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

#1501 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 19:36

Alonso, the apparent greatest on the current F1 grid based on conventional wisdom, had a challenging season with Jarno Trulli at Renault. Trulli is supposedly a mediocre performer even among the mediocrity that supposedly comprised most of the F1 grid in the late 90's and early 2000's. Yes, Trulli qualified very well, but his not so good race pace was well known. Comparing Coulthard to Webber at RedBull when Coulthard was clearly in the twilight of his career makes no sense to me whatsoever. The same thing is done with Schumacher and Rosberg in a car with consistently mediocre to poor speed relative to the other cars on the grid.


Maybe it is a language thing, but I think this statement is much too strong. Trulli was very good, but perhaps not at the absolute top. I am thinking of the drives for Prost and particularly Jordan. The comment about his race pace is unfair, as the reason he often held up faster cars was that he outqualified them. Maybe he would get more credit if he qualified slower!

Advertisement

#1502 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:05

Montoya had an attitude problem. If he had a different attitude, he would have likely spent more time in F1 and he'd have been more successful. He was as quick as any of those currently at the front. Any of them. If you want a good example of wasted talented because of poor attitude, then Montoya makes for a fine example indeed.

Alonso, the apparent greatest on the current F1 grid based on conventional wisdom, had a challenging season with Jarno Trulli at Renault. Trulli is supposedly a mediocre performer even among the mediocrity that supposedly comprised most of the F1 grid in the late 90's and early 2000's. Yes, Trulli qualified very well, but his not so good race pace was well known. Comparing Coulthard to Webber at RedBull when Coulthard was clearly in the twilight of his career makes no sense to me whatsoever. The same thing is done with Schumacher and Rosberg in a car with consistently mediocre to poor speed relative to the other cars on the grid.

It makes no sense. You can't compare drivers if they are in a midfield team? What do their relative cars speed compared to other cars interfere in the teammate battle?

About Trulli, he had great qualifying pace and an average race pace what put him slightly above average as an overall driver and I don't remember Trulli been seen as a mediocre performer in the late 90's early 2000's, he is seen this way by some after his last 2 years driving for lotus.

Yeah... if there's someone dominant, then it's put down to poor competition. If there's no one dominant, then it's because there are a lot of quality drivers at the front. Afterall, this is the pinnacle of the sport. It's heavily about perception.

Hamilton who is held in such high regard was almost beaten to a championship by Massa who is not held in high regard by many. Button, who many struggle to hold in such high regard, outscored Hamilton over three seasons of races with McLaren. Of course, many didn't expect this to happen and it is what it is. Even though it has happened, there are many who will say that Button 'can't hold a candle' to Hamilton with speed. It's the same thing that happened between Senna and Prost. Over three full seasons, Senna who is supposedly miles ahead of Prost in speed etc., has to fight with Prost for the championship for those three years. Their overall performance and results were not very different.

This IMO points to there being a lot of factors that influences a drivers ultimate performance and results. Fans will look at a particular aspect of a drivers performance and compare it with that of another driver. It so happens that their favoured driver is strong in this aspect while the other driver isn't and they then proceed to use this single factor to claim overall superiority when they really can't. This mistaken assessment is revealed in the overall results over several seasons, a nice and big statistical sample of races that allow for anomalies such as bad days, bad luck etc. to minimise the skewing of results.

Take a close look at Button vs Hamilton over the three seasons they raced together. Those who look at racing in the same way will find many excuses as to why Button happened to score so well despite Hamilton's supposedly way superior abilities as they do with explaining why Prost scored so well against the great Senna himself! smile.gif

F1 is heavily about perception because the results achieved are not only up to the drivers, and there is no way to give them all the same conditions, so everyone try to abstract what was up to the driver and what was not and so we develop our own way to compare performance, and I think this is fine, but what I can't agree is with people that uses parameters A, B, and C to compare drivers X - Y and them come with other parameters to compare driver W - Z

I'm fine with people that says Prost-Senna were equals based on the point system as long as they think Button-Hamilton are equals, that Rosberg trashed Schumacher this season, Vergne is much better than Ricciardo, and so on.

At least the way I use to rate them I have Senna ahead of Prost, Hamilton ahead of Button, Schumacher ahead of Rosberg this season and Ricciardo ahead of Vergne.

#1503 repete

repete
  • Member

  • 189 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:17

If you really want to understand why Ayrton is considered the best ever by F1 drivers, just watch 1988 and 1989 using the same criteria you used to analize Nico x Michael in 2011 and 2012. Prost, one of the greatest drivers of all time, was not in the same league as Ayrton.

oh yes, '88 and '89, 2 years that Prost scored more points than Senna when they were team mates.

#1504 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:22

Montoya had an attitude problem. If he had a different attitude, he would have likely spent more time in F1 and he'd have been more successful. He was as quick as any of those currently at the front. Any of them. If you want a good example of wasted talented because of poor attitude, then Montoya makes for a fine example indeed.

Alonso, the apparent greatest on the current F1 grid based on conventional wisdom, had a challenging season with Jarno Trulli at Renault. Trulli is supposedly a mediocre performer even among the mediocrity that supposedly comprised most of the F1 grid in the late 90's and early 2000's. Yes, Trulli qualified very well, but his not so good race pace was well known. Comparing Coulthard to Webber at RedBull when Coulthard was clearly in the twilight of his career makes no sense to me whatsoever. The same thing is done with Schumacher and Rosberg in a car with consistently mediocre to poor speed relative to the other cars on the grid.


Jarno was on fire in 2004, if he just had it mentally, he would have beaten Alonso that season.


#1505 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:23

oh yes, '88 and '89, 2 years that Prost scored more points than Senna when they were team mates.


I think what he meant was that Ayrton was quite better in talent and speed alone, which is true, he was.

#1506 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:48

oh yes, '88 and '89, 2 years that Prost scored more points than Senna when they were team mates.

I don't think he is referring to the points system when he says to use the same criteria he uses to compare Nico x Michael performances this season.

#1507 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:30

:up: Posts like these make me continue to read here even though I so often contemplate stopping because of the distressing signal to noise ratio. :)

How do you treat those who's momentum of success was clearly interrupted by tragedy? I'm not referring to Pironi or Villeneuve either. They had not yet really achieved great success, though Villeneuve won the hearts of many. I'm more referring to Senna and Clark.

:up:
As far as drivers who died on the race track is concerned, for me, the simplest answer is the right one : You simply cannot extrapolate results of a drivers career into the future, as they are most likely wrong. The most recent example of this is Schumacher's failed comeback, anyone who has watched the sport for a while would have thought that a highly successful combination of Brawn and Schumacher in a WDC winning team, would have atleast been able to pull off a win or two, or atleast a few more podiums in these 3 years. It did not happen.

Past success is not a guarantee of the future. It may be a reasonable assumption, but never one which is conclusive. As far as Jimmy Clark, Ayrton Senna or even GV is concerned, their careers ended the day they died. End of. There will always be, atleast two interpretations of how their careers would have played out if they were alive, both of which will always be reasonable because it cannot be proven.

Fangio's equipment advantage is largely a myth. No doubt the Alfetta had the legs in 1950, but in 1953 he was the only non-Ferrari winner in the F2 World Championship, he drove an ageing 250F in common with half the field in 1957 and still beat them all hollow, and the fastest thing about the Merc in 1954 was Fangio. Back then it was possible for someone to buy the exact same car as the world champ had. I don't think that sort of affair has happened since 1960.

You missed the point I was trying to make, which is its easy to explain away success in Formula 1, if you want to. Every racing driver has a lot of factors behind his success, apart from his own talent. The debate will go on forever and you will never have any answers to it.

I can see you are trying to sidestep the issue of equipment dominance Fangio had, but its false. He drove the all conquering Alfettas for two of his world championships, '50 and '51. Also your point about his tenure in Mercedes is highly contentious, as in 1954, after the new Mercedes was introduced, it was quite simply the best car on track. Thats 3 of his WDCs in easily dominant cars.

There's no need for a world champ. There isn't one in golf or tennis. It gives a narrative to the season, true enough; it also provides an artificial climax for people to be captivated. But it does nothing to determine who the best driver is.

Drivers may drive for the title. But that doesn't make them the greatest ever.


For me, this represents an irrational widening of the pool of candidates for the "greatest ever" driver. If the very standards by which success is recognized in a sport is to be shunned, then we'd be left with over a hundred candidates for this debate and no answers. You could pick up a random Olivier Panis, Jody Schekter, Nick Heidfeld (and for the more creative among us, drivers even lower down in the food chain who have driven for the likes of Minardi ) and make a case for them to be considered as the greatest of all time.


#1508 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:34

Michael did not have the overall competition on the grid that existed in the 1980s up until about 1991.

Let's face it Alain outscored far more capable teammates than Michael ever did, and was winning against far better competition.

I'd like to see how you can prove either of these statements.

#1509 404KF2

404KF2
  • Member

  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:36



Tazio Nuvolari was better than all 20 on this list.

Edited by 404KF2, 01 December 2012 - 04:38.


#1510 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,745 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:44

I can see you are trying to sidestep the issue of equipment dominance Fangio had, but its false. He drove the all conquering Alfettas for two of his world championships, '50 and '51. Also your point about his tenure in Mercedes is highly contentious, as in 1954, after the new Mercedes was introduced, it was quite simply the best car on track. Thats 3 of his WDCs in easily dominant cars.

If the Merc were that much of a step forward, how come Moss had them beat at Italy in a bog-standard 250F? Moss was not on Fangio's level at the time. Had Ascari been active in 1954 I reckon we'd have a very different appreciation of the Silberpfeile.

Anyhoo, Fangio only one won title in an Alfetta. Farina took the first.

#1511 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,745 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:47

For me, this represents an irrational widening of the pool of candidates for the "greatest ever" driver. If the very standards by which success is recognized in a sport is to be shunned, then we'd be left with over a hundred candidates for this debate and no answers. You could pick up a random Olivier Panis, Jody Schekter, Nick Heidfeld (and for the more creative among us, drivers even lower down in the food chain who have driven for the likes of Minardi ) and make a case for them to be considered as the greatest of all time.

No you couldn't. The question is what is the standard for success? How is it determined? It's easy for a layman to recognize the winner of a race; it's whoever crosses the line first. How about the championship? Well, that depends on whether a 1st is better than two 3rds or not. Who works that out? Logicians? Statisticians? A posse of philosophers? No, it's an FIA vote.

Let's put it a slightly different way. Curtis Turner is a greater driver in NASCAR than Bill Rexford. Yet Rexford is the one with a championship.

#1512 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:21

So why bother? There was no drivers' world title until 1950. There was no rally champ until 1980. There was a European title in the late thirties that was so prominent that to this day nobody knows who really won it in 1939; there was another title in the early part of the decade that had a chap called Minoia win the title when even Mrs M would concede he did not deserve it.

There's no need for a world champ. There isn't one in golf or tennis. It gives a narrative to the season, true enough; it also provides an artificial climax for people to be captivated. But it does nothing to determine who the best driver is.

....

Drivers may drive for the title. But that doesn't make them the greatest ever.


There is a World Championship in open wheel motor racing, and winning it is the primary objective of most of the top drivers. Today, I would say it is the primary objective of Sebastien Vettel, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton, Kimi Raikkonen, Mark Webber, Felipe Massa, Jenson Button and several others. It has a higher priority for them than winning a race, or even several races. Success, particularly sustained success, in this competition must be a major factor in evaluating a drivers career.

For me, this represents an irrational widening of the pool of candidates for the "greatest ever" driver. If the very standards by which success is recognized in a sport is to be shunned, then we'd be left with over a hundred candidates for this debate and no answers.


+1

#1513 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:27

No you couldn't. The question is what is the standard for success? How is it determined? It's easy for a layman to recognize the winner of a race; it's whoever crosses the line first. How about the championship? Well, that depends on whether a 1st is better than two 3rds or not. Who works that out? Logicians? Statisticians? A posse of philosophers? No, it's an FIA vote.


They all know the points system before the season begins, and can manage risk (driving, development, reliability etc) accordingly. The concept of a world championship seems to work quite well for the layman - tight WDC contests do generate a lot of interest.

An analogy might be soccer leagues - each match is an event in its own right, with a winner and loser (or a draw). However, the real kudos is for winning the league.

#1514 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,745 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:04

They all know the points system before the season begins, and can manage risk (driving, development, reliability etc) accordingly. The concept of a world championship seems to work quite well for the layman - tight WDC contests do generate a lot of interest.

An analogy might be soccer leagues - each match is an event in its own right, with a winner and loser (or a draw). However, the real kudos is for winning the league.

The league works because you don't have everyone playing everyone else at the same time. World championships do not because drivers drive to points rather than for the race win. It's accountancy - and there's never been a great accountant.

#1515 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:14

The league works because you don't have everyone playing everyone else at the same time. World championships do not because drivers drive to points rather than for the race win. It's accountancy - and there's never been a great accountant.


They try to win the race if possible (more points + the prestige of a GP win), but the current top drivers do not always risk everything for the GP win if they are in contention for the championship. This requires the full range of driving skills, including taking any realistic opportunities to win races (no one has won a WDC without winning a GP). Any driver who would simply drive flat out all the time is not a complete racing driver.

#1516 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:31

How is Ayrton Senna rated as the greatest of all time? He faced one WDC in his career, he lost. He lost twice over points, ridiculous "best 11 results" system, to Prost and this was a peak Senna.

He was way too emotionally charged for his own good, way too mystical and to be frank, mentally he was rather frail. He faced a prime Prost and lost, and in my opinion, had he faced the consummate machine that was Michael Schumacher '96-'00 he would have been soundly beaten. Logic? Schumacher got under his skin in '94, resulting in 2 errors in 3 GPs, so I really can't see how he could have handled a Schumacher matching and beating him every weekend.

#1517 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,800 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:50

How is Ayrton Senna rated as the greatest of all time?


You're true question is "How can MS not be rated as the greatest of all time?", isn't it?

He faced one WDC in his career, he lost. He lost twice over points, ridiculous "best 11 results" system, to Prost and this was a peak Senna.

He was way too emotionally charged for his own good, way too mystical and to be frank, mentally he was rather frail. He faced a prime Prost and lost, and in my opinion, had he faced the consummate machine that was Michael Schumacher '96-'00 he would have been soundly beaten. Logic? Schumacher got under his skin in '94, resulting in 2 errors in 3 GPs, so I really can't see how he could have handled a Schumacher matching and beating him every weekend.


Well, apparently the majority of people in most polls, including this one, are lacking you kind of imagination.

#1518 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:55

It's actually more "Why aren't Fangio, Prost & Schumacher rated ahead of Senna?"

Well, it's actually probable that the majority of people in polls are swayed by his death and the god like image created afterwards. Sweeping his numerous negatives, his almost laughable connection with God being one, underneath the carpet.

#1519 Devero

Devero
  • Member

  • 544 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:58

Well, once again those ratings proved to be an utter bs.

They now need to put Vettel on 1st as he is only driver in 63 years of F1 history to win 3 first titles in a row and at age of 25.


Advertisement

#1520 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:01

It's actually more "Why aren't Fangio, Prost & Schumacher rated ahead of Senna?"

Well, it's actually probable that the majority of people in polls are swayed by his death and the god like image created afterwards. Sweeping his numerous negatives, his almost laughable connection with God being one, underneath the carpet.


Any connection with God is laughable to me, but I don't rate drivers based on that.

#1521 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,800 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:12

It's actually more "Why aren't Fangio, Prost & Schumacher rated ahead of Senna?"

Well, it's actually probable that the majority of people in polls are swayed by his death and the god like image created afterwards. Sweeping his numerous negatives, his almost laughable connection with God being one, underneath the carpet.


And only a selected few like yourself can see through it all, right?

BTW, IIRC Schumacher is religious also, does that count as a laughable negative for him too?

#1522 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:28

And only a selected few like yourself can see through it all, right?

BTW, IIRC Schumacher is religious also, does that count as a laughable negative for him too?

Is there only a small, select group of elite humans who rate Fangio & co. over Senna?

I don't ever recall Schumacher having an outer body experience thanks to God.

#1523 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:32

How is Ayrton Senna rated as the greatest of all time? He faced one WDC in his career, he lost. He lost twice over points, ridiculous "best 11 results" system, to Prost and this was a peak Senna.

He was way too emotionally charged for his own good, way too mystical and to be frank, mentally he was rather frail. He faced a prime Prost and lost, and in my opinion, had he faced the consummate machine that was Michael Schumacher '96-'00 he would have been soundly beaten. Logic? Schumacher got under his skin in '94, resulting in 2 errors in 3 GPs, so I really can't see how he could have handled a Schumacher matching and beating him every weekend.

Brilliant logic here, we should take out Michael from top 20 and place Rosberg instead, after all, he beat Schumacher 3 consecutive seasons and scored 70% more points. :rolleyes:

#1524 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,800 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:39

Is there only a small, select group of elite humans who rate Fangio & co. over Senna?


There is no such thing as "Fangio and co." One can argue for each other driver individually, only.

If you must make a connection, consider the high regard Fangio held Senna in, and vice-versa.

I don't ever recall Schumacher having an outer body experience thanks to God.


Shame, sounds like even God ranks Senna higher than Schumacher. :p

For the record, I'm agnostic to the bone, and fully agree with Wanders post above.

#1525 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:39

Brilliant logic here, we should take out Michael from top 20 and place Rosberg instead, after all, he beat Schumacher 3 consecutive seasons and scored 70% more points. :rolleyes:

Deary me, if you're going to come across as sarcastic, read first and don't end up looking like a retard. "...and this was a peak Senna."

#1526 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:42

And Senna won 6 of the 8 races he finished in 89.

#1527 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:50

And only a selected few like yourself can see through it all, right?

BTW, IIRC Schumacher is religious also, does that count as a laughable negative for him too?


Schumacher may be spiritual, but he's not religious. It's a very different thing.

It is so often the case that a few are indeed able to see through an opinion that so many may have. There are a few or even one influential/s who coin/s the opinion. In turn, so many without the knowledge and/or experience to formulate their own opinion simply adopt those of the influential ones. Many too adopt the group think since it's not easy being different and they think along the same lines you're implying, 'If so many think so, then it must be so.' A momentum rapidly develops. Soon we have those in a huge group saying exactly what you're now saying.

There's no point in giving your opinion validity based on others having it. It will not work and should not work.

#1528 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 13:00

There is no such thing as "Fangio and co." One can argue for each other driver individually, only.

If you must make a connection, consider the high regard Fangio held Senna in, and vice-versa.



Shame, sounds like even God ranks Senna higher than Schumacher. :p

For the record, I'm agnostic to the bone, and fully agree with Wanders post above.

What's your point? He held Senna in a high regard, I hold Senna the racer in a high regard. I'm not saying he was utter dog crap, I think he's in the top 5, but I don't believe he should be rated any higher than 4th for the reasons mentioned above.

Why doesn't Senna the person reflect upon Senna the racer? You might think otherwise, but we will all subconsciously factor in the driver's personality when rating them as the GOAT. Senna fans loved his mysticism, no other driver possessed his complex personality that was often endearing to the general public and it was uniqueness which gained the heart's of many. Now when you see it for the load of bullshit it was, you just see him as Senna who lost out twice in two seasons to Prost. So rationality says he was not better than Prost. :)

#1529 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 13:08

Deary me, if you're going to come across as sarcastic, read first and don't end up looking like a retard. "...and this was a peak Senna."

What makes you think Senna was on his peak in 88, 89? IMO 89 was his worse year in terms of driving mistakes.

#1530 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 13:14

What makes you think Senna was on his peak in 88, 89? IMO 89 was his worse year in terms of driving mistakes.

Monaco '88, a laptime, which absolutely destroyed Prost, only delivered when you're at your peak.

#1531 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 13:15

What's your point? He held Senna in a high regard, I hold Senna the racer in a high regard. I'm not saying he was utter dog crap, I think he's in the top 5, but I don't believe he should be rated any higher than 4th for the reasons mentioned above.

Why doesn't Senna the person reflect upon Senna the racer? You might think otherwise, but we will all subconsciously factor in the driver's personality when rating them as the GOAT. Senna fans loved his mysticism, no other driver possessed his complex personality that was often endearing to the general public and it was uniqueness which gained the heart's of many. Now when you see it for the load of bullshit it was, you just see him as Senna who lost out twice in two seasons to Prost. So rationality says he was not better than Prost. :)

And it come again the logic that apply to one, but not to other. First Senna only lost once and won once against Prost. Schumacher is the guy who lost 3 times to Rosberg so rationality says he was not better than Rosberg.

#1532 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 13:18

Monaco '88, a laptime, which absolutely destroyed Prost, only delivered when you're at your peak.

Monaco 2012, a pole driving a shit car, only possible if you are at your peak. oops!

#1533 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 01 December 2012 - 13:32

Monaco 2012, a pole driving a shit car, only possible if you are at your peak. oops!


Well played. :rotfl:

#1534 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 13:42

Monaco 2012, a pole driving a shit car, only possible if you are at your peak. oops!

1. He wasn't 1.5s faster than his team-mate, he was 0.1s faster than his team-mate.
2. He wasn't 3s faster than 3rd place
3. His team-mate was 1 times GP winner Nico Rosberg, not 2xWDC Alain Prost
4. Context: Mercedes was the best car to qualify in Monaco.

Your pathetic attempt to redeem yourself reeks of trying too hard. Wrong on 2 accounts but thank you for participating.

#1535 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 13:53

Schumacher may be spiritual, but he's not religious. It's a very different thing.

It is so often the case that a few are indeed able to see through an opinion that so many may have. There are a few or even one influential/s who coin/s the opinion. In turn, so many without the knowledge and/or experience to formulate their own opinion simply adopt those of the influential ones. Many too adopt the group think since it's not easy being different and they think along the same lines you're implying, 'If so many think so, then it must be so.' A momentum rapidly develops. Soon we have those in a huge group saying exactly what you're now saying.

There's no point in giving your opinion validity based on others having it. It will not work and should not work.

In our society the truth is based when there is consensus between specialists about a specific topic. If you don't agree with it, it is up to you to prove your point and convince other specialists that your point is the right one, but before you manage that the truth will still be the other one.

#1536 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 01 December 2012 - 14:06

1. He wasn't 1.5s faster than his team-mate, he was 0.1s faster than his team-mate.
2. He wasn't 3s faster than 3rd place
3. His team-mate was 1 times GP winner Nico Rosberg, not 2xWDC Alain Prost
4. Context: Mercedes was the best car to qualify in Monaco.

Your pathetic attempt to redeem yourself reeks of trying too hard. Wrong on 2 accounts but thank you for participating.


Except the current formula has made it very difficult to design a car that even remotely approaches the MP4/4 for dominance.

#1537 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 December 2012 - 14:12

Schumacher may be spiritual, but he's not religious. It's a very different thing.

It is so often the case that a few are indeed able to see through an opinion that so many may have. There are a few or even one influential/s who coin/s the opinion. In turn, so many without the knowledge and/or experience to formulate their own opinion simply adopt those of the influential ones. Many too adopt the group think since it's not easy being different and they think along the same lines you're implying, 'If so many think so, then it must be so.' A momentum rapidly develops. Soon we have those in a huge group saying exactly what you're now saying.

There's no point in giving your opinion validity based on others having it. It will not work and should not work.


Not to get religion involved, but I believe Michael is a Christian. He always wears the cross when he is off track, but that could mean something personal to him.

To me, it's a very personal thing and it should be.

#1538 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 14:27

Except the current formula has made it very difficult to design a car that even remotely approaches the MP4/4 for dominance.

Again, another irrelevant point. He beat his teammate, Alain Prost, by 1.5s. Comprende?

#1539 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 14:30

1. He wasn't 1.5s faster than his team-mate, he was 0.1s faster than his team-mate.
2. He wasn't 3s faster than 3rd place
3. His team-mate was 1 times GP winner Nico Rosberg, not 2xWDC Alain Prost
4. Context: Mercedes was the best car to qualify in Monaco.

Your pathetic attempt to redeem yourself reeks of trying too hard. Wrong on 2 accounts but thank you for participating.

Yes, Senna was usually 0.7s faster than Prost in qualifying, finished 70% the time ahead but you think he was a worse driver. and no, like I said 89 was his worse season in terms of driving mistakes, not in terms of speed but you want to prove a point that Senna was in his peak using his qualifying speed but you don't use qualifying speed to rate the driver. Makes no sense. If qualifying speed defines a driver is in his peak it must define how good a driver is (since a driver is in his peak when he is driving his best) and so Senna was much better than Prost in 88, 89 since he trashed Prost in qualifying. You are simply choosing whatever attends your agenda at a time.

Just tell me, for you who was the better driver this season, Schumacher or Rosberg? If you think Rosberg was double the driver that Schumacher was this season, even don't agreeing, I have no problem with your way of thinking and will not keep debating.

Advertisement

#1540 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 01 December 2012 - 14:38

Again, another irrelevant point. He beat his teammate, Alain Prost, by 1.5s. Comprende? Or are you lacking the reading skills that you so possessed a couple of pages back?


You're missing the point that we don't quite know what Michael would have done if cars were allowed to be designed with more freedom.

And I wouldn't even call 1988 Senna's peak for the sole reason he hadn't quite gotten everything in order mentally. Even though he won more races in 1988 than in any other season, he was a smarter driver in '91.

The other reason is that the MP4/4 was the most dominant race car ever built. It wasn't going to be a true indication of a driver's peak or not as it was a worldbeater that won every race on the calendar save for Monza.

Edited by BoschKurve, 01 December 2012 - 14:40.


#1541 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 01 December 2012 - 14:47

You're missing the point that we don't quite know what Michael would have done if cars were allowed to be designed with more freedom.

And I wouldn't even call 1988 Senna's peak for the sole reason he hadn't quite gotten everything in order mentally. Even though he won more races in 1988 than in any other season, he was a smarter driver in '91.

The other reason is that the MP4/4 was the most dominant race car ever built. It wasn't going to be a true indication of a driver's peak or not as it was a worldbeater that won every race on the calendar save for Monza.



I would want to say Ayrton was at his finest for the 1990 Season or even 1993, in a car that was not quite as good as Williams.

As for as Michael, we seen we could do in 2002 and 2004 seasons or even 1995 season given the cars to his needs.

#1542 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,256 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 01 December 2012 - 14:55

Really not impressed with the atmosphere in this thread. If you can't be civil, leave. If you're here just to bait other users, leave. This place isn't for you.

If you can't discuss things sensibly with a well thought out rationale, go elsewhere.

#1543 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 15:02

I would want to say Ayrton was at his finest for the 1990 Season or even 1993, in a car that was not quite as good as Williams.

As for as Michael, we seen we could do in 2002 and 2004 seasons or even 1995 season given the cars to his needs.

IMO 91 and especially 93 were Ayrton best seasons. 90 is not far though.

#1544 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 01 December 2012 - 15:07

I would want to say Ayrton was at his finest for the 1990 Season or even 1993, in a car that was not quite as good as Williams.

As for as Michael, we seen we could do in 2002 and 2004 seasons or even 1995 season given the cars to his needs.


I agree George. He was a more complete driver in 1990, and even more so in 1993. The experience he gained finally balanced out his talent. He was still rough around the edges in 1988 to his own deriment. Monaco 1988, while he put in the qualifying of a lifetime, his shunt late in the race was just stupid. But in a way, it had a good benefit as he never lost another race at Monaco again in his life.

#1545 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 December 2012 - 15:12

Again, another irrelevant point. He beat his teammate, Alain Prost, by 1.5s. Comprende?


In one session, at Monaco which Prost hates and the Mclaren was so dominant that after setting his time Alain sat in the pits for the last part of it safe on the knowledge he'd be no lower than 2nd, Senna stayed out and took advantage of much better track conditions.

That 1.5s advantage is a hugely distorted myth, its faaaar from a representative gap.

The fact that Prost (quite comfortably) beat Senna during both season they where together on overall points says a lot, Senna might of been quicker over 1 lap but Prost was, for me, the better driver of the two.

Prost is one of, if not the, most underrated drivers in the history of the sport IMO, Senna the opposite. The differences being Senna's charisma and the fact he died, at the fear of sounding cold & morbid Senna would most defiantly not be remembered so lovingly or as such a great had he lived.



#1546 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 15:40

In one session, at Monaco which Prost hates and the Mclaren was so dominant that after setting his time Alain sat in the pits for the last part of it safe on the knowledge he'd be no lower than 2nd, Senna stayed out and took advantage of much better track conditions.

That 1.5s advantage is a hugely distorted myth, its faaaar from a representative gap.

The fact that Prost (quite comfortably) beat Senna during both season they where together on overall points says a lot , Senna might of been quicker over 1 lap but Prost was, for me, the better driver of the two.

Prost is one of, if not the, most underrated drivers in the history of the sport IMO, Senna the opposite. The differences being Senna's charisma and the fact he died, at the fear of sounding cold & morbid Senna would most defiantly not be remembered so lovingly or as such a great had he lived.


1st bolded part
Prost won Monaco 4 or 5 times and also had some Poles there... So what are you talking about?

2nd bolded part
It depends.. in 1989 Prost was over a second behind in Qualifying in 10 out of 16 GP-weekends.

3rd bolded part
So Button and Hamilton were also equal in 2012, right?
Prost was close in 88 regarding race perofmances - but in 89 he was behind in every single race, Senna finished...and often enough by huge margins. The DNF ratio beat Senna in 89, not Prost´s race performances. (but i also have to say that 89 was probably Prost´s weakest year of his career regarding pure pace)

Edited by LiJu914, 01 December 2012 - 15:49.


#1547 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 01 December 2012 - 15:43

What the hell is your definition of beating someone quite comfortably? To me, a difference that can be put down to mechanical failure induced retirement variance is not a comfortable difference.

Edited by Wander, 01 December 2012 - 15:44.


#1548 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 December 2012 - 16:34

If the Merc were that much of a step forward, how come Moss had them beat at Italy in a bog-standard 250F? Moss was not on Fangio's level at the time. Had Ascari been active in 1954 I reckon we'd have a very different appreciation of the Silberpfeile.

It was because Moss was driving well that day till he had to pit with his problem. Fangio's teammate Karl Kling led the field and built up a gap in the early going of the race as well. Small facts like these, and other races in 1954 to me is proof that at, he clearly did not have a bad car as you seemed to imply some posts back, and in my eyes it was a the best car out there.

No you couldn't. The question is what is the standard for success? How is it determined? It's easy for a layman to recognize the winner of a race; it's whoever crosses the line first. How about the championship? Well, that depends on whether a 1st is better than two 3rds or not. Who works that out? Logicians? Statisticians? A posse of philosophers? No, it's an FIA vote.


The league works because you don't have everyone playing everyone else at the same time. World championships do not because drivers drive to points rather than for the race win. It's accountancy - and there's never been a great accountant.

As I said earlier, this represents an irrational and unneccesary complication of this debate. The sport is governed by a set of rules and regulations, as all sports are, and the conditions of success are laid out for everyone. I dont think any driver, at the beginning of his career aims at anything less than a world championship, which is the ultimate goal of all budding racers.

Tomorrow, if a panel of experts were to sit to decide about who is the greatest tennis player of all time, and one of them says, "Grand Slams represent nothing, but a hurried competition on surfaces which favour a few type of players, with no second chance given. What is the real definition of success ? I propose the man with the least number of unforced errors over his career should be declared the greatest of all time, as in my eyes this is the ultimate differentiator of greatness"

You see how absurd this argument sounds ?

Edited by SparkPlug, 01 December 2012 - 16:35.


#1549 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 16:56

In one session, at Monaco which Prost hates and the Mclaren was so dominant that after setting his time Alain sat in the pits for the last part of it safe on the knowledge he'd be no lower than 2nd, Senna stayed out and took advantage of much better track conditions.

That 1.5s advantage is a hugely distorted myth, its faaaar from a representative gap.

The fact that Prost (quite comfortably) beat Senna during both season they where together on overall points says a lot, Senna might of been quicker over 1 lap but Prost was, for me, the better driver of the two.

Prost is one of, if not the, most underrated drivers in the history of the sport IMO, Senna the opposite. The differences being Senna's charisma and the fact he died, at the fear of sounding cold & morbid Senna would most defiantly not be remembered so lovingly or as such a great had he lived.

So Prost hated Monaco? :rotfl:

Prost talking about the 88 Monaco qualifying. "In Monaco where he (Senna) was not very good into the weekend. The first Thursday I was ahead of him, almost all Saturday I was ahead of him until the last qualifying lap where he just like this, and them he went quick and go the pole for just a little bit ( :lol: ). I couldn't imagine he could come back like this because he was not going that very well. " Obviously we can't say Prost memories are all that trustworthy since Ayrton did not one one lap, but a sequence of laps, and he was ahead not by a little bit, but by far. Then we have Jo Ramirez saying "Alain and I would look at the time sheets and Ayrton sitting there listening what we're saying and he (Prost) said to me: He is ****ing quick! Looked to Ayrton and he was sitting there with a big smile and he winked at me."

And one more to the team of he's ahead in points he must be better. I hope you agree with Rosberg been better than Schumacher this season, Button is overall better than Hamilton, Hamilton better than Alonso, Vergne better than Ricciardo, Tarso Marques better than Alonso, Karthikeyan better than de la Rosa and so on, after all they all beat their respective teammates in the standings.

#1550 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,745 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 01 December 2012 - 20:31

Tomorrow, if a panel of experts were to sit to decide about who is the greatest tennis player of all time, and one of them says, "Grand Slams represent nothing, but a hurried competition on surfaces which favour a few type of players, with no second chance given. What is the real definition of success ? I propose the man with the least number of unforced errors over his career should be declared the greatest of all time, as in my eyes this is the ultimate differentiator of greatness"

You see how absurd this argument sounds ?

Yes, because it's not even close to my argument. Indeed it's the very opposite and backs up my arguments Grand Slams have every tennis player worth their salt. That's why although Wozniacki is seemingly always at the top of the women's rankings she isn't close to being a Great because she accumulates Points. She does the same sort of thing as a driver who keeps in contention by consistently coming 3rd; picking up the low hanging fruit and bottling it when the REAL stars come through. So Serena Williams is a Great because she wins when it matters, she doesn't cruise for easy Points.