Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 7 votes

Top 20 Greatest F1 Drivers of all time - BBC list [split]


  • Please log in to reply
1662 replies to this topic

#1051 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:54

I think you are blowing driving opponents off track out of proportion by putting it centre stage concerning quite systematic overly-critical press concerning Schumacher over his many years of F1 racing including his comeback period. He was found guilty of doing so on one occasion in 1997 which earned him punishment that no other driver had been given before or since. That one's done. What about the rest?

There was a cartoon in Autosport once, a queue of cars behind Irvine, Schumacher at the back. Irvine's thought bubble saying "I'll let you through, Michael."

Behind him was Hakkinen. "No way! Remember Spa?"

Then Coulthard. "No way! Remember Brazil?"

Then Frentzen. "No way! Remember Canada?"

Then Hill. "No way! Remember Adelaide?"

And so on. Can't remember the exact details, but Schumacher had, at some point, nerfed them all out. Sometimes repeatedly.

Same for the illegal floor in Kimi's car in 2007?

Wasn't that a Ferrari? :p

Advertisement

#1052 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:57

There was a cartoon in Autosport once, a queue of cars behind Irvine, Schumacher at the back. Irvine's thought bubble saying "I'll let you through, Michael."

Behind him was Hakkinen. "No way! Remember Spa?"

Then Coulthard. "No way! Remember Brazil?"

Then Frentzen. "No way! Remember Canada?"

Then Hill. "No way! Remember Adelaide?"

And so on. Can't remember the exact details, but Schumacher had, at some point, nerfed them all out. Sometimes repeatedly.


Wasn't that a Ferrari? :p


British media cartoon... NO? :p You need an external source. Michael was a tough competitor and many felt hard done by his hard racing, the majority of which quite rightfully went unpenalised. There have been other hard racers before and others now.

As to your 'Wasn't that a Ferrari' comment
It's exactly my point. No Ferrar International Assistance then as on many other occasions. Points system change at start of 2003..... why? Single tyre rule system for 2005... why and who suffered as was clearly planned? We can go on and on....

Edited by ali_M, 01 November 2012 - 13:07.


#1053 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:57

i think you're leaving out a signficant detail though in that Ferrari had a technical veto over developments by other teams within the Concord Agreement of the time. That's not something Schumacher controlled, but it does make it harder to value his championships in the same way in that Ferrari had the ability to prevent its rivals from providing greater opposition. I think it's very hard for some people to separate that aspect of Ferrari/FIA politics from the driving of the era. And many of them are journalists in the English speaking world. I agree that he was clearly the best driver of his era. But I think that an argument can be made that the rules of the game created a situation that lead to potentially inflated statistics on his part. That doesn't mean he didn't earn his results. He did, and set a clear standard for commitment to working within a team and in terms of focusing on his craft that his rivals didn't really match. But the numerical totals I think lead to a misreading of his place in history. On a percentage comparison he is still a great driver, but no better than Senna, Prost, Fangio, Clark or Ascari. Actually, on a percentage basis, everyone is a LOT worse than Ascari...


I didn´t suggest that he should be No.1 in the list. A few pages ago i said, Top 5 are "the usual suspects" and the order within them, depends on the personal criteria or "taste" if you like. MSC wouldn´t be my No1. I was just talking about some of the cheating allegations. And btw. I can´t imagine how MSC has to take responsibilty for the political side in F1 and i don´t think the BBC or anbody else factored that in regarding Schumacher, Prost or anybody else. And btw. yes his statistics got better and better since he was seated in superior cars for several years - but his stats/success was already as good as Prost´s or Senna´s before he had a far superior car for the first time (and there isn´t even the fact included, that Senna/Prost also had the best car several times) - and beyond that, i think, most people, who saw MSC since his early days, would agree, that he is regarded among the best, not only because of his success-rate, but possibly even more so because of his performances, when he didn´t win the WDC (comparable to Alonso nowadays if you like).

Edited by LiJu914, 01 November 2012 - 13:06.


#1054 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 01 November 2012 - 13:24

i think you're leaving out a signficant detail though in that Ferrari had a technical veto over developments by other teams within the Concord Agreement of the time. That's not something Schumacher controlled, but it does make it harder to value his championships in the same way in that Ferrari had the ability to prevent its rivals from providing greater opposition. I think it's very hard for some people to separate that aspect of Ferrari/FIA politics from the driving of the era. And many of them are journalists in the English speaking world. I agree that he was clearly the best driver of his era. But I think that an argument can be made that the rules of the game created a situation that lead to potentially inflated statistics on his part. That doesn't mean he didn't earn his results. He did, and set a clear standard for commitment to working within a team and in terms of focusing on his craft that his rivals didn't really match. But the numerical totals I think lead to a misreading of his place in history. On a percentage comparison he is still a great driver, but no better than Senna, Prost, Fangio, Clark or Ascari. Actually, on a percentage basis, everyone is a LOT worse than Ascari...


Two comments I'd make to your refreshingly well put arguments:
- Every multiple champion enjoyed the advantage of dominant or highly competitive machinery. Michael enjoyed the same during his competitive years. The competitiveness is what matters when considering the driver and not how the competitiveness came about, provided the car is legal. The devil is in the details and though I'm not privy to the details of just the sort of advantage Ferrari potentially had through that concorde agreement and in which specific situations they exploited such an advantage, I strongly doubt the teams would have signed off on or allowed a significant advantage over the years. Dominant teams over long periods are always under scrutiny. Once there's a whiff of evidence to discredit, that evidence will be run with and held up with glee. RedBull and Newey are now under the microscope and many are now thinking that it's just the tip of the iceberg that has been found in those car developments that RedBull have had to reverse during this season for legality reasons after rules clarifications.
- I definitely appreciate how you clearly outline what may be used as a potential argument or grounds for thought... not FACT. I know that it's hard for some to separate the politics from Michael's achievements. The crux of the matter really lies with resounding success. Those who support other teams and drivers will naturally question such success and search high and low to discredit it. They'll even make claims where they can't as with Carl Lewis' incessant claims of doping on the part of Usain Bolt... IOW's, Michael's achievements are too good to be true and must be explained in some way especially when thought to be better driver X has failed to similarly achieve.

All that I'm really getting at is that the truth lies somewhere down there in the middle. Some may argue that Fangio would have found it harder to win his 5 championships in the modern era with more races per season and such. Not to mention that he did have a way of finding himself in the best cars season after season and also enjoyed teammates that would even surrender their car to him when his broke down during races. Most don't go there since Fangio was of a different era and not really an immediate threat to their current favourite driver/teams that raced against Schumacher/Ferrari during those years of domination.

Edited by ali_M, 01 November 2012 - 13:29.


#1055 MLC

MLC
  • Member

  • 306 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 01 November 2012 - 14:05

To claim that Schumacher deserves less than Clark or Fangio is as of course as subjective as judging whether Boston donuts are better than rest of them, and the same applies to Prost.


Prost is definately better than Boston donuts.

#1056 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 November 2012 - 14:15

Michael was a tough competitor and many felt hard done by his hard racing, the majority of which quite rightfully went unpenalised. There have been other hard racers before and others now.

No. Nobody was on the scale of Schumacher. Nobody. And had the FIA properly penalized him we might not have the acts of rampant sabotage we see in all formulae today.

Points system change at start of 2003..... why? Single tyre rule system for 2005... why and who suffered as was clearly planned? We can go on and on....

I've already explained the points rule, that was mere mathematical sleight of hand to make the Moronic Millions think there was a tight title race when it was as tight as a whore's knicker elastic. And the single tyre rule lasted how long? Because one team couldn't cope with it?

#1057 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 November 2012 - 14:18

All that I'm really getting at is that the truth lies somewhere down there in the middle. Some may argue that Fangio would have found it harder to win his 5 championships in the modern era with more races per season and such. Not to mention that he did have a way of finding himself in the best cars season after season and also enjoyed teammates that would even surrender their car to him when his broke down during races. Most don't go there since Fangio was of a different era and not really an immediate threat to their current favourite driver/teams that raced against Schumacher/Ferrari during those years of domination.

I think most don't go there because it would be a fatuous argument. His non-champ race record was like his championship. Plus anyone could buy a 250F and race it; who did so and beat Fangio in a 250F? Fangio got into the best teams for the simple reason that he was the best driver. And team-mates surrendering cars was not for championship reasons, but for race-winning reasons, the title was somewhat less important back then.


#1058 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 01 November 2012 - 14:26

I think most don't go there because it would be a fatuous argument.


Well that doesn´t stop many people, when they judge other drivers. :smoking:

Edited by LiJu914, 01 November 2012 - 14:26.


#1059 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 November 2012 - 14:45

Michael is the most recent one of the group though, and therefore the one whose career is freshest in our minds. I remember Senna and Prost and that whole era getting a fair bit of criticism at the time for their whining, political bickering and poor sportsmanship. We don't talk about that now, just how great the races were and how wonderful the cars looked. But at the time, it did reflect negatively on them all. I also remember that journalists were initially so happy about Michael actually celebrating when he won, as opposed to some of the silliness seen on the podium before that.

As for Schumacher's ruthlessness, I think Senna was just as bad, if not worse. The difference was other drivers were more willing to back off (perhaps due to a sense of self-preservation). And Farina was noted by Moss and others for being ruthless and leaving others no racing room at all. Phil Hill mentioned Alfonso de Portago was similar and given to some stunts of monumental stupidity and recklessness as well. Which is not mentioned as we don't speak ill of the dead. But this mentality has always been present in racing. I think it just became more commonly held in recent decades as two of the best drivers employed that mentality to great effect.

Edited by juicy sushi, 01 November 2012 - 14:46.


Advertisement

#1060 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 November 2012 - 15:04

Michael is the most recent one of the group though, and therefore the one whose career is freshest in our minds. I remember Senna and Prost and that whole era getting a fair bit of criticism at the time for their whining, political bickering and poor sportsmanship. We don't talk about that now, just how great the races were and how wonderful the cars looked. But at the time, it did reflect negatively on them all.

I think that's a reflection of increased safety. Back in the fifties it would all have been just as political - think of the machinations on formula changes, Fangio v Ferrari, Germans banned and so on - but the motoring press wanted to portray a united front in the teeth of lay criticism of drivers and spectators being killed. I think it took Motor Sport 70 years to ackowledge Luis Fontes had been imprisoned for what would today be called vehicular manslaughter. There are various stories about e.g. drivers kidnapping Hearst reporters at funerals for writing smack. Less need for that sort of defence now.

Farina was known to be a bastard (and 2 deaths are attributed to him) but he stands out because he was the only one considered to be a bastard. (Ascari noted that in slipstream battles Farina hated to be lower than 2nd, even at the start of the race when it made no difference, as it was all down to the end of the race.) Mairesse and Bristow were considered to be dangers to themselves, sadly borne out; I'd be interested in seeing Hill's critique of de Portgao cos the Marquis would have been considered more in the Mairesse mould than the Farina.

#1061 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 01 November 2012 - 15:05

Michael is the most recent one of the group though, and therefore the one whose career is freshest in our minds. I remember Senna and Prost and that whole era getting a fair bit of criticism at the time for their whining, political bickering and poor sportsmanship. We don't talk about that now, just how great the races were and how wonderful the cars looked. But at the time, it did reflect negatively on them all. I also remember that journalists were initially so happy about Michael actually celebrating when he won, as opposed to some of the silliness seen on the podium before that.

As for Schumacher's ruthlessness, I think Senna was just as bad, if not worse. The difference was other drivers were more willing to back off (perhaps due to a sense of self-preservation). And Farina was noted by Moss and others for being ruthless and leaving others no racing room at all. Phil Hill mentioned Alfonso de Portago was similar and given to some stunts of monumental stupidity and recklessness as well. Which is not mentioned as we don't speak ill of the dead. But this mentality has always been present in racing. I think it just became more commonly held in recent decades as two of the best drivers employed that mentality to great effect.


:up:

So the greatest list will likely appear different 3 decades from now.

Edited by ali_M, 01 November 2012 - 15:06.


#1062 juicy sushi

juicy sushi
  • Member

  • 549 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 November 2012 - 15:46

I think that's a reflection of increased safety. Back in the fifties it would all have been just as political - think of the machinations on formula changes, Fangio v Ferrari, Germans banned and so on - but the motoring press wanted to portray a united front in the teeth of lay criticism of drivers and spectators being killed. I think it took Motor Sport 70 years to ackowledge Luis Fontes had been imprisoned for what would today be called vehicular manslaughter. There are various stories about e.g. drivers kidnapping Hearst reporters at funerals for writing smack. Less need for that sort of defence now.

Farina was known to be a bastard (and 2 deaths are attributed to him) but he stands out because he was the only one considered to be a bastard. (Ascari noted that in slipstream battles Farina hated to be lower than 2nd, even at the start of the race when it made no difference, as it was all down to the end of the race.) Mairesse and Bristow were considered to be dangers to themselves, sadly borne out; I'd be interested in seeing Hill's critique of de Portgao cos the Marquis would have been considered more in the Mairesse mould than the Farina.

I can't find it online, but I remember it from an old Road & Track article. Essentially, de Portago had little regard for safety in Hill's eyes, and he mentioned an incidient when thy were driving in a street car after a practice session when de Portago decided to show off and they had a massive accident. Hill was unscathed but simply said to de Portago "that was the stupidest thing he'd ever seen" and walked away. I think that Hill's rather strong appreciation of the risks of racing led to his perspective.

#1063 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 November 2012 - 16:49

Hill was one of the more remarkable sixties drivers, in that I don't recall he was ever injured in an accident - and won his last race, a vanishingly rare achievement.

#1064 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,769 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 13:37

Posted Image

This is Clark pictured on the weekend of his first F1 victory in 1962.

I feel Clark and Senna, through their personality and skill, constructed an image of mystique and enigma that no other drivers have truly come close to matching, aside from possibly the late Gilles V.

Senna just happens to be the more recent of the pair, so "Greatest F1 driver" polls in recent years have been skewed in his favour. Senna, of course, was prone to more on track hot-headedness than Clark, but he did show true concern for Comas and others when they were in true danger following massive accidents.

I know what if is a stupid thing to put into an argument, but without a deflating tyre on a damp track in Germany, I believe Clark would have eclipsed all relevant statistics when adjusted for the fact there were fewer races in the 60s and 70s than the 90s and 2000s. He was, to the greatest extent, "apolitical" during his life so he is not coloured by the controversy that dogs the legacy of Prost, Senna and Schumacher. The safety crusade of J. Y. Stewart would only begin after his passing - so it would be interesting to know how he would have dealt with increased concerns over death from 1968 onwards that came with the 3.0L cars - but ultimately it is pretty irrelevant.

#1065 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 02 November 2012 - 13:50

Posted Image

This is Clark pictured on the weekend of his first F1 victory in 1962.

I feel Clark and Senna, through their personality and skill, constructed an image of mystique and enigma that no other drivers have truly come close to matching, aside from possibly the late Gilles V.

Senna just happens to be the more recent of the pair, so "Greatest F1 driver" polls in recent years have been skewed in his favour. Senna, of course, was prone to more on track hot-headedness than Clark, but he did show true concern for Comas and others when they were in true danger following massive accidents.

I know what if is a stupid thing to put into an argument, but without a deflating tyre on a damp track in Germany, I believe Clark would have eclipsed all relevant statistics when adjusted for the fact there were fewer races in the 60s and 70s than the 90s and 2000s. He was, to the greatest extent, "apolitical" during his life so he is not coloured by the controversy that dogs the legacy of Prost, Senna and Schumacher. The safety crusade of J. Y. Stewart would only begin after his passing - so it would be interesting to know how he would have dealt with increased concerns over death from 1968 onwards that came with the 3.0L cars - but ultimately it is pretty irrelevant.


The look in those eyes tells a mighty story, doesn't it? :)

Being politically clean was a lot easier in those days when the sport wasn't so heavily commercialised and wealthy. I'm pretty sure that if he raced in modern F1, he couldn't avoid the politics to afford the same success. Kimi is a good modern day example of a great driver who doesn't embroil himself in politics and as it turns out, this seems to be his achilles heel. It's not only great driving that will do it.

Senna found it important to portray that deeper persona, that spiritually righteous side. He was passionate, and through that open passion and his political side, created quite the rabid following. The average person is rather boring along those lines and often need to be inspired. Senna certainly filled that sort of void in a powerful way. Not only through his talk, but also how he expressed it in his driving and approach to competition.

Clark and Senna both had powerful images, but in quite different ways.

#1066 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 November 2012 - 18:20

I know what if is a stupid thing to put into an argument, but without a deflating tyre on a damp track in Germany, I believe Clark would have eclipsed all relevant statistics when adjusted for the fact there were fewer races in the 60s and 70s than the 90s and 2000s.

Had Chapman not been obsessed with cheeseparing Clark would probably have been champion every year from 1962 to 1967 (maybe '66 excepted with the godawful H16) - and then again from 1968 to 1973...it would basically have been for as long as he wanted to stay in F1 (and there are hints that he was thinking of finishing it to get married sooner rather than later). I don't think even Stewart would have beaten him.

#1067 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,201 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 02 November 2012 - 18:56

From tonight's Inside F1 on the BBC News Channel - Fangio is number 2 meaning that number 1 is Ayrton Senna.

#1068 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 4,886 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 02 November 2012 - 19:02

Had Chapman not been obsessed with cheeseparing Clark would probably have been champion every year from 1962 to 1967 (maybe '66 excepted with the godawful H16) - and then again from 1968 to 1973...it would basically have been for as long as he wanted to stay in F1 (and there are hints that he was thinking of finishing it to get married sooner rather than later). I don't think even Stewart would have beaten him.


cheeseparking?

#1069 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,788 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 02 November 2012 - 19:15

Had Chapman not been obsessed with cheeseparing Clark would probably have been champion every year from 1962 to 1967 (maybe '66 excepted with the godawful H16) - and then again from 1968 to 1973...it would basically have been for as long as he wanted to stay in F1 (and there are hints that he was thinking of finishing it to get married sooner rather than later). I don't think even Stewart would have beaten him.


Equally impressive in my book is Clark's record at the Indy 500. He 'should' have won in '63 and '66 and who knows how he would have done with the Lotus 56 turbine in '68.

#1070 kenny

kenny
  • Member

  • 2,028 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 02 November 2012 - 19:28

old article
http://www.pitpass.c...es_art_id=33145

Many don't agree with Senna at first place, but you can't argue with his taste and knowledge from past champions. He idolised Fangio and Clark. He obviously knew and cared for F1's history.

I had to smile reading the part where Senna actually bought some Jim Clark pens :)

#1071 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 November 2012 - 19:38

cheeseparking?

No, cheeseparing. Cutting everything to the bone. Lotus lost more than one GP cos Chapman cut back on the fuel in the car. They kept falling to bits because he'd cut back on the weight even though Clark was easily good enough to overcome the extra few pounds. Classic penny wise, pound foolish. No wonder he ended up a fraudster.

#1072 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 02 November 2012 - 19:50

Posted Image

This is Clark pictured on the weekend of his first F1 victory in 1962.

I feel Clark and Senna, through their personality and skill, constructed an image of mystique and enigma that no other drivers have truly come close to matching, aside from possibly the late Gilles V.

Senna just happens to be the more recent of the pair, so "Greatest F1 driver" polls in recent years have been skewed in his favour. Senna, of course, was prone to more on track hot-headedness than Clark, but he did show true concern for Comas and others when they were in true danger following massive accidents.

I know what if is a stupid thing to put into an argument, but without a deflating tyre on a damp track in Germany, I believe Clark would have eclipsed all relevant statistics when adjusted for the fact there were fewer races in the 60s and 70s than the 90s and 2000s. He was, to the greatest extent, "apolitical" during his life so he is not coloured by the controversy that dogs the legacy of Prost, Senna and Schumacher. The safety crusade of J. Y. Stewart would only begin after his passing - so it would be interesting to know how he would have dealt with increased concerns over death from 1968 onwards that came with the 3.0L cars - but ultimately it is pretty irrelevant.


Wasn't this picture taken at Spa in '61 when two drivers were killed that weekend?


#1073 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 19:57

Here's something I always thought was interesting about Jim Clark. In his final GP victory at the 1968 South African GP, P2 was taken by Graham Hill, and P3 was taken by Jochen Rindt.

Hill was 25 seconds behind Clark, and Rindt 30 seconds behind Clark. The rest of the field that finished was down at a minimum of 2 laps to Clark.

#1074 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 19:58

old article
http://www.pitpass.c...es_art_id=33145

Many don't agree with Senna at first place, but you can't argue with his taste and knowledge from past champions. He idolised Fangio and Clark. He obviously knew and cared for F1's history.

I had to smile reading the part where Senna actually bought some Jim Clark pens :)


In February 1991 at the request of Sid Watkins, Ayrton gave a speech (with no media presence) to the kids at the school that Jimmy Clark attended when he was a child.

#1075 911

911
  • Member

  • 2,207 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 02 November 2012 - 20:02

old article
http://www.pitpass.c...es_art_id=33145

Many don't agree with Senna at first place, but you can't argue with his taste and knowledge from past champions. He idolised Fangio and Clark. He obviously knew and cared for F1's history.

I had to smile reading the part where Senna actually bought some Jim Clark pens :)


Thanks for the link, Kenny. I enjoyed the article.

#1076 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 02 November 2012 - 20:15

Wasn't this picture taken at Spa in '61 when two drivers were killed that weekend?


It certainly fits the look in those eyes!


#1077 flavio81

flavio81
  • Member

  • 88 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 20:29

[/b]
There's absolutely no reason to rate Prost or Fangio lower than those 3. No way.


Exactly.

That list has many problems but putting Prost at #5 while placing Senna far above is just plain silly.



#1078 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 20:52

Exactly.

That list has many problems but putting Prost at #5 while placing Senna far above is just plain silly.

The list has some problems, but Senna above Prost is not one of then.

#1079 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 November 2012 - 21:28

From tonight's Inside F1 on the BBC News Channel - Fangio is number 2 meaning that number 1 is Ayrton Senna.


The other way round would certainly be better for the sanity of this thread.  ;)

Advertisement

#1080 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,033 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 November 2012 - 22:18

From tonight's Inside F1 on the BBC News Channel - Fangio is number 2 meaning that number 1 is Ayrton Senna.



Good to hear that, D.M.N. :up:

However: why would they drop the hint already now? Taking away all the remaining suspense?

#1081 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 November 2012 - 22:19

The list has some problems, but Senna above Prost is not one of then.

Far above him. That's the problem. You couldn't slip a Marlboro between them when they were at McLaren.

#1082 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 02 November 2012 - 22:55

Far above him. That's the problem. You couldn't slip a Marlboro between them when they were at McLaren.

what is far above? I wouldn't call 4 places far above...
in terms of results yes, but not in terms of performance. do u think Button should be just below Hamilton too? how can Hamilton and Alonso be so "far" from each other?

Results must be taken in consideration, but it can't be the only criteria.

#1083 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 November 2012 - 22:59

what is far above? I wouldn't call 4 places far above...

In a list of 20 drivers, that's 20%. That's far above.

in terms of results yes, but not in terms of performance. do u think Button should be just below Hamilton too? how can Hamilton and Alonso be so "far" from each other?

Hamilton and Alonso ought to be close together, I assume that's the BBC's nationalist bias there. I can see why Hamilton is well clear of Button, 2 out of 3 seasons he has clearly beaten him and the third had some odd circumstances.

Results must be taken in consideration, but it can't be the only criteria.

I agree, I think having a rap sheet of ramming other drivers off track as long as Prince Philip's list of foreigner insults should count as a minus.

#1084 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 November 2012 - 23:05

Hamilton and Alonso ought to be close together, I assume that's the BBC's nationalist bias there. I can see why Hamilton is well clear of Button, 2 out of 3 seasons he has clearly beaten him and the third had some odd circumstances.


The odd circumstance being that Button had a better season?

#1085 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 23:07

Well as I said earlier in the thread, I believe Alain Prost was by far a better driver than Schumacher. Here's the thing that discredits Schumacher, and ensign pointed it out rightfully so; he benefited from the FIA protecting him in a manner no other driver in F1 history ever enjoyed. Certainly Prost enjoyed a cozy relationship with Balestre. However, the benefits given to Michael by Max the Masochist, did more to bring F1 into disrepute than any action/controversy prior, or since. For as bad as Spygate was, it's still a distant second to the fraudulent 1994 season.

Edit: Michael Schumacher perfected the art of winning at all costs, and taught a new generation of drivers that it was perfectly acceptable to try ram your competition with your car in order to secure, or attempt to secure a World Championship. Were it not for the heat they would have received had they ignored Jerez 1997, Mosely would have likely ignored that incident, and tried to chalk it up as some racing incident.

Edited by BoschKurve, 02 November 2012 - 23:10.


#1086 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 November 2012 - 23:23

The odd circumstance being that Button had a better season?

Hamilton was not on his game mentally. His own fault, but even a distracted Hamilton was almost as successful as a chillaxed Button. But using that as a reason for putting Button close to Hamilton is like saying Massa should be close to Raikkonen because of 2008. Or Hulme above Brabham because of 1967.

#1087 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,738 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 23:30

Well as I said earlier in the thread, I believe Alain Prost was by far a better driver than Schumacher. Here's the thing that discredits Schumacher, and ensign pointed it out rightfully so; he benefited from the FIA protecting him in a manner no other driver in F1 history ever enjoyed. Certainly Prost enjoyed a cozy relationship with Balestre. However, the benefits given to Michael by Max the Masochist, did more to bring F1 into disrepute than any action/controversy prior, or since. For as bad as Spygate was, it's still a distant second to the fraudulent 1994 season.

Edit: Michael Schumacher perfected the art of winning at all costs, and taught a new generation of drivers that it was perfectly acceptable to try ram your competition with your car in order to secure, or attempt to secure a World Championship. Were it not for the heat they would have received had they ignored Jerez 1997, Mosely would have likely ignored that incident, and tried to chalk it up as some racing incident.


You disqualify yourself by using phrases we do need in this discussion - Max the Maschoist. What has this to do with Schumacher? More funny is to point out that Schumacher benefited more from Mosley than Prost from Balestre. Everybody knew about the special relation between Alain and the frenchman. Mosley never changed the grid slots and transferred the pole to the dusty side for his "best buddy" Schumacher. You only show that you don't like Schumacher like you have done in the Schumacher thread. But if you argue, and that is a your right, Prost was the the far better driver than Schumacher please use more dimension than Jerez, 1994, traction control and customized tires.

Schumacher was the better rain driver, the better qualifier, transformed (of course with others) Ferrari to winning team, had by far more master class performances than Prost in the late 90s. Even without his winning streak from 2000 to 2004 Michael showed in every way he was a better and faster version of Prost. Your turn.

Edited by 1Devil1, 02 November 2012 - 23:39.


#1088 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 02 November 2012 - 23:41

You disqualify yourself by using phrases we do need in this discussion - Max the Maschoist. What has to do with Schumacher? More funny is to point out that Schumacher benefited more from Mosley than Prost from Balestre. Everybody knew about the special relation between Alain and the frenchman. Mosley never changed the grid slots and transferred the pole to the dusty side for his "best buddy" Schumacher. You only show that you don't like Schumacher like you have done in the Schumacher thread. But if you argue, and that is a your right, Prost was the the far better driver than Schumacher please use more dimension than Jerez, 1994, traction control and customized tires.

Schumacher was the better rain driver, the better qualifier, transformed (of course with others) Ferrari to winning team, had by far more master class performances than Prost in the late 90s. Even without his winning streak from 2000 to 2004 Michael showed in every way he was a better and faster version of Prost. Your turn.


Devil,

Would you like to comment about how Schumacher had the dubious distinction of being the only multiple world champion who was set to be kicked out of two world championships? It only turned out to be one, but really, for a gentleman held in such high regard, that's a rather black mark that cannot be removed, ever.

Had Max the Masochist not been so keen to prevent the German idol from suffering such an awful fate, and altering the voting process in October 1994, Benetton would have been kicked out.

I don't need to provide anymore dimension. 1990, 1994, 1997, 2006, are all fantastic examples of how horrific Schumacher's on track behavior was.

I'm sorry you don't like to actually accept any of that, and feel a need to minimize it.

BTW, please do tell me how much competition Michael actually faced that was on the same level as what Prost faced?

Edited by BoschKurve, 02 November 2012 - 23:42.


#1089 ryan86

ryan86
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 02 November 2012 - 23:47

In a list of 20 drivers, that's 20%. That's far above.


In a race of 10 finishers, Howden Ganley finished 5th whilst Peter Gethin finished 1st. He was also only +0.61 behind over 200 miles. If we don't know the exact scoring, there could be the chance that Senna and Prost are actually very close, yet 3 others have managed to squeeze between them.

#1090 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 November 2012 - 23:52

Hamilton was not on his game mentally. His own fault, but even a distracted Hamilton was almost as successful as a chillaxed Button. But using that as a reason for putting Button close to Hamilton is like saying Massa should be close to Raikkonen because of 2008. Or Hulme above Brabham because of 1967.


Hamilton is above Button because he achieved more, percentage wise, in the time he has been in F1. At the same time, Hamilton isn't further up the list because (among other things), he was clearly beaten one year by a teammate who is not considered top ten in anyones list. The same goes for Raikönnen and Brabham, although the latter makes up a bit by winning 3 titles and building his own cars (even so it's easy to see how Brabham would be ranked higher had he won a 4th title instead of Hulme in 1967).



#1091 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 November 2012 - 23:53

In a race of 10 finishers, Howden Ganley finished 5th whilst Peter Gethin finished 1st. He was also only +0.61 behind over 200 miles. If we don't know the exact scoring, there could be the chance that Senna and Prost are actually very close, yet 3 others have managed to squeeze between them.


:up:

#1092 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 3,663 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 00:03

The odd circumstance being that Button had a better season?


I don't get this idea that 2011 somehow doesn't count. Has any other top driver just squandered a season while in a top 2 car?

#1093 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,738 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 00:03

Devil,

Would you like to comment about how Schumacher had the dubious distinction of being the only multiple world champion who was set to be kicked out of two world championships? It only turned out to be one, but really, for a gentleman held in such high regard, that's a rather black mark that cannot be removed, ever.

Had Max the Masochist not been so keen to prevent the German idol from suffering such an awful fate, and altering the voting process in October 1994, Benetton would have been kicked out.

I don't need to provide anymore dimension. 1990, 1994, 1997, 2006, are all fantastic examples of how horrific Schumacher's on track behavior was.

I'm sorry you don't like to actually accept any of that, and feel a need to minimize it.

BTW, please do tell me how much competition Michael actually faced that was on the same level as what Prost faced?


Like others mentioned Schumacher drove against Hakkinnen, Hill, Alonso, Senna and Prost. If one person is winning everything of course the competition seems to be weak because nothing is left. Without Schumacher Hakkinen would have four championships. Hill three, Barrichello two and so on. I guess no formula one fan would dare to speak about the weak competition in the nineties because the grid would have been full of champions like in the 80s. This discussion never gets old I think you have another view. But his real task was his battle against better cars (Newey Cars) and stay in the championship fight. Formula one is not only drivers specific and if a driver is able to fight against drivers in faster cars this a real showing that he can face the competition or not?. And if you only judge a driver because of emotional aspects and situations which are more than debatable (1990 normal race incident - nobody would speak about it if any other drivers would have been involved) you should think twice if you base your opinion about a driver in an all-time list on that. For me it's too simple and one-sided. The same argument applies on Senna and Prost as well.

Edited by 1Devil1, 03 November 2012 - 00:10.


#1094 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 00:47

I don't get this idea that 2011 somehow doesn't count. Has any other top driver just squandered a season while in a top 2 car?


Well, just wait for the end of this season. I predict if somehow Button ends up ahead of Hamilton in the WDC table, it won't count either. :D

#1095 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 00:50

Well as I said earlier in the thread, I believe Alain Prost was by far a better driver than Schumacher. Here's the thing that discredits Schumacher, and ensign pointed it out rightfully so; he benefited from the FIA protecting him in a manner no other driver in F1 history ever enjoyed. Certainly Prost enjoyed a cozy relationship with Balestre. However, the benefits given to Michael by Max the Masochist, did more to bring F1 into disrepute than any action/controversy prior, or since. For as bad as Spygate was, it's still a distant second to the fraudulent 1994 season.

Edit: Michael Schumacher perfected the art of winning at all costs, and taught a new generation of drivers that it was perfectly acceptable to try ram your competition with your car in order to secure, or attempt to secure a World Championship. Were it not for the heat they would have received had they ignored Jerez 1997, Mosely would have likely ignored that incident, and tried to chalk it up as some racing incident.


In fact Alain Prost is ahead of Schumacher in that category as well (at least in chronological terms...). Credit where credit is due. :smoking:

Edited by LiJu914, 03 November 2012 - 00:51.


#1096 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 November 2012 - 00:53

Hamilton was not on his game mentally. His own fault, but even a distracted Hamilton was almost as successful as a chillaxed Button. But using that as a reason for putting Button close to Hamilton is like saying Massa should be close to Raikkonen because of 2008. Or Hulme above Brabham because of 1967.

:lol:
The same logic applies to Prost-Senna.

The qualifying score against Prost was 28-4 to Senna been on average 0.737s ahead. (this is more than the double of what Alonso has on Massa this year...)
The race score when both finished the race was 14-6 to Senna.

and against other teammates? Senna out-qualified his teammates 90% of the time, 140 against 16.When both finish a race, he out-raced his teammates 84% of the time.

He out-qualified de Angelis 13-3 ( 1.113s ahead on avg). He out-raced de Angelis 5-1. The year before de Angelis out-qualified Mansell 11-5. de Angelis out raced Mansell 5-1.

He out-qualified Nakajima 16-0 (3.815s ahead). He out-raced him 7-0.The year after Piquet out-qualified Nakajima 13-1 (only 1.006 avg ahead, 2.8s less than Senna). out-raced 6-0.

He out-qualified Berger 41-7 (0.598s ahead). He out-raced him 16-3. The year before the qualifying score was 7-7 between Berger and Mansell.

And Senna wasn't the car destroyer like some say, indeed he finished 5% more races than his teammates trough his 10 years racing F1.

But you know, Senna is in this list just because he died while racing... really overrated! :rolleyes:

#1097 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,788 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:01

Wasn't this picture taken at Spa in '61 when two drivers were killed that weekend?


No, it's a Jesse Alexander photo taken in 1962. The year you refer to is 1960, when Alan Stacey and Chris Bristow were killed during the race and both Moss and Mike Taylor were badly injured during practice. And from that weekend on Clark loathed the place, yet he won there 4 times on the trot from '62 thru '65.

#1098 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:26

:lol:
The same logic applies to Prost-Senna.

The qualifying score against Prost was 28-4 to Senna been on average 0.737s ahead. (this is more than the double of what Alonso has on Massa this year...)
The race score when both finished the race was 14-6 to Senna.

and against other teammates? Senna out-qualified his teammates 90% of the time, 140 against 16.When both finish a race, he out-raced his teammates 84% of the time.

He out-qualified de Angelis 13-3 ( 1.113s ahead on avg). He out-raced de Angelis 5-1. The year before de Angelis out-qualified Mansell 11-5. de Angelis out raced Mansell 5-1.

He out-qualified Nakajima 16-0 (3.815s ahead). He out-raced him 7-0.The year after Piquet out-qualified Nakajima 13-1 (only 1.006 avg ahead, 2.8s less than Senna). out-raced 6-0.

He out-qualified Berger 41-7 (0.598s ahead). He out-raced him 16-3. The year before the qualifying score was 7-7 between Berger and Mansell.

And Senna wasn't the car destroyer like some say, indeed he finished 5% more races than his teammates trough his 10 years racing F1.

But you know, Senna is in this list just because he died while racing... really overrated! :rolleyes:


:up: :up:

Love the numbers Kyo!

#1099 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 01:27

In fact Alain Prost is ahead of Schumacher in that category as well (at least in chronological terms...). Credit where credit is due. :smoking:


Indeed, a fair point.

The other two black marks against Alain besides Suzuka 1989, was the fact that he was sacked by two teams in his career.

Advertisement

#1100 nordschleife

nordschleife
  • Member

  • 872 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:35

The other two black marks against Alain besides Suzuka 1989, was the fact that he was sacked by two teams in his career.


More like black marks against those teams doing the sacking, as proven by their diminished results the following year.