nothing goes right, but people such as Moss, Fangio, Clark, Andretti, Gurney, Foyt, Brooks, Petty, Turner, and Donohue always seemed to be "right up there" as they say.

Tommy Milton, Jimmy Murphy, Tazio Nuvolari, Achille Varzi, Rudi Caracciola, Bernd Rosemeyer, Hermann Lang, Lois Chiron, Dario Resta, and J-P Wimille are just a few of the many names that ar generally ignored when readers or panels compile these "top" or "best" lists.

Heavens, I was even roped into several of those horrid lists that Motor Sport got so taken with seven or eight years ago. I always cast votes for whatever or whoever could be guaranteed to be ignored by the others.

Any way, I have actually seen drivers from a number of different eras and read and studied extensively those from even earlier eras. The basics remain the same, but the conditions vary so much that it is complete nonsense to think that any realistic, meaningful comparisons can actually be made.

As for the person who wrote, "In front he was sublime, under pressure he wasn't and he also managed to kill himself racing. Some find it distastful but I put some merit in surviving as well," words fail me at just how little you truly know about Clark and his era. Yes, there are many young, brave soldiers, but many more old, not-so-brave soldiers. It is often more a matter of circumstances than anything else. Oh, Clark could tiger from behind, contrary to what you might believe. He did it more times you can imagine -- mostly because you have blinkers only and fail to realize that CLark raced in many other forms of racing than grand prix (what formula 1 used to be commonly referred to as) events.

Oh, the point about mistakes is that today you walk away from them. Mistakes were not always of the driver's making -- mechanical gremlins being commonplace then. Plus, the margin for error was less than razor thin in many cases. Had Clark's crash happened at any number of other places, the consequences would have been dramatically different. A different world.

Mr. Bradley, yes, those utter wastes of time are all in good fun, but wouldn't be more interesting to spend a few inches of print once in awhile to discuss why some of those named from the deep, dark, obviously forgotten Past still resonate years later?

You've got no business this side of the Rhine, walhisk.

Otherwise, good post.

Originally posted by thiscocks


I agree with most of your list, but you surley can't list senna as a 'second league' driver! And for the reasons you move Senna to the second league, why is Shumi still in the first league??? Slighlty contradictory.

It may seem like a contradiction but my principle was simple: Senna set the precedent, FIA never reacted, therefore we can't blame the later drivers for applying the same tactics.

Considering his speed and pure driving skills, Senna belongs to the "first" league (although not to the very top of it) but I demoted him because of his attitude ;-)

In any case, I have concentrated only on post-1949 Formula 1 drivers.

Originally posted by pasadena
The question marks still hang over Rindt and J. Villeneuve.

what question mark? IMO they should be firmly in your 3rd group......gotta love short memories.

Originally posted by RSNS


That is not quite true. Fangio was not a privileged boy, neither were many others. And today it is also very useful to have money to get into F1. In the old days sponsorship was nothing of great importance.

On the other end, in the old times, drivers had to contend with death and fear. In order to be a great driver it greatly helped to be a man, not a boy. Nowadays I'm not so sure.

Hello RSNS.
Well, I didn't just mean in monetray terms but the priviledge of belonging to a short group of people that had access to compete in motor racing because of whatever reason. I guess you agree that as time goes by, the scope of people close to motor racing gets wider, therefore the merit of being a top notch driver nowadays is bigger than in the past, as one has to prevail above many more.

Today money is an important factor but just to begin a career and not to lead any driver to an acknowledged status if talent is not present. Sponsorship befalls on whom has already demostrated enough talent to be worth of it. Well, I admit situations of marketing convenience could favour one above others but even so, that one is not going to be a complete disaster (Yamamoto, Danica Patrick, etc).

About the old risk of motor racing, well, I agree. In this sense they old drivers had more merit than current ones since death was more than a slight threat, an often reality. However, this factor has almost nothing to do with driving performance level but with braveness. In addition, I think that 'boys' could well be braver than 'men' as they are less conscious of peril. See who they send to the first lines of combat in the wars precisely by this reason.