613 replies to this topic

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by Allin


About MS's refusal...

Or could it be that Schumacher lacked the balls to actually face a real teammate fair and square for the FIRST time in checkered career.

He can't clam the "been their done that" thing with Kimi because of the simple fact that Schumacher has never been there and done that in terms of equal treatment within the team.

This simple fact, Schumacher NEVER had to face a real challenge within his own team, overshadows any statistical achievements he managed to compile in the very dominant Ferrari years.

Not to mention, park, punt, chop, block, cheat and on...

[Allin]

Originally posted by SlateGray


Or could it be that Schumacher lacked the balls to actually face a real teammate fair and square for the FIRST time in checkered career.

He can't clam the "been their done that" thing with Kimi because of the simple fact that Schumacher has never been there and done that in terms of equal treatment within the team.

This simple fact, Schumacher NEVER had to face a real challenge within his own team, overshadows any statistical achievements he managed to compile in the very dominant Ferrari years.

Not to mention, park, punt, chop, block, cheat and on...

Not to mention Clark, Fangio, Stewart, Brabham, Fittipaldi...

In fact, the only real opposite example was Alain Prost - and kudos to him for that but it's by no means usual.

Also, MS cannot claim "been there done that" with KR but the vice-versa is also valid. They were not and would never be teammates, just like the vast majority of good and great drivers throughout the history.

[Spunout]

Originally posted by Allin
Not to mention Clark, Fangio, Stewart, Brabham, Fittipaldi...

In fact, the only real opposite example was Alain Prost - and kudos to him for that but it's by no means usual.

Senna...?

[Allin]

Originally posted by Spunout


Senna...?

Senna had only one really strong teammate in his career - Prost - and it stemmed far more from Senna's desperation to get the best car than from any desire to tem up with a strong driver.

Senna took up the challenge because he had no choice and performed on a very high level, even managing to beat Prost in 1988.

But Prost is the only driver who never minded who his teammate was (until Senna in 1993 - but this is a completely different story). Whoever he was teamed up with, he stood up to the challenge, losing occasionally but always with the narrowest of margins and beating them most of the time.

[raceday]

Originally posted by RTX



So you think Alonso would have barely won the WC in the last race of those seasons with comfortably the fastest car?
Alonso has the consistentcy that Mika would have have only dreamed about.

From my memory Mika was only inconsistent in 99 out of those years and that was when MS had broken his legs and the pressure was off.
So yes, I do think the result would have been similar if you would have exchanged Alonso and Mika.
MS was unbelievably good in 98. IMO nobody else would have taken that car all the way down the line in 98.
99 is sort of a lost year beacause of MS injury.
00 is the year where they both performed great in similar equipment.

[kismet]

In the spirit of the thread, yes, Kimi is clearly better than Michael ever was. Fernando may be as well but I'm not entirely sure about that.

How about Felipe and Jenson? As good as, or better than Michael?

[Allin]

Originally posted by kismet
In the spirit of the thread, yes, Kimi is clearly better than Michael ever was. Fernando may be as well but I'm not entirely sure about that.

How about Felipe and Jenson? As good as, or better than Michael?

Oh, definitely better. And Sato too! What about Alex Yoong? I remember him being prevented from showing his true colors that were obviously far brighter than MS's

[santori]

It depends what you meanThey have given individual performances as good as his. If they retired today, though, I wouldn't quite rate their whole careers there. Michael is alongside the likes of Prost and Nuvolari. I'd put Alonso alongside someone like Fittipaldi - which isn't far off - and Raikkonen... Mansell?

[Allin]

Originally posted by santori
They have given individual performances as good as his. If they retired today, though, I wouldn't quite rate them there. Michael is alongside the likes of Prost and Nuvolari. I'd put Alonso alongside someone like Fittipaldi - which isn't far off - and Raikkonen... Mansell?

It's not about the individual performances: every top driver of his day is capable of delivering a performance by which he beats anybody on his day.

It's about the consistency and longevity, ability to perform at or near the top of own abilities week in, week out. That's what tells an all-time great from a very good driver.

[kNt]

Concerning driving-ability they might both be equal, but Kimi certainly hasn't the spirit or the all-or-nothing attitude.
For Alonso I'm not yet sure with all the whining and to be considered he has to beat or look stronger than Hamilton.

[Schu-misser]

Raikkonen - no chance, he doesn't have the same will to win, no matter the odds.

Alonso - double world champion yes, but both in the best car (not fastest, but best package!) - stick him in a car that has absolutely no business winning, and i think you'd find him struggle, whereas Schuie was fighting for wins no matter the machinery.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by raceday

From my memory Mika was only inconsistent in 99 out of those years and that was when MS had broken his legs and the pressure was off.

The revered MH "inconsistency" in 99 was was mostly the car simply breaking up, team messing up and not only a lack of team orders a' la Ferrari, he had his teammate crashing into him when trying to pass MH. That made the most in making the title fight close. MH crashed out twice by his own doing, which still isn't too much for a driver during a season - for example, also in 99 in much less races, MS crashed out once by himself (Canada). Last year Schumacher crashed himself out twice (Aus, Hun, more?). Even though Alonso's 05 is considered very consistent, he also put the car to the wall by himself (Canada). Not a very big difference between "great consistency" and "poor consistency" after all.

[as65p]

Originally posted by santori
It depends what you meanThey have given individual performances as good as his. If they retired today, though, I wouldn't quite rate their whole careers there. Michael is alongside the likes of Prost and Nuvolari. I'd put Alonso alongside someone like Fittipaldi - which isn't far off - and Raikkonen... Mansell?

Regarding their competitive spirit, it's an insult to especially Nuvolari (but also to Prost) to be mentioned in the same breath as Schumacher, whose lasting legacy is really the astonishing feat to avoid intra-team competition during his whole career - something no other driver has ever managed to achieve.

Only consequently, he passed the last opportunity to be truly measured by retiring last year, which decision, given the relative performance of FM and KR so far, looks a bit premature in hindsight. But thats how it goes if the fear of loosing grows bigger than the desire to win...

[klover]

I love the phrase "races he shouldn't have won". Yes, he won in Spain 1996 but he had gambled on the wet setup and it fully paid off. Did Hill who lapped him in Brazil suddenly forget how to drive in the wet? I doubt it.
Yes, he won in Hungary 1998 but Mika got a problem, otherwise how do we know if MS would have pulled the gap? We don't. Fanboys will always defend their driver, that's a given. But MS will be remembered as a chicken who never in his career had the guts to face a strong teammate under equal conditions. He had that chance at the end and he blew it.

[Risil]

I doubt it. However, I'd love to be proved wrong, especially if both were at the same time.

[kar]

Originally posted by klover
But MS will be remembered as a chicken who never in his career had the guts to face a strong teammate under equal conditions. He had that chance at the end and he blew it.

This thread alone refutes this viewpoint doesn't it?

I mean Michael, already, is being remembered as _the_ benchmark with which to compare other drivers. We don't hear Hamilton being referred to as the next Kimi or the next Alonso - no - he's the next Schumacher...

Whenever someone talks about up and coming drivers, whenever a British hack wants a measuring stick with which to beat off on about Hamilton, that stick is Schumacher.

Why don't we hear about the 'next Alonso' or the 'next Raikkonen'?

Why not?

Because neither of them are or will be as good as Michael Schumacher was.

[lukywill]

alonso already beat schumacher.

it was understood poorly. it was a great achievement.

raikonen went into health mode leaving mclaren. good for him. he will show us his winning spirit already this year.

hamilton started twisted and will finish twisted. bad person as good personal relationship. a boring race driver.

[Spunout]

Originally posted by kar


This thread alone refutes this viewpoint doesn't it?

I mean Michael through out his career and even after it, already, is being remembered as a benchmark with which to compare other drivers.

Whenever someone talks about up and coming drivers, whenever a British hack wants a measuring stick with which to beat off on about Hamilton, that stick is Schumacher.

No, currently that stick is Alonso - Hamster´s teammate.

Why don't we hear about the 'next Alonso' or the 'next Raikkonen'?

Why not?

Because neither of them are or will be as good as Michael Schumacher was.

Because Schumacher retired from F1, while Alonso and Räikkönen are still racing.

After the current stars retire, we hear about "next Alonso" and "next Räikkönen".

...or, "next Hamilton"

[lukywill]

Originally posted by as65p



given the relative performance of FM and KR so far, looks a bit premature in hindsight.

ms was losing big to ferrari rookie massa.

[Allin]

Originally posted by lukywill


ms was losing big to ferrari rookie massa.

Where? In Brazil?

[robnyc]

Originally posted by raceday
I can agree that Alonso 05-06 is very similar to MS 94-95. He has a hell of alot more to prove before he can be considered on the same level as MS (even if you are only talking about the peak)

Same here.

[prty]

Originally posted by raceday
I can agree that Alonso 05-06 is very similar to MS 94-95. He has a hell of alot more to prove before he can be considered on the same level as MS (even if you are only talking about the peak)

It could be considered on the same level if Senna hadn't died. But that isn't the case.

[dde]

Originally posted by RTX


Classic circular logic. It cant have been an inferior car because he did such a good job and it was so successful. What if it was just proof of how well he can do in an inferior car? The 1995 Benetton is regarded as inferior to the Williams that year yet it won the WC and WCC because Michael drove out of his skin and the Williams drivers didnt.

The Renault won the WCC despite one of the cars driven by Fisichella. That says it all about the Renault superiority in 06.

Back to the topic : are we asking ourselves if a driver like Raikkonen, who is on Massa's level, or a driver like Alonso, who looks very ordinary compared to his teamates who are not Fisichella, are as good as Michael Schumacher "at his best" ? Lol. None of them is close to what Schumacher was doing during the 2006 season.

[robnyc]

Originally posted by Schu-misser
Raikkonen - no chance, he doesn't have the same will to win, no matter the odds.

Alonso - double world champion yes, but both in the best car (not fastest, but best package!) - stick him in a car that has absolutely no business winning, and i think you'd find him struggle, whereas Schuie was fighting for wins no matter the machinery.

Seriously, do you call Indy 05 fighting for wins?

[Atreiu]

I used to think Raikkonen was, but this season has made me doubt. I was expecting him to step in a and just show Massa the way from Australia to Brazil... Massa has done a great job, but I expected more from Kimi.

As for Alonso, seing how he won his titles and his results, I would say he is, or at least come very close. Hamilton has surprised and shocked me, but, IMO, it goes to show that he is way better than I anticipated instead of Alonso not being as good as I thought.



We should also consider that, when at his best, Schumacher had Irvine and Barrichello as teammates. Well, Irvine was simply slow, not even close to being a top driver. Barrichello was quick but way too inconsistent.

[as65p]

Originally posted by Schu-misser
Raikkonen - no chance, he doesn't have the same will to win, no matter the odds.

Alonso - double world champion yes, but both in the best car (not fastest, but best package!) - stick him in a car that has absolutely no business winning, and i think you'd find him struggle,...

like Spain or Hungary 2003?

...whereas Schuie was fighting for wins no matter the machinery.

like 2005?

Oh, he won Indy in 2005. Apologies then....

;)

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by dde

are as good as Michael Schumacher "at his best" ? Lol. None of them is close to what Schumacher was doing during the 2006 season.

Questions:
Who won the WDC in 2006?
Who screwed up more often in 2006 Schumacher or Fernando?

If Schumacher is so good why did he not take his one and only chance to prove it by racing against Kimi without the benefit of his usual teamorders at Ferrari, in short why did Schumacher run from his one clear chance to prove he is more than an average talent?

The answer is simple, Schumacher knew that Fernando had already crushed him twice (including ounce with Fernando in a lesser car) so it was clear to him that if he was already beaten by Fernando and having a hard time beating Massa with teamorders then he was sure he would have no chance whatsoever against Kimi without teamorders. That ladies and gentleman is why Mr. Parker ran chicken like into retirement.

[noikeee]

Alonso - I used to think he was "the next Schumacher", but the way he cracked this season just because he has a little intra-team competition now gives me some doubts. I think MS would handle the situation much better, even if he tried to avoid it during his whole career. However Alonso occasionally still does make some spectacular drives (Sepang, Nurburgring), so I'm sure there's a lot of potential still there to return to the dominating Renault days. The next few years will determine whether Alonso will be seen as a big all-time great or as a guy who only won championships because he had a perfect situation around him (Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill style).

Raikkonen - Well, given the way this season has gone, it's very difficult to argue he's as good as Schumacher was. His career is far from over though, he's still one of the very best drivers in F1, and I still get a feeling that 2007 is just a bad season for a number of reasons and he'll establish himself as the Ferrari lead driver - just not as an absolutely demolishing lead driver as Michael Schumacher used to be. He'll need better luck to finally win a world championship, but he should be there in the top end of the F1 grid for the next several seasons and all it takes is the right car at the right time. It's getting a bit unlikely that he'll become an all-time great though.

Right now I'd think Hamilton is the biggest candidate for the "next Schumacher", cause if he'll be able to translate a couple years of F1 experience into even better results, it'll be really hard for anyone else to stop him..

[Allin]

Originally posted by SlateGray


Questions:
Who won the WDC in 2006?
Who screwed up more often in 2006 Schumacher or Fernando?

If Schumacher is so good why did he not take his one and only chance to prove it by racing against Kimi without the benefit of his usual teamorders at Ferrari, in short why did Schumacher run from his one clear chance to prove he is more than an average talent?

The answer is simple, Schumacher knew that Fernando had already crushed him twice (including ounce with Fernando in a lesser car) so it was clear to him that if he was already beaten by Fernando and having a hard time beating Massa with teamorders then he was sure he would have no chance whatsoever against Kimi without teamorders. That ladies and gentleman is why Mr. Parker ran chicken like into retirement.

You again "Fernando had already crushed him twice" so I'll repeat my post:

2001: MS WDC - crushed FA
2003: MS WDC - crushed FA
2004: MS WDC - crushed FA
2005: FA WDC - crushed MS
2006: FA WDC - crushed MS

So, it's 3:2.

Or do you maybe want to exempt some of those seasons? Maybe 2001, 2003 and 2004? Why not 2005? Was the 2005 Ferrari better than 2003 or 2004 Renaults? It doesn't work the way you want it.

MS and FA fought only once for the WDC on equal terms and FA won it, deservedly. In any other year they were not both in the title hunt due to cars not being up to it.


About facing KR without teamorders, FM did very well, no doubt MS would too.

[F1Champion]

Given the performance of the two Ferrari drivers this year...you would have to say that Michael would of had them pegged and most likely would of been leading this championship.

Are Alonso and Raikkonen as good as Michael....no. You can see it in the qualifying and race results etc. Michael dominated and demolished certain races and whole seasons.

He's definately in my opinion got more raw speed than Alonso and Raikkonen. Given that at 37 he could still take the fight to a 24/25 Alonso and only lose due to mechanical issues makes it even more impressive.


Alonso's had his chances in WCC winning cars that have lasted whole seasons. In order to see where Raikkonen fits into all of this he would need to have at least two full seasons in a reliable WCC car with no FIA rule changes. If he blows the barn door off everyone else then you'l have to reconsider his position in this debate.

[pUs]

Originally posted by SlateGray


Alonso crushed Schumacher twice, check the record books, Schumacher crushed Fernando zero times. I know you'd like it to be not true, though, but it is.

Classic SlateGray once again. On the edge of foruming.

He "crushed" Michael in 2005? You really think their cars were comparable?

Ok, then I'll just as well conclude Michael "crushed" Alonso in 2001, 2003 and 2004, by the very same logic you just applied. 3 over 2, case closed.

[pUs]

Originally posted by SlateGray


Or could it be that Schumacher lacked the balls to actually face a real teammate fair and square for the FIRST time in checkered career.

He could have been racing until he was 45 years old, and yet you would be sounding exactly the same, you know it and I know it. At some point, it's time to retire.

Apart from that, it's getting boring and predictable with your "chicken"-comments. None of the past world champions have been chickens in any way. They take big risks, drive fantastic machines on the absolute edge and the sport is by no means "safe". Still we love what they do, year in year out.

Get some perspective. We all know you never liked a single thing about Michael, but can't you at least try being a bit sensible?

[raceday]

Originally posted by prty


It could be considered on the same level if Senna hadn't died. But that isn't the case.

You can only beat the competition you have. If Senna wouldn't have had the very bad luck of having his steering rod (or whatever it's called) bounsing into his head and thereby getting killed he would have been three races into the season with 0 points while MS had 30. There would likely not have been a shook up of the regulation and MS would likely have had a continued advantage car wise and probably won the title that year.

You could also say, it would have been comparable if MS would have had a car anywhere near Alonso in 05 bla bla bla. Overall their achivements 94/95 and 05/06 were very similar, as Briatore himself and others have said.

[emburmak]

Originally posted by prty


It could be considered on the same level if Senna hadn't died. But that isn't the case.

At the time Senna died, he was no longer at his absolute best. Still the best driver, so I'd say MS matched him for pace etc but was lacking in AS's vast experience. But MS had nothing to lose, akin to LH this year, so it was game on.

As to the thread question; No. MS is the most complete in history and the first all-time great to fall under the internet microscope year in year out, race in race out. Neither FA, who by the way is closer, nor KR (a quick guy but essentially that's it) are as good as MS was at his prime. Last year, FA vs MS was virtually equal in the car but the way MS motivated him his team outside showed his leadership skills were still on a different level.

Yes, FA won but MS was no longer in his prime, still the best but no longer at his absolute best. Prior to this year, I would have said that FA looked likely to mount the pedestal of all-time greatness, perhaps to the level of AP, AS, MS. However the arrival of the phenom LH has changed all that. I believe that he is a great in the making. How his career unfolds will affect those of FA in particular and KR. If LH becomes the greatest driver on the grid in a year or two, people will look back and see FA, KR as interim guys who drove in the MS & LH eras.

FA is a bit unlucky. A 2 time WDC yet questions remain. To be on MS's level, FA has to be acknowledged as the best on the grid and favourite at the season start . In 2005, he was not regarded as the best, nor in 2006, nor in either cases the favourite. Just as his era was about to start up comes an upstart who quite frankly is beginning to look scary. If FA is beaten this year, his status will suffer--his potential greatness will always suffer a but...

KR's problem is different. For years he has flattered to decieve. If he cannot deliver at Ferrari as MS's replacement it is game over. And frankly one WDC is not enough. As he needs at least 3 to be measured in the same breath, so needs a phenominal few seasons.

[former champ]

Originally posted by Spunout


No, currently that stick is Alonso - Hamster´s teammate.

Because Schumacher retired from F1, while Alonso and Räikkönen are still racing.

After the current stars retire, we hear about "next Alonso" and "next Räikkönen".

...or, "next Hamilton"

that is absolute rubbish. If Alonso and Raikkonen continue on their merry way, i.e being outperformed by their teammates, no one will be talking of the 'next Raikkonen or Alonso'. The other day I read Bernie talking that he wanted Schumacher back to go up against Hamilton and how great it would be for F1.

Kimi who? Fred what?

Early in his career I'm sure people were wondering where the next Villeneuve would come from, after the fashion he arrived in F1 and took Schumacher on. By the end of it, who wanted 'the next Villeneuve'?

It's a fickle sport and it stops for no one. Right now, Hamilton is being branded the next man to dominate this sport in a fashion likened to what Schumacher did. No reference to Alonso or Kimi.

[Lazarus II]

So, are you saying Kimi and Alonso are equal?
Alonso = 2x WDC
Kimi = 0 WDC

As far as I'm concerned, Kimi (while quick) is no match for Alonso.

Maybe this thread should be titled:
Are Alonso and Hamilton as good as Michael Schumacher at his very best?

[Hacklerf]

Nobody can touch Michael in equal cars

[Risil]

Originally posted by emburmak



At the time Senna died, he was no longer at his absolute best. Still the best driver, so I'd say MS matched him for pace etc but was lacking in AS's vast experience. But MS had nothing to lose, akin to LH this year, so it was game on.

He seemed pretty good in 1993.

Originally posted by emburmak


As to the thread question; No. MS is the most complete in history [...]

Um, Mario Andretti? Jim Clark? Sterling Moss? How a man whose non-F1 career seems to stretch to two sports car victories can be regarded as more complete than those drivers is beyond me. Not to mention his seeming vulnerability to pressure, and total lack of on-track ethics...

He's certainly better than any current driver (years spent in the shadow of the dominant Schumacher/Ferrari package guarantees that simply in terms of their relative exploits), but I don't think he could intrude much further than the top ten, if one believes in such things.

Also, I find your talk of the 'internet microscope' a little self-important.

[Risil]

Originally posted by Lazarus II
So, are you saying Kimi and Alonso are equal?
Alonso = 2x WDC
Kimi = 0 WDC

As far as I'm concerned, Kimi (while quick) is no match for Alonso.

Piquet = 3x WDC
Amon = 0 WDC victories

[former champ]

Originally posted by Risil
Um, Mario Andretti? Jim Clark? Sterling Moss? How a man whose non-F1 career seems to stretch to two sports car victories can be regarded as more complete than those drivers is beyond me. Not to mention his seeming vulnerability to pressure, and total lack of on-track ethics...

Most complete in Formula 1? I think that's the line Emburmak meant to go down. You can't really argue with it although Alain Prost is another candidate, he was sensational at his best.

If you talk of all forms of motorsport, Andretti is certainly a main candidate. Jim Clark, Fittipaldi and, depending on what he does in NASCAR, Villeneuve would be right up there.

Strictly talking F1 though, different ball game.

[Allin]

Originally posted by Risil


Piquet = 3x WDC
Amon = 0 WDC victories

Yes. Or do you suggest that Amon was better F1 driver than Piquet?

About MS as the most complete, emburmak probably wanted to say "most complete F1 driver in history".

[Risil]

Originally posted by Allin
Yes. Or do you suggest that Amon was better F1 driver than Piquet?

It takes no stretch of the imagination whatsoever to consider him thus.

[Allin]

Originally posted by Risil


It takes no stretch of the imagination whatsoever to consider him thus.

Why? How? What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't know?

I rate Piquet as one of top ten of all times. Amon...again a quick driver that was just that...a quick driver. No completeness whatsoever.

[karlth]

Originally posted by RTX



So you think Alonso would have barely won the WC in the last race of those seasons with comfortably the fastest car?
Alonso has the consistentcy that Mika would have have only dreamed about.

Hakkinen never lacked speed but sometimes he just sank.

Alonso might be as good as Schumacher was at his best, his 2005/2006 seasons at Renault and Nurburgring 2007/Hungary 2006 are examples of that.

[noikeee]

On a sport where car performance is hugely important, results aren't everything to evaluate drivers. Personally Piquet isn't on my all-time top 10 - he was good on a 1-car team at the start of his career, and a match for Mansell.. but that was all.

How about this one:

Ayrton Senna 3xWDC
Nelson Piquet 3xWDC
Gilles Villeneuve 0xWDC
Stirling Moss 0xWDC

Does this mean Piquet was as good as Senna, and much better than Villeneuve and Moss?

[Allin]

Originally posted by paranoik0
On a sport where car performance is hugely important, results aren't everything to evaluate drivers. Personally Piquet isn't on my all-time top 10 - he was good on a 1-car team at the start of his career, and a match for Mansell.. but that was all.

How about this one:

Ayrton Senna 3xWDC
Nelson Piquet 3xWDC
Gilles Villeneuve 0xWDC
Stirling Moss 0xWDC

Does this mean Piquet was as good as Senna, and much better than Villeneuve and Moss?

Piquet was not way off Senna (he was in a lower league in terms of applying himself, work ethics). Gilles Villeneuve sadly died way too early but he was no god he's been painted as today. Moss is just another myth...many years of trying, several times in best car and yet nothing.

[emburmak]

Originally posted by Allin
Piquet was not way off Senna (he was in a lower league in terms of applying himself, work ethics). Gilles Villeneuve sadly died way too early but he was no god he's been painted as today. Moss is just another myth...many years of trying, several times in best car and yet nothing.

Moss is myth that the british press just over hyped. He started racing at 22 against guys in their 30's,in the best machinery, yet could not win once. Villeneuve, a tragic figure, was nothing like the demi-god status he enjoys today. Neither of them are greats, just names of the past mentioned greatly.;)

[MikeTekRacing]

to the title of the thread

are the 2 as good? sure....all great drivers at their very best produce stunning performances...heck, even rubens on his great days was on par-or a little better
the problem is that some drivers have these "great days" very few and very rare. others are more consistent. Up until now, both of them have been around for way too less for us to see what "their best" really is.
Is their "best" natural speed? Or is their best consistency? Or both

[Group B]

Yup; "on their day" Woobins and Ralf particularly come to mind. The trick is getting it all right as often as possible.

[Risil]

Originally posted by Allin
Why? How? What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't know?

I rate Piquet as one of top ten of all times. Amon...again a quick driver that was just that...a quick driver. No completeness whatsoever.

Nelson Piquet was a quick driver who was fortunate (or prudent) enough to drive a front-running car for around 2/3rds of his F1 career, which itself was of a not inconsiderable length. Two of his World Titles were what one might call fortuitous, and while fast, he never seemed on the level with Mansell at Williams (7 wins vs. 11 would back this up), and was worryingly close to Nakajima at Lotus, on occasion.

Chris Amon, on the other hand, was one of the fastest drivers of the '60s and early '70s, a considerably more competitive period of Grand Prix racing than the 1980s (the 1968 grid for the South African Grand Prix, for instance, featured Clark, Stewart, Rindt, Gurney, Hill, Ickx, Surtees, Redman, Siffert and Rodriguez, all drivers as talented as almost any from Piquet's era, and some, one might argue, in excess of any). Despite his pace, Amon was the most unlucky son-of-a-bitch in the history of the sport ("If he became an undertaker, people would stop dying"), despite a host of brilliant, dominating drives in what was rarely the out-and-out quickest car before being denied in manners made all the more ridiculous by the sublime driving that preceded them(take his 3rd place in Clermont-Ferrand in 1972). To underline his obvious talent, Amon did win F1 races, all non-Championship, an overall victory in the 1969 Tasman Cup series. He also won the Le Mans 24 Hours, and the Monza 1000, both incredibly challenging events. Ferrari's design guru Mauro Forghieri described Amon as the only driver able to match Jim Clark (high praise indeed), and only a churl would dismiss Amon's input as a major factor in Ferrari's return to form by the late 1960s. And of course, if one takes into account the man off-track as an indicator of 'completeness', Amon would have Piquet beaten hands-down. Possibly by an order of magnitude, perhaps several.

Two more things: after being offered a race-winning seat at Brabham in 1974, he declined, choosing to remain with his own woeful Amon team, arguing that "it would have knocked the morale of our team [...] it wouldn't have been fair to John or the guys"; also, he has posted on this BB, which ought to make him a hero around here. In fact, he probably already is.