127 replies to this topic

[Afterburner]

Based on a statement I made in the Sebbo Vet-tel v. Ricky Dan thread (I propose an immediate renaming), I figured I ought to start a new thread about a hypothetical that seems to have intrigued a whole new discussion so as to keep the scorecard full of its glorious unadulterated verbal toxicity. The meat of this thread (lettuce for you vegitarians--and sorry, I've got nothing for those of you against eating internet forum threads) is in bold down below, in all its savoury TL;DRy goodness.

I feel this question is interesting from a psychological perspective. Most F1 fans who are driver fans are of the belief that their driver is 'the best'--and I think this is because we unwittingly reveal a lot about who we support and who we like in F1 based on what our ideas of success are in order to define our driver as the best. Others might already have a preconceived idea of what they think success is and are drawn to drivers that they define to be the best based on this criteria.

Psychological malarkey/inane Afterburner lime and limpid green second scene-ing aside: say you're a racing driver. Maybe you already are. For the purposes of this hypothetical, however, you are a successful racing driver. So successful that everyone's talking about you.

The question is: what kind of career is it that they're talking about?

F1 fandom seems to suffer from the curious affliction of success identification disorder, wheras the definition of success seems to be highly split between overall results and record against teammates due to car disparity. What is it to you?

If you were a racing driver, would you rather be one who faced rubbish teammates their whole career but went undefeated all ten years of your career to win ten consecutive championships (potentially breaking the most poles/wins records), or one who never lost to a teammate--ten world champions included over your career--but potentially only won one or two championships?

I know which route I'd rather take, but I'd like to wait and get everyone else's justifications for their choice first before adding mine to the thread (spoilers: it's already in the SV/DR ultimate cage match thread. You'll hear more about it here, though.). A poll has been added for giggles and kicks. For the purpose of preventing the obvious 'Ginger and Mary-Ann' answers, you may only choose one type of success. Sorry--my hypothetical, my rules.

And you don't necessarily have to be an F1 driver for this if F1 is not your idea of the pinnacle of motorsport. If it is, though, you have to be--this is a hypothetical, not a democracy.

[Markn93]

You're practically asking a slightly altered version of 'Who's considered greater, Schumi or Senna?' 

 

 

*spoiler*  Even Schumi says Senna - 

 

-

 

2:22 - 2:42

Edited by Markn93, 30 April 2014 - 22:04.

[Afterburner]

You're practically asking a slightly altered version of 'Who's considered greater, Schumi or Senna?' 
 
*spoiler*  Even Schumi says Senna - 
 
2:22 - 2:42

Ay, but this isn't about them as much as it's about YOU. Your career. Hypothetically. And then maybe them. Depending on where the thread goes. But it's not and won't be driver-versus-driver; you may be able to use them as examples providing your comments aren't made with the intention of inciting napalm wars, in which case the collective population of the thread will be allowed to bathe you in fire-retardant and then point and laugh. Capiche?

EDIT: To make myself clear, 'Senna was my hero, so I'd want a career like his' is okay. 'Senna was an unsportsmanlike donkey-hat and never deserved to win, so I wouldn't want to be like him' is not.

Edited by Afterburner, 30 April 2014 - 22:10.

[Markn93]

Ay, but this isn't about them as much as it's about YOU. Your career. Hypothetically. And then maybe them. Depending on where the thread goes. But it's not and won't be driver-versus-driver; you may be able to use them as examples providing your comments aren't made with the intention of inciting napalm wars, in which case the collective population of the thread will be allowed to bathe you in fire-retardant and then point and laugh. Capiche?

EDIT: To make myself clear, 'Senna was my hero, so I'd want a career like his' is okay. 'Senna was an unsportsmanlike donkey-hat and never deserved to win, so I wouldn't want to be like him' is not.

Never my hero as we only over-lapped by a few months but if what Senna achieved is good enough to be considered the best for the majority of people/the F1 paddock, then it's good enough for me. 

[f1RacingForever]

Senna was a great driver but i can't help feel his greatness has been largely exaggerated due to his death. To answers to op's question, i would rather have the recognition and respect that comes from competing against more preeminent teammates.

[arttidesco]

As an ex racing driver I'm glad to have finished the three races I started including the 1990 24 hours of Mondello  Park. I was disappointed to learn I would never be as fast as Schumi whom I saw at Le Mans the week before, but my bank manager was probably highly relieved.

 

What was the question ? 

[ANF]

You're practically asking a slightly altered version of 'Who's considered greater, Schumi or Senna?' 

 

 

*spoiler*  Even Schumi says Senna - 

 

Derek Warwick is not in that video, is he?

[scheivlak]

You're practically asking a slightly altered version of 'Who's considered greater, Schumi or Senna?' 

 

 

spoiler: neither of them 

[Zava]

You're practically asking a slightly altered version of 'Who's considered greater, Schumi or Senna?' 

even though I'm not into Prost vs Senna (I'm too young for that), it really should be Schumi or Prost, not Schumi or Senna. I neither see the 10 WDCs in the list of Senna's teammates, nor the being unbeaten part.

on the other hand, Prost outscored all of his teammates (excluding Watson in his rookie year, when he got beaten 6:5), including 3 WDCs and 2 soon to be WDCs...

 

 

bonus question: which one is usually higher in the all time lists, Prost or Schumi? not saying that I definitely agree with their positions, just in the analogy of the question of Afterburner.

[P123]

If you were a racing driver.........?  You'd be more likely to take the glory, which would be 10x WDC against rubbish teammates.  Winning is addictive.   Whether that would make you more highly rated than the other guy in option 2 is probably not something that you would be bothered about, especially with an overflowing trophy cabinet .

[Afterburner]

Never my hero as we only over-lapped by a few months but if what Senna achieved is good enough to be considered the best for the majority of people/the F1 paddock, then it's good enough for me.

'Twas just an example of justification, not referring to you specifically.
 

even though I'm not into Prost vs Senna (I'm too young for that), it really should be Schumi or Prost, not Schumi or Senna. I neither see the 10 WDCs in the list of Senna's teammates, nor the being unbeaten part.
on the other hand, Prost outscored all of his teammates (excluding Watson in his rookie year, when he got beaten 6:5), including 3 WDCs and 2 soon to be WDCs...
 
 
bonus question: which one is usually higher in the all time lists, Prost or Schumi? not saying that I definitely agree with their positions, just in the analogy of the question of Afterburner.

And your answer to the question is? Hurry, I've got one hand on the trigger of the extinguisher and a roll-eyes smiley in the other.

[Exb]

I would love to say I'd be happy with 1 championship and being undefeated against teammates but in all honesty I think I would take the 10 championships.  
 
Its a tricky question to answer as there is definitely merit in being rated as the best but I can't help thinking that if a racing driver was that good that they could beat 10 other champions but still ended up only winning 1 themselves - given how competitive those guys have to be, the fact they have spent pretty much their entire lives from when they were kids working towards becoming the best driver they can with the aim of winning the championship - would be pretty frustrating and I guess you could forgive them for feeling a little bitter at the end of the day that they were acknowledged as the best but didn't have titles to show for it. I can imagine there would be plenty of looking back and regrets at being in the wrong team at the wrong time and cursing bad luck etc and maybe leave a feeling of having an unfulfilled career. 
 
In saying that I am sure the driver with 10 world championships that's not acknowledged as the best driver would also be slightly annoyed he doesn't get the praise he probably feels he deserves, however I am sure that he can console himself by going to look at his trophy cabinet.

[Kingshark]

Undefeated against 10 WDC teammates? 

 

Hypothetically speaking, if I had a career from 1979 to 1994, starting at the age of 21 and ending at the age of 36, I could beat 10 WDC teammates like this;

 

Niki Lauda

Mario Andretti

Jody Scheckter

Alan Jones

Keke Rosberg

Nelson Piquet

Alain Prost

Ayrton Senna

Nigel Mansell

Michael Schumacher

 

Imagine my reputation if I blew all these guys out of the water as teammates!    I would be considered the greatest racing talent to have graced Earth.

 

That would be quite something, even if I was a double champion myself (say, steal a WDC from Prost and another one from Piquet).

 

Then again, 10 championships is a ridiculous amount. However, if I never went up against a good teammate and always had the best car, some would still question me.

 

On the other hand, no one would dare to question my abilities if I beat every champion in my generation. In which case, I voted for the 2nd option.

[HeadFirst]

Many people, self Included, believe that it is adversity that defines greatness. If it was ME driving however, I would gladly take the uncontested WDC's. Whether or not people see me as great would be unimportant, winning is so much fun. Sorta like ...... would you rather QB the best offense in the NFL to multiple SuperBowl championships, or be regarded as the best QB who wins none.

[sopa]

I would love to say I'd be happy with 1 championship and being undefeated against teammates but in all honesty I think I would take the 10 championships.  
 
Its a tricky question to answer as there is definitely merit in being rated as the best but I can't help thinking that if a racing driver was that good that they could beat 10 other champions but still ended up only winning 1 themselves - given how competitive those guys have to be, the fact they have spent pretty much their entire lives from when they were kids working towards becoming the best driver they can with the aim of winning the championship - would be pretty frustrating and I guess you could forgive them for feeling a little bitter at the end of the day that they were acknowledged as the best but didn't have titles to show for it. I can imagine there would be plenty of looking back and regrets at being in the wrong team at the wrong time and cursing bad luck etc and maybe leave a feeling of having an unfulfilled career. 

 

I think you have brought out a good point. If you have beaten so many great drivers and are very highly rated, but do not have results, then... well, we have not analyzed it further here, but how would this career have looked like? Always in the wrong team indeed. One year you beat Piquet, your team is rubbish. Then you join another team, beat Prost. Oh crap, again the wrong team, now we have got another top team, who won titles.

 

And then there is some driver, who keeps winning 10 titles, while you switch teams and team-mates all the time, never achieve any consistency and mess around without realizing your full potential. Always look for the best car, but usually miss out.

 

It would be increasingly frustrating for a super-determined and success-driven sportsmen. It would be a greater pleasure to build a team around you and taste the long-term fruits.

 

After all, as hard as it may be to admit, career planning is also important in a driver skillset. Even if this often put down to "just luck". But you need a long-term vision and knowledge of what you want. And then aim for getting into certain teams and build yourself up there.

[ollebompa]

10 WDC's all day long. Now i'm not that old but i'll bet that in the 50's there was people saying Fangio/ Ascari only win in the best car, they are not the greatest some other guy is. Ulitmatly this guy did not have the numbers to stand the test of time.

Point is that, with time, perception fades away but numbers are forever.

Edited by ollebompa, 01 May 2014 - 06:23.

[Zava]

'Twas just an example of justification, not referring to you specifically.
 
And your answer to the question is? Hurry, I've got one hand on the trigger of the extinguisher and a roll-eyes smiley in the other.

it's obvious   Schumacher, the archetype of the first option in the poll, is usually in the top3 (and often 1st) in the all time lists, Prost, the archetype* of the 2nd option is usually 4th-5th.

 

not the reason I voted for the 10 times WDC option, as I penned this after voting, but it strengthens my opinion.

 

 

*well, not exactly the archetype, because even though he outscored all those (soon to be) WDC drivers, he still collected the 3rd (at the time, 2nd) most titles in the world, which in itself is a great achievement.

Edited by Zava, 01 May 2014 - 08:02.

[RubalSher]

10x WDC. Every sport is about winning the title... and winning against your team-mate comes a distant second and fades quickly from public memory.

[MrMan]

I don't think the second scenario is even a viable scenario, as a driver you'd need to have had a very, very long career in which to obtain 2 WDC's and then proceed to beat 10 previous/current WDC champions.

 

Even if that was even possible to achieve, in my opinion you're still coming second or worse for 10 years or more, second is the first loser. 10 WDC's all day long.

[ClubmanGT]

If I won one world championship I could be put out to stud so anything past that is academic 

[bourbon]

The hypothetical is a bit mad.  Who has ever had 10 WDC teammates?

 

While it is possible to have 10 WDC wins, I suppose - there will never be a driver with 10 WDC teammates, the drivers simply don't move around that much.  So hard to answer the question as asked.

 

5 WDC's and beat no WDCs or beat 3-4 WDC teammates, which is more realistic? 

 

5 WDCs with 10 rookies even. 

[HoldenRT]

Results are the only thing that matter.  They are the only that can be measured properly.  The rest is what ifs.. which are nice, but there is never any sure answers about anything and too much room for bias.

[UbiquitousPeas]

"Results are the only thing that matter. They are the only (sic) that can be measured properly. The rest is what ifs...which are nice, but there is never any sure answers about anything and too much room for bias."

 

That would be a valid approach if F1 wasn't a team sport. No conclusive or complete conclusions about any driver's ability can be made when the driver's have different cars. Stating that "results are the only measure" is as futile as saying "Driver X is the best driver."

 

Specifically on the poll, I can't vote as it's a ridiculous either/or, black and white, framing which I think makes a three dimensional sport, such as F1, sound two dimensional. Anyway, consider this. Don't you think Alonso and Hamilton don't desperately strive for (at the very least) a third and second WDC respectively? Don't you think that Vettel doesn't desperately want more respect from the wider F1 world? Before anyone says Vettel doesn't care, look at Vettel's reaction to being booed.

 

As always, F1 is greater than the sum of its parts.

[Spillage]

The question is not so clear-cut. It's possible to be highly regarded even if you never beat a high-quality teammate, depending on what you do achieve in difficult cars. For instance, Schumacher never really had a WDC teammate (Piquet aside) but he's still regarded as one of the greatest of all not just for all of his titles, but also for the way he dragged some reluctant Ferraris around in the late 1990s. 

 

In any case, it isn't easy even to dominate championships in a dominant car - look at Webber's results in the last four years. Dominance is not achieved by sitting in a dominant car and stroking it home - you have to work with the designers, work on set-up and still be at the top of your game on Sunday.

 

With all that in mind however, I think I'd rather have the satisfaction of knowing I was the best in the world than winning lots of titles without knowing, as long as I was able to achieve a little success. I'd rather be, say, Phil Hill than Stirling Moss, for instance, as Hill had his title even if he isn't so highly rated. But then, I can't think of a guy who won multiple championships without showing himself to be one of the best in the world, so is it even possible to win 10x WDC without being outstanding? Almost certainly not.

[sennafan24]

even though I'm not into Prost vs Senna (I'm too young for that), it really should be Schumi or Prost, not Schumi or Senna. I neither see the 10 WDCs in the list of Senna's teammates, nor the being unbeaten part.

on the other hand, Prost outscored all of his teammates (excluding Watson in his rookie year, when he got beaten 6:5), including 3 WDCs and 2 soon to be WDCs...

 

 

bonus question: which one is usually higher in the all time lists, Prost or Schumi? not saying that I definitely agree with their positions, just in the analogy of the question of Afterburner.

Lauda outscored Prost in 1984

Senna outscored Prost in 1988

 

Senna might not have out-scored Prost over their two years together, but he did out-perform him by most people's accounts. It was 16-6 in 2 car finishes, and Senna lost the 1989 title mostly due experiencing mechanical errors. I personally would take Senna's 1989 campaign over most WDC winners campaigns. Senna made Prost look very ordinary in 1989 (Prost would make fewer mistakes, just so I am being fair), how many drivers have outpaced a fellow all time great to such an extent whilst teammates?

 

I was in a shop the other week with a friend. They were selling replica minichamp Ferrari cars and I asked my friend (a fellow Senna fan) which Ferrari driver he thought was better, and pointed at Prost in 1990 and Schumi in 2004. He did not know how to answer, I do not think he had ever though about who was better between those two. (for the record I answered Prost, by a very slight margin)

 

The reason I picked Prost (again by a hair), was because he won his 4 WDC's against stronger teammates. Alesi was considered the next big thing in 1990/1991, and Prost handily beat him. Prost did beat Senna in 1989. was it down to luck? Mostly, but again he never made many mistakes on-track. Damon Hill is very underrated, and Prost beat him during the winter of his career. Prost also beat Mansell, who crops into top 10 all time lists.

 

Schumi won his titles against Rubens and Herbert, who are not pay drivers, but are not as impressive as the names I just mentioned. Irvine and Massa? I do not think I have to go into that much. Irvine was at best equal to Rubens, and Massa was thrashed by Alonso later on. Prost also won the title in 1985 when most observers thought his McLaren was slower than the Williams (which was driven by 2 WDC's in Mansell and Piquet).

 

I like Prost's body of work slightly more. I like Senna's body of work most of all (in terms of context not quantity, as I greatly consider Berger to be underrated and felt he out-performed Prost in 1988/1989)

 

I can appreciate all types of racing, whether you win titles or not. You will find me gushing about Seb's 2013 and Alonso 2012. Both great in different ways. I would rather be a driver who fought and performed well against top-tier drivers as teammates, than a driver who had taxi drivers as teammates and won mountains of WDC's, but it is all subjective. (for the record, neither Schumi, Vettel, Senna or Prost won titles with "taxi drivers" as their teammates)

Edited by sennafan24, 01 May 2014 - 11:56.

[Collombin]

I'd rather be, say, Phil Hill than Stirling Moss, for instance, as Hill had his title

But the WDC really wasn't the be all and end all back then, when all the top drivers competed in countless non-championship races, as well as sportscars, junior formulae etc etc. The hierarchy was much more blurred. And great a driver as Hill was, EVERYBODY knew Moss was the best of that era by a mile, and he was more successful than Hill too overall.

Moss wanted to be world champion as much as the next man, but in later life came to be pleased that he wasn't a one time champion, as he (rightly IMO) believes that it would have led to him being remembered for that one season above all the others - whereas by being the man who should have won it several times but never did, people look at his whole career.

I too would possibly have rather have been Phil Hill, but that has more to do with the totally injury free career and the full head of hair than anything to do with racing reputation or success.

[Gyan]

The hypothetical is a bit mad.  Who has ever had 10 WDC teammates?

 

While it is possible to have 10 WDC wins, I suppose - there will never be a driver with 10 WDC teammates, the drivers simply don't move around that much.  So hard to answer the question as asked.

 

5 WDC's and beat no WDCs or beat 3-4 WDC teammates, which is more realistic? 

 

5 WDCs with 10 rookies even. 

 

I tried fitting in such a career since I've been watching Formula 1, 1998/9. Here's how it would go - Teams plus when I beat a champion.

 

 

• 98 - Jordan
• 99 - Jordan - Damon Hill
• 00 - Williams - Jenson Button
• 01 - McLaren - Mika Hakkinen
• 02 - McLaren - Kimi Raikkonen
• 03 - McLaren
• 04 - McLaren - Kimi Raikkonen
• 05 - Ferrari
• 06 - Ferrari - Michael Schumacher
• 07 - McLaren - Fernando Alonso
• 08 - McLaren
• 09 - McLaren - Lewis Hamilton
• 10 - Red Bull
• 11 - Red Bull - Sebastian Vettel

 

So that's 8 champions. I couldn't fit in Jacques Villenueve anywhere, but that's just because I couldn't do so realistically. A driver with such a rep could go on for more than 16 seasons as well, and could have ended up being paired against Bottas, Kvyat, Hulkenberg, Ricciardo, Bianchi and Magnussen for the later seasons, with all of them possible future champions as well, so 10 world champion teammates is as believable as 10 WDCs.

 

I would most definitely rather have that career, than beating Rubens, Webber, Fisichella, Kovalainen, Irvine, Herbert, DC and Massa to 10 world titles.

Edited by Gyan, 01 May 2014 - 12:46.

[MrMan]

JB 2000, RAI 02,04 wouldn't count as they both weren't WDC's when you would have beat them!

[sopa]

I tried fitting in such a career since I've been watching Formula 1, 1998/9. Here's how it would go - Teams plus when I beat a champion.

 

1998 JORDAN     1999 JORDAN   DAMON HILL 2000 WILLIAMS JENSON BUTTON 2001 McLAREN   MIKA HAKKINEN 2002 McLAREN   KIMI RAIKKONEN 2003 McLAREN     2004 McLAREN   KIMI RAIKKONEN 2005 FERRARI     2006 FERRARI   MICHAEL SCHUMACHER 2007 McLAREN   FERNANDO ALONSO 2008 McLAREN   LEWIS HAMILTON 2009 McLAREN   LEWIS HAMILTON 2010 RED BULL     2011 RED BULL   SEBASTIAN VETTEL 2012 ?   ? 2013 ?   ? 2014 ?   ?

 

So that's 8 champions. I couldn't fit in Jacques Villenueve's BAR stint anywhere, but that's just because I couldn't do so realistically. A driver with such a rep could go on for more than 16 seasons as well, and could have ended up being paired against Bottas, Kvyat, Hulkenberg, Ricciardo, Bianchi and Magnussen for the question marked seasons, with all of them possible future champions as well, so 10 world champion teammates is as believable as 10 WDCs.

 

So you start out as Ralf Schumacher/Heinz-Harald Frentzen, then transform into David Coulthard. Then after 2004 you can switch to Sauber to become Felipe Massa to beat Jacques Villeneuve.

 

Then it becomes a bit tougher, since you need to beat Schumacher/Alonso/Hamilton in absolute top-line cars in 2006-2008.

[Gyan]

JB 2000, RAI 02,04 wouldn't count as they both weren't WDC's when you would have beat them!

 

But they did end up becoming WDCs, hence being WDC teammates. That's what the question at the top states.

[LuckyStrike1]

If you win even one and especially multiple F1 WDC titles you are a pretty ducking great racing driver all time. No matter who you were team mate with. 

But that doesn't keep an internet forum going I guess. 

[sopa]

But the WDC really wasn't the be all and end all back then, when all the top drivers competed in countless non-championship races, as well as sportscars, junior formulae etc etc. The hierarchy was much more blurred. And great a driver as Hill was, EVERYBODY knew Moss was the best of that era by a mile, and he was more successful than Hill too overall.

Moss wanted to be world champion as much as the next man, but in later life came to be pleased that he wasn't a one time champion, as he (rightly IMO) believes that it would have led to him being remembered for that one season above all the others - whereas by being the man who should have won it several times but never did, people look at his whole career.

I too would possibly have rather have been Phil Hill, but that has more to do with the totally injury free career and the full head of hair than anything to do with racing reputation or success.

 

Stirling Moss and Phil Hill is a comparison of almost extreme cases. Hill could basically be replaced by Hawthorn too here. So, you have won a WDC, but only 3 race wins all your F1 career and basically this was your only truly successful F1 season. Then we have Moss, a non-WDC, but with 16 race wins. To be honest, I am not sure, who can be even considered as more successful in this case here and if we can argue about it like that. Because even if Moss didn't win a WDC, he won lots of races, which is also important.

 

However, even then this has nothing to do with needing to beat "top-line team-mates" which the thread was asking for.

 

I am not really sure, what I would answer in the context of 50s or 60s on who I would like to be. Maybe building up my own team and having a moderate success as a driver would have been attractive! But nowadays that's different. But for what we know, Fangio is regarded as the best from his era and one of the best of all times and he was always looking for best teams, hence swapping teams between winning WDCs.

Edited by sopa, 01 May 2014 - 12:57.

[Gyan]

So you start out as Ralf Schumacher/Heinz-Harald Frentzen, then transform into David Coulthard. Then after 2004 you can switch to Sauber to become Felipe Massa to beat Jacques Villeneuve.

 

Then it becomes a bit tougher, since you need to beat Schumacher/Alonso/Hamilton in absolute top-line cars in 2006-2008.

 

The best way to accommodate Jacques would be if our hypothetical driver switched to BMW, because of BMW, in 06 and beat Villeneuve. He then slays Schumacher at Mercedes after 09 then, so you have 9 champions at this rate already. Pair up with a future champion in the final stages of the career and you have 10 WDC teammates.

 

• 98 - Jordan
• 99 - Jordan - Damon Hill
• 00 - Williams - Jenson Button
• 01 - McLaren - Mika Hakkinen
• 02 - McLaren - Kimi Raikkonen
• 03 - McLaren
• 04 - McLaren - Kimi Raikkonen
• 05 - McLaren
• 06 - BMW- Jacques Villeneuve
• 07 - McLaren - Fernando Alonso
• 08 - McLaren
• 09 - McLaren - Lewis Hamilton
• 10 - Red Bull
• 11 - Red Bull - Sebastian Vettel
• 12 - Mercedes - Michael Schumacher

Edited by Gyan, 01 May 2014 - 12:58.

[HoldenRT]

"Results are the only thing that matter. They are the only (sic) that can be measured properly. The rest is what ifs...which are nice, but there is never any sure answers about anything and too much room for bias."

 

That would be a valid approach if F1 wasn't a team sport. No conclusive or complete conclusions about any driver's ability can be made when the driver's have different cars. Stating that "results are the only measure" is as futile as saying "Driver X is the best driver."

 

Specifically on the poll, I can't vote as it's a ridiculous either/or, black and white, framing which I think makes a three dimensional sport, such as F1, sound two dimensional. Anyway, consider this. Don't you think Alonso and Hamilton don't desperately strive for (at the very least) a third and second WDC respectively? Don't you think that Vettel doesn't desperately want more respect from the wider F1 world? Before anyone says Vettel doesn't care, look at Vettel's reaction to being booed.

 

As always, F1 is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

That's why it's silly to argue over who is the best.  It can be fun to discuss and can enhance the enjoyment of the sport in some ways.. but there are no definitive answers and no way to act certain about anything.

 

Which is why the heated fanboy discussion topics are so silly.  It's just going around in circles.  It's like talking about religion.. it can be fun.. but in the end of 50 pages.. you aren't much further along than you were before the topic was even created.  Because there is just speculation and guesswork.

 

The results don't mean that someone is the best or isn't the best.  The results are just facts that show something that can be measured directly and can be recognized directly.

 

Senna for example.. it's impossible to say what he would have done in following years without his accident, but it's possible to say what he DID do before his accident.. and to recognize and appreciate that.

 

Whether he is the best or not, is something that's not possible to prove or to measure.  It doesn't even really matter.. because like you said.. F1 is a team sport, and it's not pure like swimming or running is.. so it doesn't really matter who was the best.

 

Same thing with comparing eras.. it's impossible.  Too many variables.. and while it's fun to speculate or discuss, anyone who acts certain about anything is just too passionate and attached emotionally.. to one of the outcomes.
 

[Britophile]

Lauda outscored Prost in 1984

Senna outscored Prost in 1988

 

Senna might not have out-scored Prost over their two years together, but he did out-perform him by most people's accounts. It was 16-6 in 2 car finishes, and Senna lost the 1989 title mostly due experiencing mechanical errors. I personally would take Senna's 1989 campaign over most WDC winners campaigns. Senna made Prost look very ordinary in 1989 (Prost would make fewer mistakes, just so I am being fair), how many drivers have outpaced a fellow all time great to such an extent whilst teammates?

 

I was in a shop the other week with a friend. They were selling replica minichamp Ferrari cars and I asked my friend (a fellow Senna fan) which Ferrari driver he thought was better, and pointed at Prost in 1990 and Schumi in 2004. He did not know how to answer, I do not think he had ever though about who was better between those two. (for the record I answered Prost, by a very slight margin)

 

The reason I picked Prost (again by a hair), was because he won his 4 WDC's against stronger teammates. Alesi was considered the next big thing in 1990/1991, and Prost handily beat him. Prost did beat Senna in 1989. was it down to luck? Mostly, but again he never made many mistakes on-track. Damon Hill is very underrated, and Prost beat him during the winter of his career. Prost also beat Mansell, who crops into top 10 all time lists.

 

Schumi won his titles against Rubens and Herbert, who are not pay drivers, but are not as impressive as the names I just mentioned. Irvine and Massa? I do not think I have to go into that much. Irvine was at best equal to Rubens, and Massa was thrashed by Alonso later on. Prost also won the title in 1985 when most observers thought his McLaren was slower than the Williams (which was driven by 2 WDC's in Mansell and Piquet).

 

I like Prost's body of work slightly more. I like Senna's body of work most of all (in terms of context not quantity, as I greatly consider Berger to be underrated and felt he out-performed Prost in 1988/1989)

 

I can appreciate all types of racing, whether you win titles or not. You will find me gushing about Seb's 2013 and Alonso 2012. Both great in different ways. I would rather be a driver who fought and performed well against top-tier drivers as teammates, than a driver who had taxi drivers as teammates and won mountains of WDC's, but it is all subjective. (for the record, neither Schumi, Vettel, Senna or Prost won titles with "taxi drivers" as their teammates)

 

Well, in 1984, Lauda got beaten 15-1 in qualifications and he only got ahead of Prost on track when Prost had some sort of technical issue. Even Lauda himself admitted that Prost was faster than him, even though Prost was contractually a number 2 to the Austrian.

 

Regarding 1988 - Senna made 2 mistakes whilst in the lead (Monaco, Monza), Prost made none. In Suzuka, Prost had a faulty gearbox and got blocked by a backmarker, that was the reason Senna got him. James Hunt publicly criticized the backmarker and stated that without that appalling held up by de Cesaris, Prost would have been able to stay ahead of Senna and securing his third WDC title.

 

Regarding 1989 - by then it was clear that Honda favoured the Brazilian, supplying him with more powerful engines. This is most apparent if we take a look at the qualifying times at Monza from 1988 and 1989. Suddenly, Prost got 1.5 sec slower than the Brazilian on a track where they go full throttle for some 70% of the lap. The previous year the gap was some 0.3 seconds which is more than credible knowing Senna's blistering one lap pace. But to outpace Prost, who had no technical issues that day by 1.5 secs on a single lap on a track like Monza is just ridiculous. Prost clearly was a number 2 in 1989. Not many people know about this but Dennis still wanted to keep him and sign him desperately for 1990. Prost would have agreed to that but under one condition - that Dennis would publicly announce that Prost is a declared number 2 to Senna. That would of course have been contradictory to the policies of McLaren so Dennis refused and hence to Ferrari Prost went.

 

Other than that, I agree with most of what you wrote 

[sopa]

1999 - as a young driver you leave a great impression by defeating the past his prime Damon Hill in your debut season at Jordan at the age of 22. WDC beater count - 1

2000 - you keep going in Jordan, beating either Frentzen or Trulli. McLaren is impressed and hires you.

2001 - you beat the past-his prime Mika Hakkinen, but are disappointed not to win the championship. Count - 2.

2002 - you beat the new signing of Kimi Raikkonen again in McLaren, but you are frustrated and leave the team due to it having a bad car. Count - 3.

2003 - you have joined the BAR team in great belief things will work out. You beat Villeneuve to build the team around you, but bad season frustrats you. Count - 4.

2004 - you continue in BAR in a much-improved car with Jenson Button as your new team-mate. You beat him too, and occasionally threaten Ferrari, but not enough. Count - 5.

2005 - another season in BAR; but that's a step backwards. You are frustrated the WDC is still eluding you.

2006 - you re-sign with McLaren, again they have a bad car, but you beat Raikkonen to re-establish yourself in the team. You had wilderness years in BAR.

2007 - now Alonso is alongside you, you beat him by countback, but miss out on WDC. You fall out with the team, you leave, Alonso stays. Count - 6.

2008 - with no available seats on the driver market you join the relatively new Toro Rosso with a young hotshot Sebastian Vettel alongside you. You beat him and again try to move to a top team. Count - 7.

2009 - Alonso has left McLaren and McLaren takes you back, this time alongside Hamilton. You beat Hamilton, but are frustrated the car is rubbish. Count - 8.

2010 - After being disillusioned with McLaren producing a rubbish car, you join the new champion Mercedes team with Michael Schumacher alongside you. You beat him, but the car is rubbish. Count - 9.

 

 

Nah, I think I'd take Schumacher's career and 7 titles instead of endless lack of achievement and mess.  I think Jean Alesi would have made better career choices than that!

Edited by sopa, 01 May 2014 - 13:15.

[MrMan]

But they did end up becoming WDCs, hence being WDC teammates. That's what the question at the top states.

 

By that logic you might as well choose Maldonado for one of the recent year team-mates just incase he is a future WDC.

[bub]

I voted for the second option, beat the 10 WDC teammates. If you beat someone in the same machinery there can be no (or at least less) argument about who is/was better. If you are in different cars, there can always be more doubt. I'd rather prove myself against the best on equal terms.

Edited by bub, 01 May 2014 - 13:28.

[sennafan24]

Well, in 1984, Lauda got beaten 15-1 in qualifications and he only got ahead of Prost on track when Prost had some sort of technical issue. Even Lauda himself admitted that Prost was faster than him, even though Prost was contractually a number 2 to the Austrian.

 

Regarding 1988 - Senna made 2 mistakes whilst in the lead (Monaco, Monza), Prost made none. In Suzuka, Prost had a faulty gearbox and got blocked by a backmarker, that was the reason Senna got him. James Hunt publicly criticized the backmarker and stated that without that appalling held up by de Cesaris, Prost would have been able to stay ahead of Senna and securing his third WDC title.

 

Regarding 1989 - by then it was clear that Honda favoured the Brazilian, supplying him with more powerful engines. This is most apparent if we take a look at the qualifying times at Monza from 1988 and 1989. Suddenly, Prost got 1.5 sec slower than the Brazilian on a track where they go full throttle for some 70% of the lap. The previous year the gap was some 0.3 seconds which is more than credible knowing Senna's blistering one lap pace. But to outpace Prost, who had no technical issues that day by 1.5 secs on a single lap on a track like Monza is just ridiculous. Prost clearly was a number 2 in 1989. Not many people know about this but Dennis still wanted to keep him and sign him desperately for 1990. Prost would have agreed to that but under one condition - that Dennis would publicly announce that Prost is a declared number 2 to Senna. That would of course have been contradictory to the policies of McLaren so Dennis refused and hence to Ferrari Prost went.

 

Other than that, I agree with most of what you wrote 

Senna did have some problems in 1988 as well. There were those two races before Japan where he had fuel read out problems, and he had a gearbox error on the line in the first race which later resulted in his DQ. Prost had that engine failure in Monza as well (just so I am accounting for everything)

 

15-1 to Prost in 1984? Jesus, I did not know it was that lopsided. I have never really critically accessed that year if I am honest. I did know that Prost had a lot of bad luck though.

 

The thing with 1989 is that nothing has ever been proven either way. Prost has been taken out of context a few times, and I am yet to hear him speak of the mystical rumor that a Honda bigwig admitted after a few pints that Honda favored Senna over him.

 

Prost said recently that he suspected Honda favored Senna with engine deliveries and what not, but he could never be sure. Now, Dennis denies this happened (although he is not the most credible source), and Jo Ramirez stated in his book that there was no favoring either driver on the McLaren side of things. Nigel Roebuck has said some things both ways, he says Honda did favor Senna. but the FIA favored Prost (the latter he claims there is some evidence to back up)

 

I dunno, those Monza times you post underline that there might be some truth to it. Depends on who you believe, or maybe who you want to believe. If Senna did have a better engine it backfired on him in 1989. He had 5 Mechanical DNF's, 3 of which were engine failures. Prost had zero engine failures, and only 1 mechanical DNF in 1989.

 

Either way, both performed very well in relation to each other really, and neither were at their absolute peak when they faced each other. 

Edited by sennafan24, 01 May 2014 - 13:29.

[Collombin]

15-1 to Prost in 1984? Jesus, I did not know it was that lopsided.

Yep. Lauda is one of only 2 drivers to win the WDC without a pole position on the way.

Sadly for Prost (and even more for Piquet), points were only awarded on raceday.

[Lights]

But they did end up becoming WDCs, hence being WDC teammates. That's what the question at the top states.

I don't think that's the way to go with this and hence the lists below it are flawed IMO. Plenty of 'future' WDC's got beaten in their first season by whom we now see as formidable but average F1 drivers.

 

Actually, I don't even think it's about WDC's or not. It should be about how a driver is rated in general. 

[Gyan]

By that logic you might as well choose Maldonado for one of the recent year team-mates just incase he is a future WDC.

 

You're being pedantic. I didn't select anyone after 11 because any new driver can be WDC. Besides, the point is, that the career would exhaust all the existing champions, hence not hitting that 10th WDC. Hypothetical answer still relevant. Continue being pedantic if you want.

[UbiquitousPeas]

HoldenRT, (I can't work this forum's software for quoting posts?!?)

 

I agree with pretty much all that you've written in your previous post. But then I'd say it doesn't tally with your previous statement of:

 

"Results are the only thing that matter/they are the only proper measure."

 

I say that because that line doesn't take into account car problems, car failures, team errors, being crashed out of a race etc etc. That's why I say it's not possible to take results as the be all and end all, as the results themselves are subject to factors outside of a driver's control. You could take an extremely hypothetical example where driver X was in first position of the last lap of every race of the season yet his car broke down on each of those last laps costing him a season's worth of race wins and a WDC. "Results" sure as hell wouldn't be an accurate measure of driver X's performance, nor would they tell you of the full context of the season.

 

Moreover, in a sport where the machinery is at varying levels, "results" can't be taken as "the only thing that matter/only proper measure." Afterall, who is to say that Jules Bianchi didn't do a, relatively speaking, better job than Sebastian Vettel last season? Who's to say that Kamui Kobyashi isn't doing a, relatively speaking, better job than Lewis Hamilton this season? Would Bianchi have won more races in a Red Bull than Vettel last season? Would Vettel have done better than Bianchi in a Marussia?

 

That's why results can never be the be all and end all in F1 and why they can never be taken as a "proper measure." We can only judge the results in the context of a sport which is by its own rules, an uneven playing field. So last year we can say of Vettel, "he made excellent use of an excellent car and he was much better than Mark Webber." Generally speaking, that's why teammate comparisons are so important. "Results" tell us about success and outcomes. They don't necessarily tell us much, or sometimes, anything else about F1. Looking at results only ignores all context and F1 is a context-rich sport. And personally, which is one of the main reasons I love F1.

 

Another hypothetical example. Say Hamilton wins the WDC this year and for argument's sakes the 2015 WDC too. Then Vettel's contract is up in 2015 and Mercedes hire him as a replacement for Rosberg. Who wouldn't love to see that? A battle in a front-running Mercedes between those two would be great to watch and (car problems, car failures, team errors, race ending crashes aside) then we might get an idea of how the two, directly, stack up against one another. Personally, I don't have a favourite driver, I just enjoy F1 as a sport in its entirety. I would love to see if one of those two drivers would be found out and how they would react. Even if neither of them won a WDC in such a circumstance, it would go a long way to deciding their legacies.

[MrMan]

You're being pedantic. I didn't select anyone after 11 because any new driver can be WDC. Besides, the point is, that the career would exhaust all the existing champions, hence not hitting that 10th WDC. Hypothetical answer still relevant. Continue being pedantic if you want.

 

I'm not intentionally being pedantic, it's just that you have to go back 21 years to find 10 unique WDC's and then you have to steal 2 championships yourself in that period. Granted you could just steal 2 titles from the multiple of Schumi and Vettel, but even that would be an accomplishment in and of itself.

 

To be fair, if we were entertaining scenario 2 of the poll, then the driver would have had to have had a career of 21 years minimum, beaten every WDC there has been in that 21 years and taken 2 titles themselves. In that scenario, I don't think there's any doubt that that driver would have been the greatest driver that has ever existed ever.

 

In fact, I should thank you. Making me think all that out has made me want to change my vote to scenario 2, because accomplishing all of that over a 21 year F1 career is actually something quite remarkable, probably more remarkable than say having a 10 year career in which you take the WDC every year.

[Britophile]

Senna did have some problems in 1988 as well. There were those two races before Japan where he had fuel read out problems, and he had a gearbox error on the line in the first race which later resulted in his DQ. Prost had that engine failure in Monza as well (just so I am accounting for everything)

 

15-1 to Prost in 1984? Jesus, I did not know it was that lopsided. I have never really critically accessed that year if I am honest. I did know that Prost had a lot of bad luck though.

 

The thing with 1989 is that nothing has ever been proven either way. Prost has been taken out of context a few times, and I am yet to hear him speak of the mystical rumor that a Honda bigwig admitted after a few pints that Honda favored Senna over him.

 

Prost said recently that he suspected Honda favored Senna with engine deliveries and what not, but he could never be sure. Now, Dennis denies this happened (although he is not the most credible source), and Jo Ramirez stated in his book that there was no favoring either driver on the McLaren side of things. Nigel Roebuck has said some things both ways, he says Honda did favor Senna. but the FIA favored Prost (the latter he claims there is some evidence to back up)

 

I dunno, those Monza times you post underline that there might be some truth to it. Depends on who you believe, or maybe who you want to believe. If Senna did have a better engine it backfired on him in 1989. He had 5 Mechanical DNF's, 3 of which were engine failures. Prost had zero engine failures, and only 1 mechanical DNF in 1989.

 

Either way, both performed very well in relation to each other really, and neither were at their absolute peak when they faced each other. 

 

Honda always had the reputation to favour one driver over the other in a team. Keke Rosberg said he felt that after Zeltweg (where he announced he would leave Williams for McLaren at the end of the season) in 1985 he was supplied with inferior engines by Honda who supported Mansell, the driver staying with Williams from that on. Rosberg was never one to look for excuses - in fact, that was one of his trademarks, to tell it how it is, even when criticizing himself or admitting errors. 

 

But looking at how he outqualified Mansell 7-2 (and it easily could have been 8-1, but Rosberg deliberately used the slower compound for qualifying in Detroit so he saved one set of faster tyres for the race which he duly ended up winning largely due to this strategy) up until Zeltweg, from that point on Mansell had the upper hand on one lap and won the remaining seven qualifying to 5-2. 

 

This is more than suspicious, especially if one thinks about Mansell's huge shunt on Saturday in France which surely affected his one lap pace for a while (as Piquet's huge shunt on Saturday at Imola the next year admittedly affected his). Up until Austria, Rosberg's average starting position was 3.22, Mansell's was 7. After Zeltweg, Rosberg's average fell back to 4 while Mansell's improved to 3.6! Very suspicious to say the least.

 

Even more telling that during the first nine qualifications of the year, Rosberg beat Mansell on one lap by 0.655 sec on average. After his announcement at Austria, during the last seven qualifications of the year he got beaten by 0.202 sec on average! Meaning, Mansell somehow suddenly got faster on one lap than his former self by a whooping average of 0.857 sec per lap! 

 

Rosberg said he was not stupid and he had been in the business long enough to know when he was provided with equal machinery and when he was not. 

 

Ironically, Mansell also experienced this unfair treatment by Honda in 1987 when the Japanese engineers tended to favour Piquet. 

 

So Honda really has a history in favouring one driver over another and Rosberg himself never doubted that Prost was right with his suspicions regarding Honda in 1988 and 1989.

[apoka]

I think what makes the question a bit unbalanced are the "1 or 2 WDCs" in the second option. It would be simpler to ask "What is more important? Winning the WDC or beating a WDC team mate?" I suppose most votes would go towards the first option in that case.

 

The other interesting part is that "WDC team mate" is quite an absolute term. Imagine someone has beaten 10 WDC team mates, but never won it. Wouldn't beating this driver also count for quite something? Or using recent drivers, wouldn't beating Rosberg, Hulkenberg, Webber, Kubica or now Ricciardo mean quite a lot? They never won the WDC, but were/are considered strong drivers.

 

[sennafan24]

 

But looking at how he outqualified Mansell 7-2 (and it easily could have been 8-1, but Rosberg deliberately used the slower compound for qualifying in Detroit so he saved one set of faster tyres for the race which he duly ended up winning largely due to this strategy) up until Zeltweg, from that point on Mansell had the upper hand on one lap and won the remaining seven qualifying to 5-2. 

I accept your point,

 

But there are examples of such performances swings where Honda were not involved. I was looking at Berger vs Mansell's qualifying stats the other day, and I found that Mansell was winning handily up until around mid-season. Berger then fought back and it ended up in being a tie for the year. Plus look at last year and how Kimi vs Romain changed from mid-season. Driver performance can go from one extreme to another.

 

I will concede there is grounds to be suspicious of Honda in the 80's though.

[sopa]

 

Ironically, Mansell also experienced this unfair treatment by Honda in 1987 when the Japanese engineers tended to favour Piquet. 

 

 

 

Mansell was faster than Piquet all season in 1987, so I guess you mean he got more unreliable engines? 

[Gyan]

I don't think that's the way to go with this and hence the lists below it are flawed IMO. Plenty of 'future' WDC's got beaten in their first season by whom we now see as formidable but average F1 drivers.

 

Actually, I don't even think it's about WDC's or not. It should be about how a driver is rated in general. 

 

Indeed. Most drivers lose intra-team battles in their rookie seasons. I've modified the list accordingly. Raikkonen's the only sore point, but he's likely to be teammate until 04 in any case, so its plenty of time for him to get more experienced. He was highly rated in 03.

 

• 98 - Jordan - Debut season, goes decently.
• 99 - Jordan - Damon Hill -  Beat a lackluster Hill who's about to retire. Get first race win. A late and 'subtle' title challenge like Frentzen's. 1/10
• 00 - BAR - Jacques Villeneuve -  BAR hire Villeneuve, approach you as an understudy for him. Join them, but soon find out things aren't all that swimming. Jacques was in his peak, so you gain a lot of rep and credit for beating him, which you use to force a move to McLaren as a possible replacement for Hakkinen. Your past 2 seasons are good enough proof of this. 2/10
• 01 - McLaren - Mika Hakkinen - Beat a mentally away Hakkinen and earn the team's respect. 3/10
• 02 - McLaren - Kimi Raikkonen - Beat Raikkonen as he is adapting to the team.
• 03 - McLaren -  Challenge for the title a la IRL Raikkonen. End up winning your first WDC, despite an ever improving Raikkonen bothering you all season, only playing number 2 after the mid-point.
• 04 - McLaren - Lackluster season, get fed up of Raikkonen who might beat you, and the car is slow, and search around for a new home. Barrichello's seat is open, you're the next best thing, they hire you to keep Schumacher on his toes, and you don't have to go to Williams as a result for next season. 4/10
• 05 - Ferrari - Settle in during the season, and annoy Schumacher when you challenge him for the race win at Indy.
• 06 - Ferrari - Beat Michael Schumacher in his last season, while losing out to Alonso for the title. Don't like the way Schumacher was forced out and Raikkonen possibly returning prompts you to join Renault, who are defending champions anyways and crave a top driver after Alonso's departure. 5/10
• 07 - Renault - Beat a rookie Kovalainen easily. Score a few podiums, possible race win.
• 08 - Renault - Beat the returning Fernando Alonso. Its your team as much as his by this point. Get annoyed at the lack of pace. 6/10
• 09 - McLaren - Rejoin McLaren. Slow car, tough season, narrowly beat Hamilton.
• 10 - McLaren - Challenge for the title, lose on final day, but beat Hamilton because you're a veteran and don't make silly mistakes that season. 7/10
• 11 - McLaren - Stick for one more season out of loyalty, and the fact that you don't have any other team to go to. Easily beat a lackluster Hamilton.
• 12 - Red Bull - Join Red Bull to get a 2nd title. End up defeating Vettel and preventing Alonso getting his 3rd. 8/10
• 13 - Red Bull - Feel that Vettel is the favored driver as he wins in 13. Up and leave back to McLaren for one final crack at things.
• 14 - McLaren - Defeat Jenson Button, get a possible race win. 9/10

In a more fleshed out scenario, 9 seems to be the max number of teammates you could beat, while gaining 2 WDCs in the process. You lose just 2 seasons to your teammates after your rookie season, both of whom are established WDCs and eventually beat them in any case.

 

Out of 17 seasons, you only sustain a title challenge for 6 seasons. Part of the reason being Ferrari's utter dominance early in your career. The titles you lose, you're actually overstretching your car to even challenge for them. You do get race wins in every season bar 2 early ones. However, you have defeated all your peers in head to heads and that gives you a strong argument to be rated as the best driver of your generation. What else could anyone have done? And then you go down as a legend of the sport for being the champion of champions. Senna beat Prost and won over many, but you beat everyone in your path while being a 2 time WDC as well, which was down to luck mostly and probably your temperament, which urged you to change teams often. But then again, so did Fangio.

 

To beat WDC teammates, one must be the epitome of consistency. Considering you defeated WDCs in 14 of your 17 seasons, your performances must have made you synonymous with the words high consistency. That level of skill which is needed to achieve this, is belied by your only 2 WDCs and you'll always be considered with Fangio, Clark, Lauda, Prost, Senna and Schumacher, as the best of your generation. You came across, saw and conquered every WDC that ever arose when you were around, stamping your authority on all of them.

[Lights]

That's quite a list and post. And yeah, like this I would agree to it. And if that was someone's career, that's quite something. Because some of the scenario's look quite unbelievable, meaning the driver would have to be pretty darn great to achieve it all. Other scenario's look less difficult, with WDC's already past their prime etc. But that's unavoidable. Only thing is that those will impress less obviously.

 

Thinking about it, that's what always bugs me when considering Alonso as the best driver ever. His failure to beat a rookie Hamilton is always in that picture and it doesn't add up. It just doesn't really happen, unless a WDC is already way over the Hill.

 

Even mentioning considering Alonso as the best driver ever feels like I'm swearing in the church though on this particular day.