59 replies to this topic

[JtP1]

Truth must be told. 

 

In F1?

[George Costanza]

Depends on the era, of course...

 

For the 1995-2000 it was Michael Schumacher, who was by far and away the best.

 

1985-1990: Ayrton Senna, IMO, of course, one can debate this forever and have an endless arguement why or how it happens to be so.

 

To barrow a different sport, like in golf where Jack Nickalus is considered the greatest of all time, or Roger Federer in Tennis.

Edited by George Costanza, 17 October 2013 - 03:18.

[danmills]

'The best' is simply who is achieving the most out of the current situation, using whatever equipment / machinery / tools / skills / talent that is at their disposal against rivals and their equivalent at that same specific time.

 

What people want is a directly fair and equal comparison, but nothing can ever, EVER be compared exactly to the same platform.

 

You could boil it down and argue to a molecular level as to why two things aren't identical.

 

Even two runners side by side, or one after the other are not the same. One may run 100m faster, but you could argue they didn't use the same track lane, one set of shoes may have been made slightly later in the factory and have a marginally different rubber compound. Even if they used the same shoes, the first runner may have worn them in. The surface may have changed temperature. There would be more rubber laid down from the first show. The second runners shoes would be lighter. Etc.

 

Simply impossible to fairly compare.

 

So the best is just who is getting the most at the specific point in time against others and their equivalent.

[RosannaG]

'The best' is simply who is achieving the most out of the current situation, using whatever equipment / machinery / tools / skills / talent that is at their disposal against rivals and their equivalent at that same specific time.

 

What people want is a directly fair and equal comparison, but nothing can ever, EVER be compared exactly to the same platform.

 

You could boil it down and argue to a molecular level as to why two things aren't identical.

 

Even two runners side by side, or one after the other are not the same. One may run 100m faster, but you could argue they didn't use the same track lane, one set of shoes may have been made slightly later in the factory and have a marginally different rubber compound. Even if they used the same shoes, the first runner may have worn them in. The surface may have changed temperature. There would be more rubber laid down from the first show. The second runners shoes would be lighter. Etc.

 

Simply impossible to fairly compare.

 

So the best is just who is getting the most at the specific point in time against others and their equivalent.

 

Brilliant! 

[Shiroo]

If we wouldn't argue about who is the best...

.. what would be the point of Autosport board then? 

[Amanda1978]

I'm the best. I just never had the best car, or any car for that matter. Such a waste.

I could have been the best but my parent's found out I'd entered a kart race without their permission and stopped me.  My career as a racing driver ended there and then.  Thanks mum.

[sopa]

'The best' is simply who is achieving the most out of the current situation, using whatever equipment / machinery / tools / skills / talent that is at their disposal against rivals and their equivalent at that same specific time.

 

What people want is a directly fair and equal comparison, but nothing can ever, EVER be compared exactly to the same platform.

 

You could boil it down and argue to a molecular level as to why two things aren't identical.

 

Even two runners side by side, or one after the other are not the same. One may run 100m faster, but you could argue they didn't use the same track lane, one set of shoes may have been made slightly later in the factory and have a marginally different rubber compound. Even if they used the same shoes, the first runner may have worn them in. The surface may have changed temperature. There would be more rubber laid down from the first show. The second runners shoes would be lighter. Etc.

 

Simply impossible to fairly compare.

 

So the best is just who is getting the most at the specific point in time against others and their equivalent.

 

I agree things are never equal.

 

However, in running the difference in material (shoes, tarmac) is so minor nobody bothers arguing about it. However, there is a much greater argument to be made that runner A lost to B, because a) he was simply not in top form in present moment - if he was performing at his best, he would win, b) he was injured/suffered some other unluck recently that has compromised him, c) he winner doped or uses better performance-enhancing drugs.

 

And in athetics or any sport even if we don't think someone is disadvantaged due to inferior machinery as such, they can be disadvantaged in other ways - like training methodology and conditions, access to best coaches and medicine. Or simply the best team, who supports you, like in cycling.

[Winter98]

Genuine question...

 

This sport is not like other sports and never has been, in athletics you can say without doubt that Bolt is the fastest sprinter in the world, in boxing you can say without doubt that mayweather is the best pound for pountd fighter in the world however in F1 this is simply not possible due to the importance of machinery.

 

Every single time i see people arguing over who is better between Vettel and Hamilton and Alonso it seems completely pointless... as no one can ever win the argument. The only way you can compare drivers is if they are in the same team and even then you can't really do it as there will always be points raised about unfair treatment, number 2 drivers, someone being old and past their peak and cars being designed specifically for one drivers driving style... far too many variables in this sport relative to others.

 

There is literally no point to it any of it whatsoever... which is why I'm constantly left dumbfounded by the countless bickering in threads from various fans.

 

no one can win, if you want to argue about who is the outright best at least do it in a sport where one persons domination is completely guaranteed to be down to natural talent (i.e. not most motorsport series and certainly not f1)

 

and that is the end to my pointless rant.

I enjoy the mental exercise, and if you're open to other people's ideas, I think it's a great way to learn more about the sport.

[HoldenRT]

Genuine question...

 

This sport is not like other sports and never has been, in athletics you can say without doubt that Bolt is the fastest sprinter in the world, in boxing you can say without doubt that mayweather is the best pound for pountd fighter in the world however in F1 this is simply not possible due to the importance of machinery.

 

Every single time i see people arguing over who is better between Vettel and Hamilton and Alonso it seems completely pointless... as no one can ever win the argument. The only way you can compare drivers is if they are in the same team and even then you can't really do it as there will always be points raised about unfair treatment, number 2 drivers, someone being old and past their peak and cars being designed specifically for one drivers driving style... far too many variables in this sport relative to others.

 

There is literally no point to it any of it whatsoever... which is why I'm constantly left dumbfounded by the countless bickering in threads from various fans.

 

no one can win, if you want to argue about who is the outright best at least do it in a sport where one persons domination is completely guaranteed to be down to natural talent (i.e. not most motorsport series and certainly not f1)

 

and that is the end to my pointless rant.

 

For some there is nothing better to do.

[HammyHamiltonFan]

Chilton is a future world champion, purely because he will always have a drive and eventually will become good just through experience and some top team is bound to put him in their for a year or something and it will happen.