50 replies to this topic

[sensible]

Just read the guardian (Brit) newspaper's F1-2003 intro and (aside from it being some of the poorest F1 journalism Ive yet to see) it had an article on the F1 top 10 greats of all time. Now I admit I didnt agree with it, but chances are you'll never find anyone who fully agrees with anyone else's choice: which is, I guess, kind of the point. However there was one thing which I thought was just stupid.

Their choice for greatest ever F1 driver was Sterling Moss. I find this laughable (nothing against Sir SM who was probably a great driver) because he never won the WDC. Winning a drivers championship has got to be the objective of every F1 driver (except maybe Alex Yoong). It's what it's all about. So given that, however great a driver's natural talents, code of honour or handling skills are, how can you be greatest if you failed to achieve that one primary objective? In my mind you cant.

That is not to say that number of WDCs is all, or that the "greatest ever" if such a thing could exist anyway, should simply be an exercise in statistics, but I think there are some pre-qualifiers before you are even considered, and winning a WDC is a very important one. It is also not to ignore the importance of car, but the fact remains: part of teh job is to make sure you are in the car that can win and then win.

Number of WDCs may not be a particularly good way of working out best ever, but I think it is certainly a prerequisite for consideration to have won at least one. What do people think?

[Tazio Nuvolari]

My opinion is that the greatest of all time stuff etc is a load of old crap and the most pointless argument in F1 history, how would Fangio have got on with traction control, how would Schumacher have got on with ground effect cars, how would Clark have got on with a turbo charged car with slicks, its bloody pointless these Top 10 greatest of all time etc

Also WDC's don't tell the full story, does anyone seriously think that Phil Hill, Denny Hulme and Mike Hawthorn were better talented drivers than Gilles Villeneuve, Ronnie Peterson, Stefan Bellof etc ?

Only to a geek who has never watched F1 before but is opening a stats book would think it

[madmac]

Originally posted by Tazio Nuvolari
My opinion is that the greatest of all time stuff etc is a load of old crap and the most pointless argument in F1 history, how would Fangio have got on with traction control, how would Schumacher have got on with ground effect cars, how would Clark have got on with a turbo charged car with slicks, its bloody pointless these Top 10 greatest of all time etc

Also WDC's don't tell the full story, does anyone seriously think that Phil Hill, Denny Hulme and Mike Hawthorn were better talented drivers than Gilles Villeneuve, Ronnie Peterson, Stefan Bellof etc ?

Only to a geek who has never watched F1 before but is opening a stats book would think it

totally well put

[sensible]

Originally posted by Tazio Nuvolari
My opinion is that the greatest of all time stuff etc is a load of old crap and the most pointless argument in F1 history, how would Fangio have got on with traction control, how would Schumacher have got on with ground effect cars, how would Clark have got on with a turbo charged car with slicks, its bloody pointless these Top 10 greatest of all time etc

Also WDC's don't tell the full story, does anyone seriously think that Phil Hill, Denny Hulme and Mike Hawthorn were better talented drivers than Gilles Villeneuve, Ronnie Peterson, Stefan Bellof etc ?

Only to a geek who has never watched F1 before but is opening a stats book would think it

I agree that the concept that it's impossible to pick a "greatest of all time", nevertheless, the media (and even this BB) is constantly naming people it thinks fulfils the title (probably due to watching too much top of the pops).

I also agree with your points on drivers, but I think you muisunderstood my point. I was not saying that if you won a WDC you are by definition a better driver than someone who didnt. What I was saying was that if you didnt win a WDC you cant be in the running as "greatest of all time" (or greatest ten of all time or whatever). That is while most people would agree that Stirling Moss was better than (say) keke Rosberg even though the latter won a WDC and the former didnt, given that it is all about getting a WDC and SM didnt, then he is disqualified from "best ever". KR isnt disqualified on that score, but, lets face it, no-one is going to seriously put him in that frame anyway.

I'd say there are enough people who are in that frame: anyone interested in reaching some sort of conclusion, to my mind, wants to reduce the number of contenders rather than increasing them. So while Gilles Villeneuve was a great driver, he can never be best ever because he didnt reach the ultimate objective (even if the reason was his tragic death).

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by sensible
What I was saying was that if you didnt win a WDC you cant be in the running as "greatest of all time" (or greatest ten of all time or whatever).

Ah, so motor racing started in 1950 did it? Nuvolari? Wimille? Caracciola? Lang? Benoist? Antonio Ascari? etc etc etc

Championships mean nothing - style, substance, sportsmanship, race results and luck (or lack of it) are what count.

[Eric McLoughlin]

The notion that drivers who became World Champions can only be considered in a "greatest" list is laughable. For a start, for the first 50 odd years of motor sport there was no championship to win. As Vitesse has ponted out, by definition you would have to exclude every driver who raced before 1950. Some of the greatest (and bravest) drivers of all time raced in that era.Secondly, the WDC may have been introduced in 1950, but it was not for another 10 to 15 years that the notion that winning the championship was the be all and end all came to be accepted. You must take that into account when dismissing drivers like Moss or Phill Hill, both whp excelled in categories of motor racing other than F1. To them, the F1 World Championship was a relatively important goal but not exclusively so.

In fact, I have little time for the current generation of F1 drivers (including Herr Schumacher) precisely because they are so limited in their driving activities. How can you state that a guy who competes in only 16 to 17 races a year can compare with an era when drivers drove 50 to 60 races a year in all types of cars on hugely varied circuits - not to mention the inherent dangers of those days.

To be honest, these lists just annoy me these days and I don't pay much attention to them anymore.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Ah, so motor racing started in 1950 did it? Nuvolari? Wimille? Caracciola? Lang? Benoist? Antonio Ascari? etc etc etc

Championships mean nothing - style, substance, sportsmanship, race results and luck (or lack of it) are what count.

Are you swearing, Richard?

Let's put it this way... if someone wants to voice an opinion on this subject, let us ask him first to describe to us who David Bruce-Brown was, what he achieved and where he came from... how about that?

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
In fact, I have little time for the current generation of F1 drivers (including Herr Schumacher) precisely because they are so limited in their driving activities. How can you state that a guy who competes in only 16 to 17 races a year can compare with an era when drivers drove 50 to 60 races a year in all types of cars on hugely varied circuits - not to mention the inherent dangers of those days.

To be honest, these lists just annoy me these days and I don't pay much attention to them anymore.

Hear hear!

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Let's put it this way... if someone wants to voice an opinion on this subject, let us ask him first to describe to us who David Bruce-Brown was, what he achieved and where he came from... how about that?

Or Szisz, or Edge, or Lautenschlager, or Jenatzy, or Théry ......

Well I could, and you could, and I dare say Eric could too ....

but I've better things to do with my time!

[Ray Bell]

One from here to there...

One from there to here...

We're playing musical threads!

Oh, I chose Bruce-Brown for a reason...

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
One from here to there...

One from there to here...

We're playing musical threads!

Can we tell Mel she can have it back?

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Oh, I chose Bruce-Brown for a reason...

If you've found his birthdate I DEMAND you tell me now, or I shall despatch Hans in a U-Boat to shell your home!

[Lutz G]

Originally posted by sensible


(...)

part of teh job is to make sure you are in the car that can win and then win.

I agree on that one. I still can't belief that Hans "Strietzel" Stuck turned down an offer to drive for Frank Williams in late 1978. That Stuck never won a single f1 race wasn't only bad luck....

But sometimes for example if you're from Switzerland like Marc Surer it's very hard to find a good f1 team. To get sponsors and enough money to compete with all the rich fathers sons was too much for Marc

Lutz

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Lutz G


I agree on that one. I still can't belief that Hans "Strietzel" Stuck turned down an offer to drive for Frank Williams in late 1978.
Lutz

Err, why? Williams had done almost nothing of note up to that point. They were just another mid- to back of-grid team until Head and Jones arrived and in 1978 had scored just 11 WCC points (six in one race).

[Garagiste]

Um, I know it's a touchy (and perhaps pet) subject, but this was a greatest driver list in a generalist publication's F1 2003 preview. In that context, it's hardly surprising that they are not looking at an era when F1 didn't exist, is it?
It's rather like getting upset that the Wright brothers aren't on the list of 100 greatest Jet pilots.

[Eric McLoughlin]

I wasn't aware of the F1 magazine link. I took "of all time" to mean "of all time" which, in a motor sport context, means from 1894.,

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Tazio Nuvolari
Also WDC's don't tell the full story, does anyone seriously think that Phil Hill, Denny Hulme and Mike Hawthorn were better talented drivers than Gilles Villeneuve, Ronnie Peterson, Stefan Bellof etc ?

Only to a geek who has never watched F1 before but is opening a stats book would think it

You need to do some more research. Hawthorn and Hill were far better drivers than their Grand Prix record and lone WDC indicate. I personally think Mike Hawthorn is probably the most underrated WDC and certainly the most underrated British driver. He was extremely fast and a real fighter when the chips were down.

Phil Hill was also a far better driver than many give credit for. You just don't win three 24 of Hours Le Mans, two Nurburgring 1000Kms, two Sebring 12 Hours, and win at Spa in a Grand Prix car (without wings) unless you are damn good.

Villeneuve, Peterson and Bellof were all extremely fast drivers who could visually impress a spectator with their throwing a car a circuit but they had the benefit of wings.

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by Vitesse2
...I shall despatch Hans in a U-Boat to shell your home!

Torpedo tubes checked! ...Ready!

[WDH74]

"Phil Hill was also a far better driver than many give credit for. You just don't win three 24 of Hours Le Mans, two Nurburgring 1000Kms, two Sebring 12 Hours, and win at Spa in a Grand Prix car (without wings) unless you are damn good."

Agreed. You don't win Pebble Beach in a clutchless, mostly brakeless XK120 without a certain bit of talent, either!
-William

[Doug Nye]

Originally posted by Joe Fan
Phil Hill was also a far better driver than many give credit for. You just don't win...at Spa in a Grand Prix car (without wings) unless you are damn good.

[Ray Bell]

Keep those guns in check, Hans!

I actually set this snare for the youngsters... you never know, they might be capable and useful people, they might even find that elusive birthdate for us!



As for Garagiste and his comment about F1... well Garagiste, does the list include Wimille... or Varzi? Do you know how far back F1 goes?

[holiday]

It was never about who is the best, it has always been about who is said to be the best.

(But dont ask me where exactly the difference lies, but most certainly there is one)

[AlesiUK]

If being the best f1 driver of all time is about winning WDC and races,then why ever have the debate,there would be no debate.

Michael Schumacher along with Fangio are the greatest,Followed by Prost and so on,just rate them in order of how many titles they won,thats it,end of arguement.

and if you believe that,then you probably also believe that O.J Simpson was innocent and Oswald worked alone.....


Fangio and Schumacher may have won 5 WDC,but how many times did they go to Indianapolis and beat the americans in there own back brickyard?

in my opinion,statistics are the worst thing in the world,they many absolutely nothing in formula one.A fact apparently lost on modern f1 fans who believe that schumacher is the be all and end all of motorsport,and that hill and hakkinen were greats.

Being a great driver is not all about winning.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
I wasn't aware of the F1 magazine link. I took "of all time" to mean "of all time" which, in a motor sport context, means from 1894.,

... or, as The Guardian would probably put it, 1849!

[Lutz G]

Originally posted by Vitesse2


Err, why? Williams had done almost nothing of note up to that point. They were just another mid- to back of-grid team until Head and Jones arrived and in 1978 had scored just 11 WCC points (six in one race).

We discussed this topic here:

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=50918

Lutz

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Lutz G


We discussed this topic here:

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=50918

Lutz

I hadn't followed that thread. However, you're looking at 1979 with the benefit of hindsight. In 1978 no-one but the wildest optimist would have predicted that the FW07 would have turned out such a good car - Head did a very good job of copying and improving on the original Lotus ground effect concept: what was it Coatalen said in the 1920s about making sure you copied faithfully?

And Holger's comment about Stuck being a prankster was rather telling - not "serious" enough for Frank and Patrick methinks.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Doug Nye

Like Our Doug, I am confused as to the necessity for this thread which dropped out of the sky it seems from Elsewhere....

[holiday]

Hehe, Readers comment finally takes OVER!

[black magic]

well I agree with your point regarding stirling moss. a great driver but best of all?

sorry

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Doug Nye

Phil Hill won the 1961 Belgian Grand Prix at Spa in a Ferrari 156. No wings, no fat tires. The only downforce they had going through Eau Rouge in those days was their chin dropping on their chest.

[dretceterini]

It's well known taht if I ever got a F1 ride, I would have been the best ever

[Hans Etzrodt]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Keep those guns in check, Hans!

I actually set this snare for the youngsters... you never know, they might be capable and useful people, they might even find that elusive birth date for us!..

... whoever comes up with the correct birth date, I'll take out for a Chinese Dinner at the Hilton Hawaiian Village. Not just is it the finest food you can imagine in your dreams, it also costs a good bundle. Drinks included.

...and Ray, torpedo tubes are cleared, all stations manned.;)

[Ray Bell]

Well I sure hope somebody finds it, my surfing friend...

Rest assured that if it's me (fat chance!) I will let you know within hours!

Originally posted by Vitesse2
.....what was it Coatalen said in the 1920s about making sure you copied faithfully?.....

"Meester Pomeroy... eet is wize to coppi wizzout altair!"

Or something like that.

[Falcadore]

Why does the best driver of all time have to have been an open wheeler driver? Motorsport runs a huge gamut of categories, each with their own pinnacles, what about closed roof, what about off road, what about two wheels, what about off shore, what about.......

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Falcadore
Why does the best driver of all time have to have been an open wheeler driver? Motorsport runs a huge gamut of categories, each with their own pinnacles, what about closed roof, what about off road, what about two wheels, what about off shore, what about.......

I agree with your contention but this post was based on the premise of greatest F1 drivers. However, with F1 always being geared towards the manufacturer (ie little or no attempts to level the playig field with rules) it is far from being an exceptional platform in which to evaluate driving talent. Even comparing drivers on the same team is not always a sure-fire way to evaluate drivers because the #1 driver usually always gets the best chassis, engines, gearboxes, etc. and the most attention from the mechanics. This is why looking at the various other forms of motorsport that these drivers competed in, is also important.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Falcadore
Why does the best driver of all time have to have been an open wheeler driver? Motorsport runs a huge gamut of categories, each with their own pinnacles, what about closed roof, what about off road, what about two wheels, what about off shore, what about.......

And because open wheelers (without too many restrictions, ie. more than Formula Fords) take drivers to higher levels... require more of the driver.

[Falcadore]

Joe: indeed it does, second time this month I've been picked up for not thoroughly reading the original post.

Ray: again we have to agree to disagree. In every category there are limits. Open wheelers too. Like bitumen surfacing as an example. And while those limits are in place no category can claim to completely explore the abilities of a racer. Least limitations doesn't cut it. But that is only my opinion.

[Ray Bell]

It is indeed...

I don't think we agree to disagree at all. We just disagree. Shame...

[Garagiste]

well Garagiste, does the list include Wimille... or Varzi?

I've no idea, as I didn't read the article. Do you know that they weren't considered?

[Gary Davies]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
... Let's put it this way... if someone wants to voice an opinion on this subject, let us ask him first to describe to us who David Bruce-Brown was, what he achieved and where he came from... how about that?

Sorry to go OT (but there again this "who was the greatest" tosh is easy to drift away from innit?) but Ray's question reminds me of something I read years and years ago about ... I think ... three (was it?) test questions Bill Boddy used to fire at people applying for writing jobs at Motor Sport. One, I think, asked applicants to state the bore and stroke of the 3-litre Bentley.

Anyone recall the others? Or have my marbles irrevocably gone west?

[scdecade]

Originally posted by sensible
Just read the guardian (Brit) newspaper's F1-2003 intro and (aside from it being some of the poorest F1 journalism Ive yet to see) it had an article on the F1 top 10 greats of all time. Now I admit I didnt agree with it, but chances are you'll never find anyone who fully agrees with anyone else's choice: which is, I guess, kind of the point. However there was one thing which I thought was just stupid.

Their choice for greatest ever F1 driver was Sterling Moss. I find this laughable (nothing against Sir SM who was probably a great driver) because he never won the WDC. Winning a drivers championship has got to be the objective of every F1 driver (except maybe Alex Yoong). It's what it's all about. So given that, however great a driver's natural talents, code of honour or handling skills are, how can you be greatest if you failed to achieve that one primary objective? In my mind you cant.

That is not to say that number of WDCs is all, or that the "greatest ever" if such a thing could exist anyway, should simply be an exercise in statistics, but I think there are some pre-qualifiers before you are even considered, and winning a WDC is a very important one. It is also not to ignore the importance of car, but the fact remains: part of teh job is to make sure you are in the car that can win and then win.

Number of WDCs may not be a particularly good way of working out best ever, but I think it is certainly a prerequisite for consideration to have won at least one. What do people think?

Ayrton Senna

[Gary Davies]

Originally posted by Vanwall


Sorry to go OT (but there again this "who was the greatest" tosh is easy to drift away from innit?) but Ray's question reminds me of something I read years and years ago about ... I think ... three (was it?) test questions Bill Boddy used to fire at people applying for writing jobs at Motor Sport. One, I think, asked applicants to state the bore and stroke of the 3-litre Bentley.

Anyone recall the others? Or have my marbles irrevocably gone west?

On second thoughts, perhaps it was one of the Tees firing the questions, rather than WB.

[fines]

Lads, let's try to be sensible... [pun intended ]

A (presumably) young member of this board has posted his opinion here to be scrutinized by us - that, in effect, is another way of honouring the people who post here, as I see it, and I would like to thank sensible for that.

Now, let's put away our dislike for "greats of all time" discussions and so on, and look at what sensible really wanted to know, here in a nutshell:

Originally posted by sensible
Their choice for greatest ever F1 driver was Sterling Moss. I find this laughable (nothing against Sir SM who was probably a great driver) because he never won the WDC. Winning a drivers championship has got to be the objective of every F1 driver (except maybe Alex Yoong). It's what it's all about. So given that, however great a driver's natural talents, code of honour or handling skills are, how can you be greatest if you failed to achieve that one primary objective? In my mind you cant.

Apart from misspelling Stirling's name, I can't see why this post should result in so many negative reactions! It's clearly about F1, and about having won WDC or not, and it's an opinion well worth considering.

Having said that, I don't agree with this opinion, mainly for the reasons Eric McLoughlin already pointed out: In the 50s (and perhaps even the 60s), the WDC simply wasn't "what it's all about" - it was just a part of it. And yes, I consider Stirling Moss as one of the all-time greats of F1, even if he never won a WDC, because he simply was THE driver everyone wanted to beat for many years. For one reason or another, the WDC of the late 50s and early 60s does simply not reflect what really happened on the track. Maybe because of the scoring system, or maybe because of the non-championship races, whatever.

And now I'm going to consider whom I'll nominate in Wolf's new thread. But one thing's for sure: Stirling Moss will be amongst my TOP 10!!!

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Garagiste
I've no idea, as I didn't read the article. Do you know that they weren't considered?

No, I don't, so please tell me... were they included?

That was a question with a purpose, by the way...

[Don Capps]

I hate these damn lists....

[fines]

Originally posted by Hans Etzrodt
... whoever comes up with the correct birth date, I'll take out for a Chinese Dinner at the Hilton Hawaiian Village. Not just is it the finest food you can imagine in your dreams, it also costs a good bundle. Drinks included.

Hear, hear!

Ehm, Hans, if I happen to be the lucky one, you can leave out the drinks... but pretty please pay for the trip!

[David Beard]

People at the controls of a wheeled motorised competition vehicle, when I was there to watch........…some of my very personal greats.

Stirling Moss.
Alfie Hagon.
E. J. Potter
Dave Curtis
Reg Gange Junior
Dave Buttigieg
Helmut Fath
Owen Greenwood.


At the time I was watching what I was watching, these people provided real entertainment, in various ways.

[TODave2]

A few years ago I got fed up of the concept of 'Greatest of all time' and decided that instead I'd have a 'Greatest at any given time'.

So while I don't believe that it's possible to compare drivers from different eras, I am coming round to the idea that it might be possible to say 'xxx was the best driver during that period, then he retired and yyy took over, then zzz came along' and so on. Something along the lines of Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Villeneuve, Prost, Mansell, Senna, Schu and so on (and before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not giving that as my list, it's merely an example of the concept).

I'm still refining the concept in my brainbox, and for some periods I haven't really come up with anything (1977/78/79?), but I think it may be possible to arrive at a fairly agreeable-to-most list that breaks down periods into three of four year chunks and goes from there.

Anyway... just my ramblings

[Ray Bell]

Yes, I like that idea, TODave2...

There were days when Mansell was best. And many others who are sometimes derided and usually left off this kind of list.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by TODave2
A few years ago I got fed up of the concept of 'Greatest of all time' and decided that instead I'd have a 'Greatest at any given time'.

So while I don't believe that it's possible to compare drivers from different eras, I am coming round to the idea that it might be possible to say 'xxx was the best driver during that period, then he retired and yyy took over, then zzz came along' and so on. Something along the lines of Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Villeneuve, Prost, Mansell, Senna, Schu and so on (and before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not giving that as my list, it's merely an example of the concept).

I'm still refining the concept in my brainbox, and for some periods I haven't really come up with anything (1977/78/79?), but I think it may be possible to arrive at a fairly agreeable-to-most list that breaks down periods into three of four year chunks and goes from there.

Anyway... just my ramblings

Perhaps this thread might help your rambling ....

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=22144

[TODave2]

Ah yes, that's the right kind of idea (apart from the overlapping bit which others mentioned later in the thread). Hmmm, it would be nice to have an original idea of my own on here one day

Trouble is of course, first you have to define 'greatest'. Fastest? Most titles? Most race wins? Ability to drive other cars? Car control? Race craft? Or is it all of these things (and perhaps a few other attributes)...?



Now... what about worst driver to make it into F1...

[Ray Bell]

That's what the F1 rejects site is for...

Character assassination. With a touch of humour.