Top 10 British Drivers

The final results are in. A clear top 7 emerged, with a tight fight for the last three places. Personally I found it ironic that Graham Hill and Mansell placed together given that Mansell at times was given the Graham Hill tag of "the gritty grinder."  Thanks to everybody who took part, look out for another top 10 coming very soon.

 

1. Clark 182

2. Stewart 150

3. Hamilton 143

4. Moss 118

5. Graham Hill 93

6. Mansell 84

7. Surtees 59

8. Button 32

= Hunt

10. Colin McRae 30

Odd seeing McRae on the list and so low, as clearly when people were voting, some took "F1-only" approach and some took a wider approach. If everyone understood the question as in "motorsports in general", McRae would be higher and well the whole list could look a bit different.

As for the debate about Tony Brooks. Well, UK has 10 F1 champions and Moss. So I think it's not easy to leave anyone out, as all of them at some points in their careers were performing at the top level or close to it. Just like Brooks, who in his prime was second to Moss.

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.  C'mon.    

And as for the lists that have Hamilton at 9 or completely omitted, there are no words.  Clearly there is another agenda item in play.   

Edited by MKSixer, 10 December 2018 - 16:16.

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.  C'mon.    

Why?

               Jackie Stewart                           Lewis Hamilton

GP started            99                                  229

Wins                  27   27.3%                       73       31.9%

Podium places  43   43.4%                       134     58.5%

Pole positions   17   17.2%                        83      36.2%

Front row          42    42.4%                      132       57.6%

Fastest laps      15    15.2%                       41        17.9%

Points               360     3.64                      3018      13.18

Laps raced     5225     52.8                     12954      56.6

km raced       25837   261.0                    65215      284.8

G.Prix led         51      51.5%                    129        56.3%

Laps led         1921     19.4                      3975       17.4

km led            9191     92.8                    20190       88.2

Mr. Hamilton beats Mr. Stewart in every objective statistical measure.  Additionally, he has won a race in each year he's raced in F1, a feat no one has accomplished in the history of the sport.  Additionally, he's won across 4 different formulae.  I could list record after after record but everyone knows them...recognition is a different story.  

What say you?

Edited by E.B., 10 December 2018 - 16:45.

Comparing their points averages is a completely objective and fair assessment. Yep, can't see a single thing wrong with that.

That's all you got from the chart?  

What say you?

That F1 is now very different from F1 then.

I have little doubt Hamilton will reach 100 wins, but does that make him twice as good as Prost? Of course not. Just like Schumacher isn't double the driver Senna was.

Edited by Nonesuch, 10 December 2018 - 16:58.

               Jackie Stewart                           Lewis Hamilton

GP started            99                                  229

Wins                  27   27.3%                       73       31.9%

Podium places  43   43.4%                       134     58.5%

Pole positions   17   17.2%                        83      36.2%

Front row          42    42.4%                      132       57.6%

Fastest laps      15    15.2%                       41        17.9%

Points               360     3.64                      3018      13.18

Laps raced     5225     52.8                     12954      56.6

km raced       25837   261.0                    65215      284.8

G.Prix led         51      51.5%                    129        56.3%

Laps led         1921     19.4                      3975       17.4

km led            9191     92.8                    20190       88.2

 

 

Mr. Hamilton beats Mr. Stewart in every objective statistical measure.  Additionally, he has won a race in each year he's raced in F1, a feat no one has accomplished in the history of the sport.  Additionally, he's won across 4 different formulae.  I could list record after after record but everyone knows them...recognition is a different story.  

 

What say you?

That's all you got from the chart?

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.  C'mon.    

 

Not sure if you have any idea of the impact Stewart had. In a deadly era, he was clearly the best and (I think) was only seriously injured once in an racing accident. Example: I just rewatched the '69 British Grand Prix, and of the top 10 finishers that year, 4 were dead from racing accidents within 2 years. Hated and was scared of the Nurburgring, yet dominated there more than once. Never had a modern-style massive car advantage. Arguably, the depth of his competition was greater; he wasn't a car-breaker at a time when that was a real thing. He was/is a worldwide household name. Hamilton is very good, but he's not quite Jackie Stewart.

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.

Your comment is comical. The Formula 1 cars in the 60s were so much more difficult to drive compared to today's cars that every Stewart's win is worth at least 10 or 20 wins with these modern cars.

Once we get past the pants Stewart and Hamilton wear we can measure them by the circumstances in which they succeeded.

Lewis "isn't interested" in racing Indycars today. Fine. So his interest would be less than zero in racing a 1966 incinerator against all the best in the world. Therefore no chance of almost winning at Indy as a rookie and actually winning at Fuji (not his day job) in his second Indycar start.

Second to Clark at old Spa, as an F1 rookie and Spa rookie, in heavy rain. 

Truly a win for the ages at legendary Nordschleife by legendary four minutes in legendary fog and rain. No comparison. Maybe to anyone.

Also, shall we compare, relative to their peers of course, the budgets and products of their respective teams?     

Edited by nordschleife, 10 December 2018 - 18:29.

1. Clark
2. Stewart
3. Hill G
4. Surtees
5. Moss
6. Hamilton

7. Mansell
8. Hunt
9. Hawthorn
10.Pryce

Most of those statistics do not mean all that much when you are comparing the modern age of near-perfect safety and reliability, with that of Stewart's era. It's entirely plausible JYS may have improved on those records, had he not quit prematurely because his friends kept dying around him. Additionally, some might appreciate JYS also for his achievements in other racing categories - one of them including losing one of the most star-packed Indy 500's in living history as a rookie only to a car failure. To me, it would be entirely plausible to rank them two whichever way around. It's a matter of opinion and taste. Both are probably top 10 racing drivers all time, all categories. Besides, if you paid any attention, there are many "weirder" things on these lists on some of the lists than simply Stewart being ranked above Lewis, or even LH's exclusion. Why is this the only thing that rattles your conspiracy-o-meter?

Which means you have to compare them among the current cohort of drivers, circuits, etc.  This takes us back to statistics and my original assessment. Cheers for the thoughtful answer.

I did pay attention and I kept my assessment to Formula One.  If comparison across eras is folly, certainly comparison across disciplines and platforms rises to a higher level of folly.  Leaving Mr. Hamilton off a list of Formula One greats is only possible due to personal animus, not flavor.  

Formula One is a sport of data...let's use it across all assessments first after which subjectivity should be applied.

Cheers-mk

Your comment is comical. The Formula 1 cars in the 60s were so much more difficult to drive compared to today's cars that every Stewart's win is worth at least 10 or 20 wins with these modern cars.

More DANGEROUS to drive.  The cars from that era share much more in common with road cars than today's bespoke machinery with 50 function steering wheels, multiple power deployment options, and a host of other features.  

Was a fighter ace in WW1 a better pilot than an ace in an F15 that achieved the same number of kills?  Of course not.

More DANGEROUS to drive.  The cars from that era share much more in common with road cars than today's bespoke machinery with 50 function steering wheels, multiple power deployment options, and a host of other features. 

So your favorite driver is a better driver because he has 50 functions on the steering wheel? Congratulation on your logic.

Talking about Stewart, it has to be mentioned that for a while he had the "most wins" record. Stewart won 27 championship races by the end of his career, to Clark's 25 and Fangio's 24. They remained the top 3 for a while. Stewart was beaten in wins by Prost I think. In 1987 to be precise, so Stewart held that record for 14 years.

Anyway, my point is that you have to look at records in the context of their eras. Hamilton may have most poles at the moment and second in wins, but maybe by 2070 he may have dropped well down the order once we have two races in a Grand Prix weekend, making it up to 45 Grands Prix over a season.    And then somebody will be asking - "who's Hamilton? See, this guy has 150 wins in his career."

Either way, I think I would still take Hamilton over Stewart though. But not over Clark...

Edited by sopa, 10 December 2018 - 19:09.

Once we get past the pants Stewart and Hamilton wear we can measure them by the circumstances in which they succeeded.

 

Lewis "isn't interested" in racing Indycars today. Fine. So his interest would be less than zero in racing a 1966 incinerator against all the best in the world. Therefore no chance of almost winning at Indy as a rookie and actually winning at Fuji (not his day job) in his second Indycar start.

 

Second to Clark at old Spa, as an F1 rookie and Spa rookie, in heavy rain. 

 

Truly a win for the ages at legendary Nordschleife by legendary four minutes in legendary fog and rain. No comparison. Maybe to anyone.

 

Also, shall we compare, relative to their peers of course, the budgets and products of their respective teams?     

We can't compare interest as the equipment available to become a Formula One driver is the equipment available to become a Formula One driver.  If he was born in that era and wanted to become an F1 driver he'd have no knowledge of modern equipment and would use the equipment at hand.  This point is specious.

Let's compare to peers.  Mr. Hamilton raced against, and beat his WDC partners 1x with Mr. Alonso, 2x vs Mr. Button, and 3x vs Mr. Rosberg losing only 1x each to Mr. Button and Mr. Rosberg, respectively.  How many World Champions did Mr. Stewart defeat in identical machinery?

So your favorite driver is a better driver because he has 50 functions on the steering wheel? Congratulation on your logic.

Lol. If you're going to ridicule a person endeavor to get your English right.

I'm making a point about the difficulty in the nature of driving current cars vs the more simplistic platforms of the past.  I'm sorry you missed the point.  Truly I am.

Cheers-mk

I'm making a point about the difficulty in the nature of driving current cars vs the more simplistic platforms of the past.

I know what point you are making I just don't agree with it at all. What you call "simplistic platforms of the past" were in fact incredible racing machines which required immense skill to drive. Not at all comparable with today's spaceships full of electronics. Not to mention of course the tracks were million times more challenging than todays.

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.  C'mon.    

 

And as for the lists that have Hamilton at 9 or completely omitted, there are no words.  Clearly there is another agenda item in play.  

With reliability becoming better over time, I'd argue that in turn the element of random chance beyond the control of the driver has diminished. Hence you had drivers such as Chris Amon never winning a race when many of his contemporaries argue that he was good enough to win a title. Stewart was a superb driver, no shame or ridicule in putting him above Hamilton at all.

We can't compare interest as the equipment available to become a Formula One driver is the equipment available to become a Formula One driver.  If he was born in that era and wanted to become an F1 driver he'd have no knowledge of modern equipment and would use the equipment at hand.  This point is specious.

 

Let's compare to peers.  Mr. Hamilton raced against, and beat his WDC partners 1x with Mr. Alonso, 2x vs Mr. Button, and 3x vs Mr. Rosberg losing only 1x each to Mr. Button and Mr. Rosberg, respectively.  How many World Champions did Mr. Stewart defeat in identical machinery?

Hamilton beat more world champions in identical machinery, but I'd argue that Stewart didn't have quite the same standard of machinery relative to the opposition that Hamilton has enjoyed, looking at their careers as a whole.

Edited by hittheapex, 10 December 2018 - 19:29.

Lewis Hamilton is the clear number one, Clark is only close but always will be a ''what if'' story, a guy with the most poles and second most wins is a racing legend. 

Which means you have to compare them among the current cohort of drivers, circuits, etc.  This takes us back to statistics and my original assessment. Cheers for the thoughtful answer.

 

I did pay attention and I kept my assessment to Formula One.  If comparison across eras is folly, certainly comparison across disciplines and platforms rises to a higher level of folly.  Leaving Mr. Hamilton off a list of Formula One greats is only possible due to personal animus, not flavor.  

 

Formula One is a sport of data...let's use it across all assessments first after which subjectivity should be applied.

 

If you *actually* paid any attention to the context of the lists instead of simply launching into a fit of conspiracy at no mention of your favourite driver, you may have noticed that there are five who have listed LH out of the top 4.

BRG, a notorious WRC fan. He lists eight rally drivers (Jim Clark was one, as well), Lewis as p9, and "the rest" as P10. Really sounds like acknowledging Lewis as the best F1 non WRC driver.

Currahee's list consists of 10 Scotsmen. Doubt it's anything personal with Lewis.

chr1s' list is presumably of his favourite drivers and not an assessment of driving accolades. Or that's what I gather from that it involves no WDC's.

Fatgadget puts Lewis 8th, as the lone F1 driver again. Sounds like praise rather than animus. 

BuddyHolly puts him 6th, which is possibly contestable - but unlike Lewis everyone ranked above him has great achievements in other forms of racing too, so maybe he simply prefers versatility in a driver.

---

Fwiw, I do recognize the point that you can't blame Lewis for that his cars are not the same as those of the heroes of the generations past. He can only make the most of what he has.

But the "data" you want to use, conversely blames the likes of Stewart, Moss, Clark, and even Mansell for racing in dangerous eras of fewer races, higher unreliability & possessing equipment that would never even allow for the accumulation of the incredible stats LH has been able to gather. 

I know what point you are making I just don't agree with it at all. What you call "simplistic platforms of the past" were in fact incredible racing machines which required immense skill to drive. Not at all comparable with today's spaceships full of electronics. Not to mention of course the tracks were million times more challenging than todays.

I respect that.

I also disagree because in addition to the immense skill required to drive a car which generated more g forces on the body, one must also make hundreds or thousands of adjustments to the car to maximize the performance during the race.  Again, the skill level involved in the inputs is the same with the addition of hundreds of minute adjustments necessary to optimize the performance of the car.  

Cheers-mk

If you *actually* paid any attention to the context of the lists instead of simply launching into a fit of conspiracy at no mention of your favourite driver, you may have noticed that there are five who have listed LH out of the top 4.

 

BRG, a notorious WRC fan. He lists eight rally drivers (Jim Clark was one, as well), Lewis as p9, and "the rest" as P10. Really sounds like acknowledging Lewis as the best F1 non WRC driver.

Currahee's list consists of 10 Scotsmen. Doubt it's anything personal with Lewis.

chr1s' list is presumably of his favourite drivers and not an assessment of driving accolades. Or that's what I gather from that it involves no WDC's.

Fatgadget puts Lewis 8th, as the lone F1 driver again. Sounds like praise rather than animus. 

BuddyHolly puts him 6th, which is possibly contestable - but unlike Lewis everyone ranked above him has great achievements in other forms of racing too, so maybe he simply prefers versatility in a driver.

 

---

 

Fwiw, I do recognize the point that you can't blame Lewis for that his cars are not the same as those of the heroes of the generations past. He can only make the most of what he has.

 

But the "data" you want to use, conversely blames the likes of Stewart, Moss, Clark, and even Mansell for racing in dangerous eras of fewer races, higher unreliability & possessing equipment that would never even allow for the accumulation of the incredible stats LH has been able to gather. 

Again, you're speculating a bit on motives.  I'm merely going by the name of the thread.  They do cover British drivers, yes. As Formula One is recognized as the pinnacle of motorsports should the bias be more towards Formula One drivers and not drivers in other disciplines or other platforms?

On data, how is Jim Clark (My first favorite driver from the time I was 5 years old.) being penalized...his strike rate is better than everyone else.  I have no argument with someone arguing Clark is better than Hamilton, Stewart...not so much.  And keep in mind that we are discussing minute levels of difference.  

Cheers-mk

Again, you're speculating a bit on motives.  I'm merely going by the name of the thread.  They do cover British drivers, yes. As Formula One is recognized as the pinnacle of motorsports should the bias be more towards Formula One drivers and not drivers in other disciplines or other platforms?

The OP has indeed later clarified his intention was to list F1 only, but in the initial post he was very vague on the type of list he wanted to attract. Wouldn't it hence be plausible to expect that maybe not everyone who provided a list had exactly the same criteria in mind as you do when defining "bestness" as a driver (or then they didn't take it very seriously due to that very reason), don't you think? 

I would also respectfully contest the latter statement -- especially when it comes to the eras before Bernie got the power.

And the skill set required to be competitive in a vast array of different machinery across several different facets of racing makes Stewart a more complete driver than any of the Playstation generation would even be allowed to be.

I submit that the heavy divergence between Indy and Formula One took place AFTER Mr. Stewart nearly won the Indy 500.  The cars were similar while, of course, operating in vastly different environments.  

Additionally, it's challenging to infer that because they aren't allowed to do so (drive in disciplines), they couldn't do so should the opportunity present itself.  And as I think about it...what of the success of Hartley, Webber, and Alonso at LeMans and Alonso at Indy?  It defies your argument.  

The OP has indeed later clarified his intention was to list F1 only, but in the initial post he was very vague on the type of list he wanted to attract. Wouldn't it hence be plausible to expect that maybe not everyone who provided a list had exactly the same criteria in mind as you do when defining "bestness" as a driver (or then they didn't take it very seriously due to that very reason), don't you think? 

 

I would also respectfully contest the latter statement -- especially when it comes to the eras before Bernie got the power.

Quite a bit of what you're posting is speculative.

The Formula One World Championship was expressly started to be the unifying pinnacle of motorsports.  I may be operating from a set of personal rules that are a bit more rigid around accuracy than yours or other.  This is not an insult but the result of reading the clarifying statements as well as  speculative statements.

Cheers-mk

I was referring more to the continual switching between different facets week to week, even within the same day - not quite the same as a late career switch once your F1 career was nearing its end.

In any case, it wasn't so much your opinion that Hamilton is better than Stewart that is absurd - it's a valid point of view (even if I personally disagree). It was the assertion that the opposite viewpoint must be comical.

<sigh>

More clarifying and qualifying statements.  

Cheers-mk

The Formula One World Championship was expressly started to be the unifying pinnacle of motorsports.

Was it? And when was it created?

Really?

Quite a bit of what you're posting is speculative.

 

Sorry but I really fail to see what is speculative about considering that a list which has no English WDC's is extremely unlikely to have a particular anti-Lewis agenda. A claim that is your speculation that I am arguing against here.

 

The Formula One World Championship was expressly started to be the unifying pinnacle of motorsports. 

It wasn't. WDC was started so that there would be a World Championship for Grand Prix racing with legs on multiple continents. But Grand Prix racing had existed for decades already & the WDC unified no forms of racing. Non-F1 events continued to have a great importance for decades more, and WDC only truly overshadowed them from the nineties on in the form we currently consider standard. 

Edited by noriaki, 10 December 2018 - 21:10.

You don't seem to want to talk clarifying statements or context (too complicated), just hard facts or stats, so I thought I would check how you are on those.

I suggest you go back and read my posts discussing contexts with regard to platform availability as well as cross platform application of one's driving skill. As far as facts go...I suggest a quick perusal of many sources that are publicly available.

I'm in my mid 50's and I've been watching F1 when the only races broadcasted in the states were Monaco, the British GP, the German GP, the Italian GP, and the US GP.   I had to read accounts from the rest weeks later through the motoring press here, specifically Road and Track when Rob Walker and Innes Ireland provided the commentary.  I typically don't pay much attention to any other sports during the season with the exception of soccer (yes, yes, yes football), NFL Football (in off weeks from F1) and some golf.  I've introduced hundreds of people to the sport on this side of the pond and schedule watch parties throughout the season.  I love F1.  

As far as talking clarifying statements go...I find that it reminds me of speaking to politicians when I was a lobbyist.  They are for those who don't know facts and spend more time talking than thinking.  

Cheers-mk

Sorry but I really fail to see what is speculative about considering that a list which has no English WDC's is extremely unlikely to have a particular anti-Lewis agenda. A claim that is your speculation that I am arguing against here.

 

 

 

 

It wasn't. WDC was started so that there would be a World Championship for Grand Prix racing with legs on multiple continents. But Grand Prix racing had existed for decades already & the WDC unified no forms of racing. Non-F1 events continued to have a great importance for decades more, and WDC only truly overshadowed them from the nineties on in the form we currently consider standard. 

 

Edited by MKSixer, 10 December 2018 - 21:23.

I have resisted posting here because of the obvious difficulties of comparing people from different era and formula but falling prey to temptation:

The top 5 are more or less obvious (well to me at least although the the order may be controversial for Hamilton fans)

1    Jim Clark           - simply the best ever

2    Sterling Moss    - ground-breaking first British post war great

3    Jackie Stewart  - and his influence outside the car on driver safety was immense

4    Lewis Hamilton  - best of the modern era

5    Graham Hill       - the only triple crown winner

The next 5 contain a few personal favorites and "wildcards" and are in no particular order due to their different disciplines

6=    John Surtees   - a winner on four wheels or two, and had the talent to win more if he had picked the right teams

6=   James Hunt    - because I'm a fan and one championship is sometimes enough 

6=   Derek Bell      - Le Mans great

6=    Colin McRea  - Britains No 1 rally driver

6=   Dario Franchitti  - multiple Indycar winner but who never got a F1 shot. 

and because I want an eleventh

11 Malcolm Campbell

Edited by RacingGreen, 10 December 2018 - 22:12.

Odd seeing McRae on the list and so low, as clearly when people were voting, some took "F1-only" approach and some took a wider approach. If everyone understood the question as in "motorsports in general", McRae would be higher and well the whole list could look a bit different.

1. Jim Clark

2. Everyone else.

Moss
Stewart
Clark
Mansell
Hamilton
Hunt
Hawthorn
G.Hill
Surtees
Watson

I have resisted posting here because of the obvious difficulties of comparing people from different era and formula but falling prey to temptation:
 
The top 5 are more or less obvious (well to me at least although the the order may be controversial for Hamilton fans)
1    Jim Clark           - simply the best ever
2    Sterling Moss    - ground-breaking first British post war great
3    Jackie Stewart  - and his influence outside the car on driver safety was immense
4    Lewis Hamilton  - best of the modern era
5    Graham Hill       - the only triple crown winner
 
The next 5 contain a few personal favorites and "wildcards" and are in no particular order due to their different disciplines
6=    John Surtees   - a winner on four wheels or two, and had the talent to win more if he had picked the right teams
6=   James Hunt    - because I'm a fan and one championship is sometimes enough 
6=   Derek Bell      - Le Mans great
6=    Colin McRea  - Britains No 1 rally driver
6=   Dario Franchitti  - multiple Indycar winner but who never got a F1 shot. 
 
and because I want an eleventh
 
11 Malcolm Campbell

Edited by P123, 10 December 2018 - 23:47.

On the contrary, given the number of fine drivers the UK has produced over the years, I would argue that you are always going to get drivers of Brooks' calibre excluded from a lot of top ten lists. Especially as some take the position they will only nominate drivers that they have been around to watch, which will be a small number in Brooks' case.

I am aware of that. One presumes that those people would also tend to discount such as Monash, Guderian and Alanbrooke as military leaders because they were not around to watch them in action.

That is why these forum 'best ever' threads tend to be the very definition of fluff.

Found it hard to make a list, but if I was then it would be something along the lines of

Top 3 in some order - Clark/Stewart/Moss - all were undisputably the benchmark driver at some point in their careers.

4th - Hamilton - Arguably (rather than indisputably) the benchmark currently, may make it a top 4 in my mind over the next few seasons depending how things go, especially now Alonso has retired.

5th onwards - The rest. Probably led by Mansell (if F1 centric) but I'd have to think about it. Plenty of great drivers in there but you felt there was always at least one better active driver at the time.

Edited by ForzaSurtees, 11 December 2018 - 11:31.

I am aware of that. One presumes that those people would also tend to discount such as Monash, Guderian and Alanbrooke as military leaders because they were not around to watch them in action.

 

That is why these forum 'best ever' threads tend to be the very definition of fluff.

Of course it's fluff, it's a bit of off-season fun. I was around to see Tony Brooks race. I followed the GP and endurance races avidly in the mags in the fifties and sixties. Also had a chat about Brooks with John Riseley-Pritchard, who encouraged Brooks to race at the 1955 Syracuse GP, thereby becoming the first British victor in a Britsh car since the twenties.

Didn't put him in my top ten, not because I know nothing about this fine driver, but because I also know about ten others who (in my highly subjective judgement) rate above him.

Of course it's fluff, it's a bit of off-season fun. I was around to see Tony Brooks race. I followed the GP and endurance races avidly in the mags in the fifties and sixties. Also had a chat about Brooks with John Riseley-Pritchard, who encouraged Brooks to race at the 1955 Syracuse GP, thereby becoming the first British victor in a Britsh car since the twenties.

 

Didn't put him in my top ten, not because I know nothing about this fine driver, but because I also know about ten others who (in my highly subjective judgement) rate above him.

Sterzo. What I find impressive is that while a lot of the older folks seem to be like "grass was greener in my day", however you seem to be fully appreciate the modern era and talents involved.

Found it hard to make a list, but if I was then it would be something along the lines of

 

Top 3 in some order - Clark/Stewart/Moss - all were undisputably the benchmark driver at some point in their careers.

4th - Hamilton - Arguably (rather than indisputably) the benchmark currently, may make it a top 4 in my mind over the next few seasons depending how things go, especially now Alonso has retired.

5th onwards - The rest. Probably led by Mansell (if F1 centric) but I'd have to think about it. Plenty of great drivers in there but you felt there was always at least one better active driver at the time.

  What you said about being the undisputed benchmark driver at a certain point is true of those three names, but such an honor doesn't exist in a vacuum.

  The next question I tell myself is how many individuals that they competed with for a considerable portion of their careers would you rank in the top 20 for F1 all-time.

  From 58-61 Moss was competing only with a few guys who might barely scratch the top 50. The one true great he competed against (Fangio) beat him right to the end of his professional life. To me we didn't have proper generational closure at that juncture because Moss was only able to show that he was a near-peer in caliber with Fangio and never actually eclipsed him. Usually the talented new guard is eventually able to wrest the crown from the aging incumbents. There is no doubt in my mind that if Hamilton stays in F1 long enough Verstappen will dispatch him just as Alonso dispatched Schumacher and Schumacher looked on his way to doing so to Senna in the early mid-nineties. That Moss was unable to do this in 56-57 even though he had come into his own is a negative for him. For whatever reason I'm put in mind of a hypothetical championship chess match Keres or Botvinnik could have had with Alekhine in 1946. There's little doubt in my mind that either of those challengers would have been victorious, thus demonstrating the inexorable ascendany of new greatness. Or to go back to racing terms, it's like if Alonso had had an understudy situation with Michael like Massa did in 2006, then struck out on his own in competitive machinery only to lose out in successive years, after which the old lion dropped the mic. Experiencing a comparable situation, Moss was thereafter only racing with relative lightweights.

While Stewart was already really good in the mid sixties he didn't really come into his own till Clark was dead and had his way further cleared for him by Rindt's death. Those were probably the only top 20 drivers he competed with before a young Fittipaldi who was already beating him in 72. So all in all Jackie had one or two years as numero uno, and for that he probably required the untimely deaths of the greats who had the beating of him when alive.

As for Clark, it would have been interesting seeing him race in 63 vs. a Moss who never suffered his injuries in say, a BRM. Neither Hill nor Surtees are top 20 and the rest of the grid in the early sixties is not even worth mentioning.

Edited by lightstoflag, 11 December 2018 - 17:25.