Jump to content


Photo

Autosport's Greatest Drivers Poll [and Autosprint's top 100 drivers]


  • Please log in to reply
430 replies to this topic

#151 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 2,310 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 20:43

So much of the list is hilariously random. I absolutely love it! :rotfl:


Tom Pryce ahead of Hulme and Amon is an absolute joke.

Advertisement

#152 Barri

Barri
  • Member

  • 313 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 20:50

I can't believe Barrichello wasn't included!!

#153 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,442 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 20:50

Tom Pryce ahead of Hulme and Amon is an absolute joke.

Hulme and Amon never won in a Shadow.

#154 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 16,141 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 20:50

It's worth noting that Autosport did not provide a criteria for 'greatness'. I doubt all respondents shared the same views on what defines greatness! Even a quick browse through this topic reveals that many have different approaches when it comes to judging greatness.

#155 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 11,138 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 December 2009 - 20:53

Hulme and Amon never won in a Shadow.


But Amon raced an Amon.

Now that was great.

Brave at least.

#156 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 16,141 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 20:53

Stewart came within a dodgy engine of winning the Indy 500 as a rookie. He was fairly adaptable. Fangio a mercenary? His teams basically quit from under him. And couldn't develop a team? Remind me how many titles Mercedes and Maserati had without him as a driver.

And I would say introversion/shyness has the thick end of eff all as to how good a driver one is.


Clark formed a great partnership with Chapman, one of the closest between driver and engineer in the history of F1. I think DOF is confusing Clark's humble demeanour with shyness. And yes, it has sweet FA to do with how good a driver he was.

#157 GiancarloF1

GiancarloF1
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 10 December 2009 - 20:59

Honestly, I'm sick of "Senna the greatest ever" polls. Even in his time, one contemporary WAS better in terms of racing intelligence.

Nakajima and Liuzzi on the poll... OK, let's stop it, nothing to watch here. :lol:

#158 Bouncing Pink Ball

Bouncing Pink Ball
  • Member

  • 734 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:12

Tom Pryce ahead of Hulme and Amon is an absolute joke.

But that's the beauty of this ranking. It makes little sense much of the time. Why that elevates it to amusing greatness is because it points out the absurdity of any and all such lists. If F1 drivers can't, or can't even be bothered to, compile a 'perfect ranking' of their peers, then who can?






#159 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,442 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:13

But Amon raced an Amon.

Now that was great.

Brave at least.

Or stupid.

Rebaque raced in a Rebaque. :drunk:

Advertisement

#160 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:15

Top driver lists are always going to be subjective. After all, it's very difficult to compare different eras. We can have a belief of who is the best of a particular era, for example Prost was the king of the turbo era in my eyes while Schumacher was the best of the 2000s. Today, I'd say Alonso is perhaps the best driver but it's all subjective nonsense. That's why I stay away from driver fanboy wars.

Edited by OnyxF1, 10 December 2009 - 21:15.


#161 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:16

Stewart came within a dodgy engine of winning the Indy 500 as a rookie. He was fairly adaptable. Fangio a mercenary? His teams basically quit from under him. And couldn't develop a team? Remind me how many titles Mercedes and Maserati had without him as a driver.

And I would say introversion/shyness has the thick end of eff all as to how good a driver one is.




Stewart's team mate Cevert said Jackie wins because he's good at setup/development and his car is the easiest to drive on the grid. Stewart himself admitted he saw driving as good relationship, and that he wasn't in the class of Jimmy Clark.
Foyt also mentions that the only drivers he knew that could win a shitty/ill handling car (besides himself) were Clark and Sachs, was a fight to end type like Clark, but adaptable as Clark.

Mercedes had H. Hermann, Kling and Ulhenaut to develop the cars. A former mechanic of Fangio recalled an incident when he asked Fangio about the car and Fangio asked him why is he asking that.

Clark was not a package as Schumacher.

#162 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:18

Check this.




I knew that and it proves nothing, as to why Piquet is better.
Piquet was more of drifter, and sometimes used less downforce, an known fact, but in an understeering Renault R25/R26 or an unstable Benetton B194/B195 would have killed him.
If he would have been so good, Benetton wouldn't have fired him for Schumacher.

Edited by DOF_power, 10 December 2009 - 21:20.


#163 Sammyosammy

Sammyosammy
  • Member

  • 1,498 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:28

This week's Autosport magazine features a poll where 217 world championship F1 drivers were asked to vote for the 10 greatest F1 drivers.



Are these ex-F1 drivers insane?!

I think thepoll reflects drivers who were most visible rather than the best.



How to compare Ronaldo to Edison Arantes do Nascimento. Or Gordie Howe compared to Sidney Crosby? I say bollocks..


#164 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,442 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:30

Stewart's team mate Cevert said Jackie wins because he's good at setup/development and his car is the easiest to drive on the grid.

March 701?

A former mechanic of Fangio recalled an incident when he asked Fangio about the car and Fangio asked him why is he asking that.

Oh, well, that sounds conclusive.

Clark was not a package as Schumacher.

No, he didn't cheat to win.

#165 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 11,138 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:37

If he would have been so good, Benetton wouldn't have fired him for Schumacher.


Piquet was nearing the end of his career, and was suddenly teamed against a once in a generation talent named Michael Schumacher.

That hardly nullifies all Piquet's previous achievements!

And Benetton didn't fire Piquet, he decided to retire.


#166 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 3,890 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 10 December 2009 - 21:48

Apropos of my previous post:

Mr. Unpopularity?
Top five Grand Prix winners who didn't make the list:
David Coulthard (13 wins)
Rubens Barrichello (11 wins)
Rene Arnoux (7 wins)
Ralf Schumacher (6 wins) (OK THIS I can understand!)
John Watson (5 wins)

Mr. Talented but Unlucky?
Top five rated who never won a Grand Prix:
35: Stefan Bellof
38: Jean Behra
55: Henri Pescarolo
56: Tony Maggs
57: Alex Zanardi






#167 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 22:00

March 701?


Oh, well, that sounds conclusive.


No, he didn't cheat to win.




1] BRM 1967, Nurburgring 68 (the good tires) vs. Zandvoort 71 (the bad tires).
The March 701 wasn't as difficult to drive as it was unreliable and slow of several tracks.
Not to forget his Can-am adventure witch costed him the title in 72.

2] It is. There are other sources too.

3] Really, are you sure those 60s Lotuses were legal ?!
Chapman's "motto" was that rules are meant to be bended or broken.

Clark just lacked that proactive extroverted attitude and leadership. He was in some was the opposite of Schumacher, closed, withdrawn, bohemian, undecided.

Edited by DOF_power, 10 December 2009 - 22:03.


#168 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 22:28

1] BRM 1967, Nurburgring 68 (the good tires) vs. Zandvoort 71 (the bad tires).
The March 701 wasn't as difficult to drive as it was unreliable and slow of several tracks.
Not to forget his Can-am adventure witch costed him the title in 72.


no wonder Ronnie Peterson called the March 701 the worst car he ever driven? but what does he know? He couldn't adapt to any car.

2] It is. There are other sources too.


Would like to see those please. And furthermore, please tell me where does it say that a driver has to be a qualified mechanic to actually drive a car fast? Hell, Michael Schumacher is no engineer, he himself even admitted that, yet he managed to kick the opposition's asses. You going to argue that Michael then is not as deserving then?

3] Really, are you sure those 60s Lotuses were legal ?!
Chapman's "motto" was that rules are meant to be bended or broken.


Please, enough with the "holier-than-thou" bullshit. It was very common for several teams to cheat from time to time to gain an advantage. they even did it in NASCAR. And there was an unwritten rule back then that if you didn't cheat to win, you were a dumbass and you deserved to be.

Clark just lacked that proactive extroverted attitude and leadership. He was in some was the opposite of Schumacher, closed, withdrawn, bohemian, undecided.


I could care less if he even was a closet queen. What I care is that he's fast, and that he could get the most he could out of his car and win races. Hell, Clark without having the best technical knowledge, managed to still be faster than his competitors by simply driving around the cars problems. That alone takes talent and very few are able to do that, and furthermore with as much consistency as he did.

You seem to forget that drivers are measured by what they do on the track, not if they were the best looking at a beauty contest, or were squeaky clean mamma's boys.

Edited by Slyder, 10 December 2009 - 22:31.


#169 GregAU

GregAU
  • Member

  • 542 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 10 December 2009 - 22:37

Havent read the whole thread but that list is a joke.
One name stands out being Vettel in #26 and being ranked higher than drivers like:

59: Felipe Massa
51: Juan Pablo Montoya
45: Damon Hill
41: Jacques Villeneuve
37: Gerhard Berger
31: Alan Jones
30: Jenson Button

What a laugh...the kid is good but isnt in the same league as being as proven as these guys (and I'm sure plenty more in the list).

I do however agree with the top 2 positions.
Schumacher is THE super talent, but Senna's driving seemed "supernatural"...not of this world.
Both have unequaled killer instinct and the desire to win at all costs.

Edited by GregAU, 10 December 2009 - 22:39.


#170 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,442 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 22:44

3] Really, are you sure those 60s Lotuses were legal ?!

Well, on the basis that they never failed scrutineering AND were sold to other teams, yes.

#171 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 22:57

no wonder Ronnie Peterson called the March 701 the worst car he ever driven? but what does he know? He couldn't adapt to any car.



Would like to see those please. And furthermore, please tell me where does it say that a driver has to be a qualified mechanic to actually drive a car fast? Hell, Michael Schumacher is no engineer, he himself even admitted that, yet he managed to kick the opposition's asses. You going to argue that Michael then is not as deserving then?



Please, enough with the "holier-than-thou" bullshit. It was very common for several teams to cheat from time to time to gain an advantage. they even did it in NASCAR. And there was an unwritten rule back then that if you didn't cheat to win, you were a dumbass and you deserved to be.



I could care less if he even was a closet queen. What I care is that he's fast, and that he could get the most he could out of his car and win races. Hell, Clark without having the best technical knowledge, managed to still be faster than his competitors by simply driving around the cars problems. That alone takes talent and very few are able to do that, and furthermore with as much consistency as he did.

You seem to forget that drivers are measured by what they do on the track, not if they were the best looking at a beauty contest, or were squeaky clean mamma's boys.




1] Bad in what way ?!
Reliability, performance, drive-ability ?!

An overrated over-steering driver that disliked anything that didn't suit his style. Ditto for G. Villeneuve struggling in the Lauda/neutral/non-oversteering happy Ferraris, witch at their times were the top cars.



2] So, Brabham was never an engineer, nor Yunick.



3] So Clark/Lotus cheating was OK, Schumacher ,er ... double standards.



4] Drivers are not measured for what they do on the track.
They're measured by multiple standards, some objective, some subjective as their results are have a lot to do with the car and team.

Historically many (post WWII GP) drivers compensated for lacking the Fangio/Moss/Clark speed-adaptability/reactivity-in-the-car, by working harder, being better prepared, being more proactive outside the car.
Brabham and Stewart are the top examples of this category.
The 2 categories met properly-equally for the first time (after WWII at least) in Ayrton Senna. And Schumacher was Senna minus the need/flaw for Prost to around motivate him and galvanize his efforts and a few steps in the social department (convincing Byrne out of his retirement to start all over again at Ferrari was quite something).






#172 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 23:01

Well, on the basis that they never failed scrutineering AND were sold to other teams, yes.




The stuff that was sold to other teams wasn't the best/latest material available. And there's plenty of stories about cheaters and the incompetence of those in charge of scrutineering.
The inspection heavyweight wing, stuffing things in the pipes, humping-bumping to hide illegal ride height, water-cooled brakes. Lots of cheating.



My personal belief goes further, I wouldn't bet on any WDC/WCC F1 car before the second half of the 90s to be legal.

Edited by DOF_power, 10 December 2009 - 23:03.


#173 ryan86

ryan86
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 23:40

It's worth noting that Autosport did not provide a criteria for 'greatness'. I doubt all respondents shared the same views on what defines greatness! Even a quick browse through this topic reveals that many have different approaches when it comes to judging greatness.


See I can perhaps understand someone like Satoru or Aguri getting a vote for being one of the first Japanese drivers into the sport and being highly thought of by the Japanese drivers. Perhaps Monteiro attributes his interest to Pedro Lamy and so he gets a vote.

#174 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 23:44

I went through the top 40 mini site. I think I only clicked "higher" or "lower" 3-4 times so I guess I agree with it, much too my surprise. I think only times I clicked, it was simply on personal grounds rather than due to objective rating of their qualities as a driver.

#175 Nobody

Nobody
  • Member

  • 2,048 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 December 2009 - 23:51

the same league as being as proven as these guys (and I'm sure plenty more in the list)

59: Felipe Massa
51: Juan Pablo Montoya
31: Alan Jones


Vettel deserves his spot ahead of these guys IMO

Jones is a champion I know, but he hardly did it with any class or much skill

#176 txo

txo
  • New Member

  • 2 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 00:31

The biggest joke is Kimi at 22. How can a driver whos no better than felipe massa be rated so high?
At least they got Alonso correct.

#177 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 11 December 2009 - 00:40

Honestly, I'm sick of "Senna the greatest ever" polls. Even in his time, one contemporary WAS better in terms of racing intelligence.

:


Who would that be, Prost aka the driver who can't even race in the wet.
This list regardless of who agrees or disagrees (and I disagree) was chosen by the actual F1 racing drivers (many of whom raced against the people in the list), and is therefore more relevant than fanboy opinions in this forum or the next random newspaper lists.

Edited by Kenaltgr, 11 December 2009 - 00:40.


#178 panzani

panzani
  • Member

  • 18,732 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 11 December 2009 - 00:58

I'd honestly rank Schumacher over Senna.

Well, the above mentioned former German driver voted, Senna didn't and won fair and square.

But of course armchair TV watchers and sore fanboy losers know more than the drivers themselves about racing, it seems, according to this thread...

Edited by panzani, 11 December 2009 - 00:59.


#179 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 11 December 2009 - 01:38

Considering the ego of some of these F1 drivers, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them probably voted for the Lamy's and Liuzzi's knowing that one vote for them is one less vote for the Massa's and Montoya's. I would love to see the World Champions's lists to see if they ever voted for race winners :lol:.

Advertisement

#180 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 11 December 2009 - 03:14

Hats off to Autosport, that is some serious leg work getting around all those drivers.


Yes, but where is Jackie Stewart´s vote? Niki Lauda´s? Gerhard Berger´s?


#181 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,776 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 December 2009 - 04:15

Really, are you sure those 60s Lotuses were legal ?!
Chapman's "motto" was that rules are meant to be bended or broken.

Clark just lacked that proactive extroverted attitude and leadership. He was in some was the opposite of Schumacher, closed, withdrawn, bohemian, undecided.

Really? :confused:
Considering Clark's peers all (with possible exception of Ireland who Chapman fired) considered him to be the bench mark - in an era which included some excellent champions.

This sort of poll is interesting infuriating, puzzling, and.... not to be taken too seriously folks!

But your reply seems to take aim at Clark being somehow overrated. I would say it is impossible to compare champions of 1960s with champions of 90s and 2000s. Clark had EVERY requirement of a GP champion of his time. Easy on car, mechanical sympathy, accurate provider of feedback, blindingly quick, wet weather supremo, unbeatable on the most challenging and dangerous tracks and yet never won Monaco. Didn't help that the Monagasque event clashed with Indy then as now. Stewart was in a position to measure himself against Jimmy and he reports that Clark was in another class. I think it reasonable to assume Clark was of a class that doesn't come along often - possibly Senna was the next of his class. Prost was a very good practitioner of the craft of course as was his teammate Lauda an maybe you could put Schumacher in similar frame with an added extra of undiminishing ambition.

So I regard Clark alongside Senna in talent with Schumacher another character altogether. Sadly the latter two decided taking your opponent out was OK and the weak officialdom of the time seemed to agree or lacked the courage to punish it. Senna seems to have also committed the ultimate error as well whereas Clark's accident was explicable only by tyre or suspension collapse.

The Top 10 is not outrageously out of kilter with what most keen followers of 40 or 50 years would choose. Outside of that it becomes ridiculous. Rodriguez was a prodigious talent and brave with it yet look at the journeymen ahead of him. Vettel could well finish his career judged at least as high as the position shown but at the moment??? I don't think so. Oh well if you are under 35 years old you are unlikely to know who Clark is let alone vote for him.... and so on. The age of the correspondents will to a fair degree determine the relative merits of the era.


#182 WebBerK

WebBerK
  • Member

  • 831 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 05:05

The Absurd...

Absent = Rubens

High ranked = Gilles V

Low ranked = Sir Jack Brabhan [3xWDC and the first in his own team]

#183 Just waiting

Just waiting
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 05:09

I can't believe Barrichello wasn't included!!


that is because he won only 11 grand prix....where as Amon, Luizzi nakajama, won......well......well..they won...err...i can not remember.......how many?? :confused: ??

And of course button has a huge number of wins, well...well.....counting the six this year and the one about four five years ago....that is almost eight but not quite :rotfl:

then there is vettel...... :rolleyes:


But what I do not understand is where is Sato, and esp. Scott Speed, or even Luca be Badeour ...they r deserving compared to some of those already there :(

#184 Just waiting

Just waiting
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 05:19

Really? :confused:
Considering Clark's peers all (with possible exception of Ireland who Chapman fired) considered him to be the bench mark - in an era which included some excellent champions.


So I regard Clark alongside Senna in talent with Schumacher another character altogether. Sadly the latter two decided taking your opponent out was OK and the weak officialdom of the time seemed to agree or lacked the courage to punish it.

At the time of clark, crashing out your opponent was likely to kill you as well....the cars were very dangerous.

Bandini took out Clark in mexico---most likely deliberately, which left Surtees to claim the title. A short time later, bandini would die in a crash at monaco, but it was pure luck that the mexico crash was not fatal to one or both. Until much later, that was the only such stuff until senna started it.......

#185 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 18,330 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 December 2009 - 05:44

Interesting poll.

As any poll it has it's shortcomings and in some cases I don't quite see it the same way. Doesn't matter, since I'm not a measuring stick for how good F1 drivers are.

It is however great to hear the opinion of those actually racing in those beasts and still alive to be able to tell their tales and how they perceive others and themselves in the same profession.

Is there any chance we get a run down of who voted for whom?

Certainly would create more vitriol from those who think their take on this topic is the one only correct opinion, but for the rest of us, it would be great to be able to understand those drivers and their wordlview in regards to F1 racers a bit better.



#186 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,442 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 December 2009 - 05:57

The inspection heavyweight wing, stuffing things in the pipes, humping-bumping to hide illegal ride height, water-cooled brakes. Lots of cheating.

Show me the wing, water-cooled brakes or illegal ride height on the Lotus 25.

#187 Slyder

Slyder
  • Member

  • 5,453 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 11 December 2009 - 06:06

1] Bad in what way ?!
Reliability, performance, drive-ability ?!

An overrated over-steering driver that disliked anything that didn't suit his style. Ditto for G. Villeneuve struggling in the Lauda/neutral/non-oversteering happy Ferraris, witch at their times were the top cars.



This overrated driver managed to haul that March to 2nd in the championship in 1971 and was faster than even reigning WDC champ Fittipaldi. True, he wasn't the best car developer out there, but to slag him off completely is rather stupid.

And same with Villeneuve, he managed to win in a car that had no business winning races (1981 Ferrari)

You seem to think that drivers are nothing more than robots that just get in the car and drive and they should be winning races by default. That's a flawed way of thinking. The driver is not always going to adapt to the car, the engineers have to ADAPT the car to suit the driver's style as well. Door swings both ways.

2] So, Brabham was never an engineer, nor Yunick.


Brabham not a mechanical engineer? :rolleyes:

Please, get your research right. Brabham was a mechanical engineer, he may have not gotten the diploma but he took mechanical engineering classes at a technical college while running his own bike shop, selling bikes he repaired himself. his expertise was such that he was also a flight mechanic for the RAAF during World War II. Hell, he even started telling Cooper and Owen Maddock how to design their cars for gods sake. So he knew his engineering.


3] So Clark/Lotus cheating was OK, Schumacher ,er ... double standards.


You seem to forget that cheating was very common in certain circles because there was little enforcement of the rules in certain areas, since they were so vague they were out in the open regarding things what to do. NASCAR in the 60s everybody cheated, even Richard Petty, and you had to, because that was one of the many ways to be competitive. To get ahead you had to do what it takes. I never said that cheating was ok, but if you had the chance to cheat and get away with it and you didn't take it, while the other guy did, you'd end up looking pretty stupid.

Furthermore, I only mentioned this as a side comment. I never implied that Lotus actually cheated, nor there is any evidence that points that Lotus actually cheated. So is this another one of your claims to try and smear Clark's and Chapman's reputations, or you have something more solid than just throwing **** in the air and see it if it sticks?

4] Drivers are not measured for what they do on the track.
They're measured by multiple standards, some objective, some subjective as their results are have a lot to do with the car and team.

Historically many (post WWII GP) drivers compensated for lacking the Fangio/Moss/Clark speed-adaptability/reactivity-in-the-car, by working harder, being better prepared, being more proactive outside the car.
Brabham and Stewart are the top examples of this category.
The 2 categories met properly-equally for the first time (after WWII at least) in Ayrton Senna. And Schumacher was Senna minus the need/flaw for Prost to around motivate him and galvanize his efforts and a few steps in the social department (convincing Byrne out of his retirement to start all over again at Ferrari was quite something).



I'm sorry, but I don't think Alex Yoong is a great driver simply because he's an all around nice guy.

Being a gentleman and a motivator sure are great things to have in a driver, but if you don't deliver the results, all your gentlemany manners won't amount to dogshit. You have to have the talent and what it takes to win. True, the car also matters, but what's the point of having the best car if you can't capitalize on it (Reutemann in 1981 for example)?

A lot of factors are taken in to measure a driver's greatness, but all of those are secondary to having the talent to race and to deliver the results.



#188 Arion

Arion
  • Member

  • 2,444 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 11 December 2009 - 06:16

Is there any chance we get a run down of who voted for whom?


Exactly, that's what's actually interesting about this list. I think generally they voted for the drivers from their own eras.

I think Schumacher voted for Senna for the top spot, Mika would be in his top 10. I have no idea how he'd rank Fangio and Clark, he doesn't seem to be very interested in the older generation.




#189 teejay

teejay
  • Member

  • 5,753 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 06:35

JPM is way too low - but he wasnt the most liked driver either.

#190 Slowinfastout

Slowinfastout
  • Member

  • 9,681 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 December 2009 - 06:39

The top 10 is fine, which shows a lot of votes for drivers who deserve it... then you progressively get to the 'names I remember', the jet lag, the 'NINE better driver than me? jeez..', the nationality, the joke answers, and what not..

#191 gaston_foix

gaston_foix
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 December 2009 - 08:41

The top 20 is "okay". Anyways, I won't put Mansell ahead of Piquet...

#192 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 3,158 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 08:42

True greats do not feel the need to cheat.


So Senna and Schumacher are not true greats? I dunno, every driver has different ways to win, different needs to win. Senna and Schumacher always had this hunger to win. For me, they are the greatest drivers ever.

Anyway this is a timeless and endless discussion, who is the greatest ever.

#193 DaleCooper

DaleCooper
  • Member

  • 2,512 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:19

The minute I saw the article on Autosport.com I knew you bunch of easily offended sissies (there isn't any other name I can brand you, given the responses), would be running wild crying for heads to be chopped off.

Dudes, look at the method they used to make the list. Each driver would have 10 picks, no more, no less. That is obviously a fairly good method for getting a nice top 10 or 20 as end result, but going any lower it'll be more and more off the mark. Because people could only vote for 10! Go lower and lower in the ranks and you'll start getting the pisstake votes, the "I'll vote for my mates" votes, the "I'll vote for my fellow countrymen" votes... and there'll be the odd mildly good drivers, talented enough for maybe a top 40 or 50, that nobody thought of voting for, because everyone could only pick 10.

This is hardly surprising. I bet if we ran the same thing by the same method, here in the forum with forum members, we'd get similar results. Nice little off-season feature by Autosport though.



FINALLY!! :clap: Someone actually got it! The rest of you need to make sense of this or you will forever argue about pointless consequences of the voting method. Only the top 20 or 30 count! Sheesh!

Cooper

Edited by DaleCooper, 11 December 2009 - 09:19.


#194 DaleCooper

DaleCooper
  • Member

  • 2,512 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:25

I would also like to point out that those that did not vote benefitted themselves(if they were elligible) as you couldn't vote for yourself and thus they would have inflated the scores of their contemporaries. That also applies to the dead. Senna would have probably put Schumacher in his top 10, Schumacher surely did that with Senna, hence Senna is the beneficiary here (just an example, don't get too excited lads).


Cooper

#195 Mungo Fangio of the Year

Mungo Fangio of the Year
  • Member

  • 565 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:29

The biggest joke is Kimi at 22. How can a driver whos no better than felipe massa be rated so high?
At least they got Alonso correct.



I trust drivers to know drivers significantly better than you.

#196 Little Leaf

Little Leaf
  • Member

  • 1,200 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:53

Is it April 1st again already?

No Johansson but you have Lamy, Zanardi, Nakajima, Pryce, Liuizzi, De Cearis, etc etc.

So Nakajima Snr voted for his son and Suzuki then?

#197 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,442 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:56

You seem to forget that cheating was very common in certain circles because there was little enforcement of the rules in certain areas, since they were so vague they were out in the open regarding things what to do.

Even worse, it seems to be to ensure that a driver stated not to be a developer is responsible for the developments on his car in the same way as Schumacher was for deliberately driving into a rival to steal the title.

So Senna and Schumacher are not true greats?

No. They may be amongst the best ever, but greatness transcends that. When being beaten, their instinctive reaction was not to drive better and work harder, but to cheat.

#198 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 3,052 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:18

I'm not going to contest this result. It has had a clear goal: ask (old) f1 drivers to rate their top 10 and out of these results the top list has been assembled. By that very definition there is no right or wrong in this list. It's a subjective list that represents the favourite drivers of 217 (old) f1 drivers. And I find it interesting to read. It is a good overview of driver popularity amongst drivers, nothing more, nothing less.

The thing that does annoy me however is that other news sources copy this list without the nuance that it has been assembled out of the top 10s of 217 drivers. But then it's up to the reader of those other news sources to judge the validity.

On paper M. Schumacher is the most successful driver ever. In the hearts of many Senna will always remain the greatest.
In my opinion Schumacher will remain the greatest. And I'm not looking at statistics. Schumacher has done things I can't remember anyone else doing. He left a championship winning team to join a mediocre team close to breaking down. He then built up a successful team around him and in his second year at that team he was fighting for the championship until the last race.

People say he dominated 2000 - 2004 in the best car (2003 questionable). Well yes, of course! But without him and the team he assembled the cars would've never been that successful.

People say he apparently cheated at some occasions. It's part of his hunger to win, and by no means was he the only driver in history to have done things like that. What about Senna, Prost? Yet noone seems to blame them.

Team orders? Well F1 is a team sport, things tend to be decided by the teams in favor of team results. There have been several other occasions where team orders have been applied and people didn't disapprove of them that much. DC/MH in both Jerez 1997 and Australia 1998. MS helping Irvine in Malaysia 1999. For some of those people even cheared.

#199 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:28

Tonio Liuzzi!!!! :rotfl:

Advertisement

#200 POLAR

POLAR
  • Member

  • 1,106 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:50

No Vittorio Brambilla? This list is a joke.