313 replies to this topic

[craigsimons1993]

Ok, so I am doing media work at school. The task is to do research and present it, however it can be on anything I like. So I need as many views and opinions as I can get. In your opinion, is Michael Schumacher the greatest Formula One racer of all time?

P.S: I need opinions as well, by which I mean written words! Cheers!

[Meanbeakin]

The most successful? Definitely.

The greatest? More doubtful, put Senna in the era 1991-2006 and I think you'd have seen a more successful career.

[mrade]

The most successful? Definitely.

The greatest? More doubtful, put Senna in the era 1991-2006 and I think you'd have seen a more successful career.

Fangio and Schumacher belong to a different league than anybody else, IMHO.
Everybody else, including Senna (whom I personally wouldn't rate into top 5 of all times, but that's only me) is second-tier compared to them.

Edited by mrade, 10 March 2010 - 09:39.

[devilstick]

Certainly the most successful - just look at the stats

I don't really consider there to be a greatest of all time; just too many variables across the time period (cars, driver aids, opponents, tracks, telemetry data, etc...) but I would say he is one of the greats.

[angst]

A great driver, clearly, but the greatest? I think that's always going to be a purely subjective proposition whichever driver that is asked of. How would he have performed in the era just preceding his career? I'd argue that his talents were perfectly suited to the refuelling, sprint-stop-sprint-stop-sprint era. But that's just my opinion (we may get a sort of answer to that with his comeback this year...)

But the wider point is, that the challenges faced by Grand Prix drivers has been constantly changing, as both the rules have changed, and as the technology has changed. So, how can one compare Fangio and Ascari, for example, against Schumacher or Alonso? And, that technology is a part of the sport means that, even within seasons, one has to take into account the competitiveness of the driver's car. Schumacher won the WDC in '94 and '95, then not again until 2000; is that simply because he had a dip in form, and refound his full talents in 2000? Of course not. The equipment at his disposal was not the best. Equally, of his rivals, who could be said to have consistently had 'equal' equipment at the time?

And then, of course, there is the question of racing 'ethics'....his on-track behaviour, which some (including me) find to have been, on occasion, unbefetting of a 'great' - but that is, as I said at the beginning, a purely notional, subjective term anyway.

[Garagiste]

No, because the greatest was Jim Clark.

[Redstorm]

Certainly the most successful - just look at the stats

I don't really consider there to be a greatest of all time; just too many variables across the time period (cars, driver aids, opponents, tracks, telemetry data, etc...) but I would say he is one of the greats.

+1

[Tenmantaylor]

Difficult to say all time, definitely of the best of my time. And I hate the guy. Can't compare to past eras, it was a completely different sport.

[gaston_foix]

Difficult to say all time, definitely of the best of my time. And I hate the guy. Can't compare to past eras, it was a completely different sport.

Agree... but NO

[Lifew12]

With respect to the original poster the question eliminates half a centruy of Grand Prix history; it should ask whether he is the greatest Grand Prix driver of all time. The answer is no, of course, for there were many better across a wide range of eras. To say that we can't compare different eras is nonsense - you might as well say we can't compare last year to this. racing drivers have always had the same job - bring the car home, ahead of everyone else. Michael was a master at that, without a doubt, but so were many others.

[angst]

With respect to the original poster the question eliminates half a centruy of Grand Prix history; it should ask whether he is the greatest Grand Prix driver of all time. The answer is no, of course, for there were many better across a wide range of eras. To say that we can't compare different eras is nonsense - you might as well say we can't compare last year to this. racing drivers have always had the same job - bring the car home, ahead of everyone else. Michael was a master at that, without a doubt, but so were many others.

Are you really suggesting that the skills required in 1906 are the same as required in 2010?

[tifosi]

racing drivers have always had the same job - bring the car home, ahead of everyone else. Michael was a master at that, without a doubt, but so were many others.

Yes, but if that is your contention and argument that we can compare drivers, then Schumacher was the best. There is no other OBJECTIVE measurement.

To myself, the greatest driver to race in Formula One was Mario Andretti. I say that based on the fact he was successful in Formula One, Indycars, NASCAR, and Sports Cars. I know there were people before Andretti that also enjoyed that success howevr, they are before my time. However no Formula One driver has adopted to his current circumstances and produces the results Schumacher has. In that regard he is the greatest. But would Senna have had similar results? Who knows, we can only guess. Subjectively we can come up with all kinds of reason why this driver or that driver was "the greatest". There is even a guy on this bb who will argue Jos Verstappen is the greatest

[mrade]

Are you really suggesting that the skills required in 1906 are the same as required in 2010?

Skills not but objective yes, it is. As every driver (and human) is a product of his time, I would say we could cancel out the "different eras" argument.
The driver of 1906 woould not be successful in 2010 and vice-versa, but it's of no importance whatsoever.

The point is that a great driver of 1906 (be it Szisz or Nazzaro or whoever) was a great driver and as such can be compared with a great driver of 2010, each one in his own set of circumstances.

Edited by mrade, 10 March 2010 - 11:58.

[Dragonfly]

I am a die hard Schu fan. And voted No.
There is no such thing as "The Greatest", even more of all times. Everyone stands above the others against a particular context.

If it is really for a school task, OK.
But such frequent threads about driver (put his name here) being the greatest really spoil the quality of the forum.

[Yorkie]

Fangio and Schumacher belong to a different league than anybody else, IMHO.
Everybody else, including Senna (whom I personally wouldn't rate into top 5 of all times, but that's only me) is second-tier compared to them.

Senna had stronger teammates than Schumacher though who vetoed Hakkinen going to Ferrari

[VAR1016]

Are you really suggesting that the skills required in 1906 are the same as required in 2010?

I would say that the skills (and talent) required were more similar than many seem to think.

Of course techniques are different and also the proportions of required skills - for example an racing driver (and his mechanic) in 1906 had to:

Bring the car home if at all possible - in first place - no change there
Look after the car and tyres - much more in 1906 than 2010
Be brave - very brave, or even foolhardy
Be competitive

A striking difference from today in my view is the astounding stamina and endurance that drivers of the past displayed.

Michael Schumacher is extraordinarily successful and a very fine driver indeed ( remember those data from the Benetton tests which showed how he drove the corners in comparison to his then teammate?)

"Great" which the original post in this thread specifies is another matter.

And the poster states Formula 1 so we can only go back to 1950... The era of the 500km GP

I couldn't say "greatest" about MS whilst thinking of Ascari, Fangio, Clark, Moss, Brabham.

[mrade]

Senna had stronger teammates than Schumacher though who vetoed Hakkinen going to Ferrari

Schumacher never vetoed Häkkinen. Senna vetoed Warwick, got beaten by Prost in 1989 and on points overall 1988-1989, etc.
The only modern F1 driver who consistently had strong teammates (and beat them all most of the time) was Prost: Watson, Arnoux, Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell, Hill.

Edited by mrade, 10 March 2010 - 12:00.

[FlashMaster]

Senna had stronger teammates than Schumacher though who vetoed Hakkinen going to Ferrari

I bet Mika told you so rofl. Nobody ever proved this bs

[Yorkie]

Schumacher never vetoed Häkkinen. Senna vetoed Warwick, got beaten by Prost in 1989 and on points overall 1988-1989, etc.
The only modern F1 driver who consistently had strong teammates (and beat them all most of the time) was Prost: Watson, Arnoux, Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, Mansell, Hill.

Senna beat Prost far more often than the other way round

Also using Prost as an example doesnt look good on Scumacher given the quality of his teammates

Edited by Yorkie, 10 March 2010 - 12:14.

[mrade]

Senna beat Prost far more often than the other way round

Also using Prost as an example doesnt look good on Scumacher given the quality of his teammates

Teammates are only a small part of the game. Of course, it's the only one that could be even remotely used to put down Schumacher by his haters, that's why we see this nonsense so often.

Clark was an undisputed no. 1 in his team and never had a strong teammate (except Hill for a season and Clark didn't quite destroy him).
Stewart was an undisputed no. 1 in his team and never had a strong teammate (Çevert was OK but was firmly held as no. 2).
Fangio was an undisputed no. 1 in his teams - other people even gave him their cars.

At the end of the day, whoever the teammates were, it's always about beating the whole field, it's always about being first accross the line.

Edited by mrade, 10 March 2010 - 12:27.

[Jay101]

Some would say MS was/is the greatest F1 driver there has ever been, some would say he was the luckiest and some would say he was the biggest cheat F1 has ever known but I don't believe any of these can be ever 100% proven or disproved.

IMO you can't compare different drivers from different era's not just because of the different skills required for driving a 1950's car and 1970's to a 1990's but you would have to gauge the competition that all the great drivers had to cope with and for some of MS's wdc victories I don't believe he had much in the way of competition, sure he was always up against some very good drivers but other past drivers that fall into the class of legendary were often driving against others classed as legendary.

I reckon it's safe to say MS falls into a top 10 of legendary greats but the order of that top 10 is very subjective and can never be proven.

[Redstorm]

The hard part of the Schui/Senna arguement is the fact that We have two different standards to apply. On one hand we have the completed book of Schui. (this year is just adding an extra chapter to the paperback version). On the other we have an author who sadly left much too soon.

[mrade]

The hard part of the Schui/Senna arguement is the fact that We have two different standards to apply. On one hand we have the completed book of Schui. (this year is just adding an extra chapter to the paperback version). On the other we have an author who sadly left much too soon.

Not quite. The point is not that we compare 7 WDC titles vs. 3 and say "those 3 should have been 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 had the Imola accident not happened".
The point is to compare the domination, the superlative performances, the bad car performances, the outstanding achievments. The lengths of their respective careers don't matter here.

Edited by mrade, 10 March 2010 - 14:41.

[Orin]

The years that Schumacher didn't win the championship weren't due to dips in his 'greatness', but down to other teams having better packages, and the reverse is also true: Schumacher didn't win so many championships through being better than anyone before or since, he won them because he had the good fortune to have the best package at his disposal for so many seasons. Now, that's largely about being in the right place at the right time. It is true that he got the seat at Ferrari because he was considered the best driver in F1 at that time, but it's extremely simplistic to suggest one driver is better than another because, say, he won 7 WDCs as opposed to 3. Schumacher's advantages included: the biggest budget, the best engineers, lapdog teammates and special favours from the governing body - all of which allowed him to fully exploit his natural ability, no other driver has enjoyed such a long run of dominant cars. Brawn has said that even Barrichello would have been at least a 2 x WDC for Ferrari had Schumacher not been there. Schumacher's greatest asset was that he never grew weary - Hakkinen was finished after one WDC, Schumacher seemed to be able to shrug off all the pressure and the downsides year after year after year.

[angst]

The years that Schumacher didn't win the championship weren't due to dips in his 'greatness', but down to other teams having better packages, and the reverse is also true: Schumacher didn't win so many championships through being better than anyone before or since, he won them because he had the good fortune to have the best package at his disposal for so many seasons. Now, that's largely about being in the right place at the right time. It is true that he got the seat at Ferrari because he was considered the best driver in F1 at that time, but it's extremely simplistic to suggest one driver is better than another because, say, he won 7 WDCs as opposed to 3. Schumacher's advantages included: the biggest budget, the best engineers, lapdog teammates and special favours from the governing body - all of which allowed him to fully exploit his natural ability, no other driver has enjoyed such a long run of dominant cars. Brawn has said that even Barrichello would have been at least a 2 x WDC for Ferrari had Schumacher not been there. Schumacher's greatest asset was that he never grew weary - Hakkinen was finished after one WDC, Schumacher seemed to be able to shrug off all the pressure and the downsides year after year after year.

Exactly. That was my point.

[Orin]

Exactly. That was my point.

Yep, after reading through the thread I saw you'd beaten me to it!

[Jimisgod]

No, because the greatest was Jim Clark.

Agreed.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, so I am doing media work at school. The task is to do research and present it, however it can be on anything I like. So I need as many views and opinions as I can get. In your opinion, is Michael Schumacher the greatest Formula One racer of all time?

P.S: I need opinions as well, by which I mean written words! Cheers!

The question is too vague for any meaningful answer. You will need to define 'great' before you consider your evidence. Consider what criteria constitute 'greatness' and in what relative measures. You don't necessarily need to decide on just one definition of 'great', it may work better if you consider a number of options and see whether the conclusion to your title question differs accordingly.

Even taking raw statistics, it is possible to draw different conclusions. Is Schumacher the greatest because he has the most F1 wins (91, so far)? But those 91 wins came from 247 races, giving him a win rate of 37% - Fangio's 24 wins came from 51 races, giving him a win rate of 47%.

Supposing we ask 'Is (or was) Schumacher the fastest ever?' Do we mean over one lap? In which case we can look at the record of fastest laps or the record of pole positions. But we could argue that fastest over one lap isn't the important criteria, it's the fastest over a whole race, which brings us back to race wins.

Some would argue that Schumacher is the most 'complete' F1 driver. This is certainly what was said by some insiders when comparing him to his contemporaries. 'Complete' in this context means, to me, being strong (at or near the top) in the most number of skills/talents/attitudes that constitute a 'competition driver' while having the fewest weaknesses. Others would argue that his weaknesses should be accorded greater weight in such an assessment.

One could even argue that driving ability has little to do with 'greatness' and that the title question merely reduces the field of candidates to F1 drivers who are/were great. A rational case could be made for David Purley being the 'greatest' F1 driver ever, although it's not a case many would subscribe to.

There are plenty of potential definitions of 'great' along with plenty of opinions as to whether Schumacher qualifies for the term 'greatest', as can be seen from a number of posts in this thread.

"For when the One Great Scorer comes To write against your name, He marks - not that you won or lost - But how you played the game." - Grantland Rice



References:
f1complete.com for statistics
David Purley

[primer]

Nice poll champ, people can vote for both options.

[MikeTekRacing]

I am a die hard Schu fan. And voted No.
There is no such thing as "The Greatest", even more of all times. Everyone stands above the others against a particular context.

If it is really for a school task, OK.
But such frequent threads about driver (put his name here) being the greatest really spoil the quality of the forum.

agree on each point you made
cheers

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 10 March 2010 - 14:00.

[Kooper]

1. Eye-Air-Ton Sin-Eh
.
.
.
.
Kimi
.
.
.
JPM
.
.
.
.
MSch

[Sakae]

What man has to do to be recognized? Michael raced longer than most, won more than most, and his metronomic consistency over the span of a decade is phenomenal. He was not a one race, or one season wonder. On the contrary, he remained at the top for good part of his racing life. Who else dare to claim the same in this series? One can always find an element in driver's life on or off the track in which someone else was slightly ahead, but no one, NO ONE, was best in everything.

Overall, I rate him therefore best overall. Fangio, Clark, nor Senna can touch him for obvious reasons. Alain Prost came closest to have similar extraordinary career, but at the end Michael has passed his accomplishments, and Prost bowed to that. Schumacher is a unique individual, and I think we can consider ourselves lucky to witness him performing for our pleasure. I am old enough to remember sitting a few meters from the track on Kyalami (SA), and seeing Lauda, Keke, Fittipaldi, and Prost to race. I saw Senna, Hill and Prost to compete with Michael in their shadows in his Benetton, and they all were pleasure to watch, but until someone else will emerge on the same level from new class, this case is closed. To consider LH or Alonso to be ahead of him is either willful insult to the great man, or plain ignorance of the past.

There are candidates for prominence, but one can only hope, that someone will at least reach records at level where Prost left his career as a racing driver.

[Mc_Silver]

No, Senna was the greatest for me.

[Sakae]

No, Senna was the greatest for me.

Forgive me for stating obvious, but we are all unique, and our values differ. I do not have to force myself to respect your choice, but I do remember a few occasions, having attended the race, when Senna was looking very ordinary on the track. Today he seems to be a martyr-to racing greatness for many, as the facts turn into dream-legend, but in reality he has not done anything in his career, which Schumacher hasn't. Like MS or not, one can always deny life realities.

I am not a person who is rooting for leading driver only; in fact I was rooting for Schumacher after Alain retired, and stuck with him through thick and thin whole his career (1). Senna was always No. 2 for me when Prost was racing; I cannot say today if justifiably or not, but that is how it was. Prost had finesse Senna was lacking, and I had valued that more. Senna was a Terminator in a fast car, but that was not enough for me.

Edited by MiPe, 10 March 2010 - 15:20.

[mrade]

Forgive me for stating obvious, but we are all unique, and our values differ. I do not have to force myself to respect your choice, but I do remember a few occasions, having attended the race, when Senna was looking very ordinary on the track. Today he seems to be a martyr-to racing greatness for many, as the facts turn into dream-legend, but in reality he has not done anything in his career, which Schumacher hasn’t. Like MS or not, one can always deny life realities.

I am not a person who is rooting for leading driver only; in fact I was rooting for Schumacher after Alain retired, and stuck with him through thick and thin whole his career (1). Senna was always No. 2 for me when Prost was racing; I cannot say today of justifiably or not, but that is how it was. Prost had finesse Senna was lacking, and I had valued that more. Senna was a Terminator in a fast car, but that was not enough for me.

Senna's legacy today is but a myth about another fast driver who met tragic death and little else - no connection with reality whatsoever.
Schumacher may or may not be the greatest but Senna was far below his level. Senna seeked compensation by stupid religious blabbering and bully tactics (not that Schumacher missed the opportunity to learn the latter).

Edited by mrade, 10 March 2010 - 15:23.

[qvn]

Yes, he is.

Here is the reason:

- Last more than 15 years of all kind of rules and still comes out on top,
- Dare to take challenge: change from a champion team to a also-run team and made them champion,
- Brought two different teams from also-run to multi-championships,
- Rain-master
- Many stunning drives
- Most successful driver of all time
- Made potentionally great drivers average

[VAR1016]

Forgive me for stating obvious, but we are all unique, and our values differ. I do not have to force myself to respect your choice, but I do remember a few occasions, having attended the race, when Senna was looking very ordinary on the track. Today he seems to be a martyr-to racing greatness for many, as the facts turn into dream-legend, but in reality he has not done anything in his career, which Schumacher hasn’t. Like MS or not, one can always deny life realities.

I am not a person who is rooting for leading driver only; in fact I was rooting for Schumacher after Alain retired, and stuck with him through thick and thin whole his career (1). Senna was always No. 2 for me when Prost was racing; I cannot say today of justifiably or not, but that is how it was. Prost had finesse Senna was lacking, and I had valued that more. Senna was a Terminator in a fast car, but that was not enough for me.

Absolutely. I agree entirely about Prost who was so deceptively fast - rather in the Clark style I suppose, and who had racecraft to equal Fangio's.

Of course Senna was a first class driver; no-one who saw his performance at Donington could fail to agree, but I do not understand why MS gets such a bad press when compared with Senna. Senna was utterly ruthless - perhaps he actually started something?

[Simon Says]

MS can't be the greatest since Alonso beat him in his inferior Renault. MS was lucky Senna died and he had Rory Byrne and Ross Brawn building cars for him. On pure racing skills, MS is definetly not the best. He is the most succesfull though but that's not due to his racing skills.

[meb58]

If the job is winning championships then yes...regardless of the differences then and now. Being great means over coming the challenges of the era...opprtunities are always changing and each team and driver must create a winning environment that leverages the changes - political, technological etc - as wins.

I bleieve that Michael has done that because he has been with teams that have helped him capitalize on his talent, the two are not mutually exclusive; a good driver requires a good team.

If I find any discomfort with Michael it is within his personality; I would prefer my champion to be more animated...much more animated. This personality trait enhances, I should think, our subjective feelings for accomplishements.

[panzani]

No, because the greatest was Jim Clark.

Simples!

[Orin]

Absolutely. I agree entirely about Prost who was so deceptively fast - rather in the Clark style I suppose, and who had racecraft to equal Fangio's.

Of course Senna was a first class driver; no-one who saw his performance at Donington could fail to agree, but I do not understand why MS gets such a bad press when compared with Senna. Senna was utterly ruthless - perhaps he actually started something?

Senna might have been ruthless and uncompromising, his tactics might have been thought distasteful by many, but he wasn't a cheat. Schumacher was the absolute nadir when it came to racing ethics, ramming people off track not to right perceived injustices, but simply for advantage - and still at it to the end of his career (e.g. the Monaco parking incident).

[mrade]

Senna might have been ruthless and uncompromising, his tactics might have been thought distasteful by many, but he wasn't a cheat. Schumacher was the absolute nadir when it came to racing ethics, ramming people off track not to right perceived injustices, but simply for advantage - and still at it to the end of his career (e.g. the Monaco parking incident).

Excuse me, but Senna was a cheat. Not just that, he was an ultimate cheat, a driver who completely rewrote the ethics of on-track behaviour. Some time ago I compiled a non-complete list of his dirty deeds on track, I may look for it if necessary.

[Garagiste]

... I do not understand why MS gets such a bad press when compared with Senna....

Well Senna is dead. Even St Diana got some bad press while she was alive, woe betide anybody suggesting she was anything other than angelic after her death though.

[Orin]

Excuse me, but Senna was a cheat. Not just that, he was an ultimate cheat, a driver who completely rewrote the ethics of on-track behaviour. Some time ago I compiled a non-complete list of his dirty deeds on track, I may look for it if necessary.

Rewriting the ethics of on-track behaviour isn't cheating. Even JYS wouldn't call Senna a cheat, and he despised his driving tactics. Perhaps the FIA should have clamped down on those tactics, but they did not.

[Simon Says]

Well Senna is dead. Even St Diana got some bad press while she was alive, woe betide anybody suggesting she was anything other than angelic after her death though.

Just like Sadam Hoessein and Osama Bin Laden is angelic after their death Sorry, but the death card is nonsense.

[cheapracer]

. Even JYS wouldn't call Senna a cheat, and he despised his driving tactics.

You didn't see the one on one interview between the 2?

[qvn]

Senna is a great driver but his dead made him a myth to the point like a god to some.

[cheapracer]

ramming people off track not to right perceived injustices,

I think it's been done to death (the ramming part) but the other part, "on track injustices" you would have a very hard time proving thats not the case.

How about the 1994 British GP? How about JV's dangerous pit exit on MS at Spa? The hundreds of incidents we don't see and then the ones we do at a very 2 dimensional view?

Having done many laps in amongst others, MX, club racing etc. I can tell you that a lot happens on track at that my mediocre level that you may not be truly aware of and I can't begin to imagine how much worse it is at their ego/money level.

One of Schumachers problems is he doesn't complain and bitch (like Mansell for example), he keeps it on track and we are totally unaware of what may/may not have lit the fuse.

[VAR1016]

Senna might have been ruthless and uncompromising, his tactics might have been thought distasteful by many, but he wasn't a cheat. Schumacher was the absolute nadir when it came to racing ethics, ramming people off track not to right perceived injustices, but simply for advantage - and still at it to the end of his career (e.g. the Monaco parking incident).

I don't care what the reason is for punting someone off the track: it's wrong, simple. (See the Nascar thread about Edwards)

Yes MS tried to bounce Villeneuve off the track - appalling I think, and the Monaco incident was outrageous, agreed.

I'm probably the only person in the world who believes that the Hill incident was just that - an incident - I've watched that video several times.

But Senna was just as bad and is worshipped.

I don't get it

Edited by VAR1016, 10 March 2010 - 15:56.

[Orin]

You didn't see the one on one interview between the 2?

Yes, which is why I said JYS despised Senna's tactics - but he didn't suggest Senna was a cheat IIRC.

EDIT:

One of Schumachers problems is he doesn't complain and bitch (like Mansell for example), he keeps it on track and we are totally unaware of what may/may not have lit the fuse.

In Jerez 1997 or Monaco 2006? You're suggesting we give him the benefit of the doubt over private issues? Schumacher complained enough: bitching about Hill, Villeneuve, Montoya, DC - and, ironically, Senna.

Edited by Orin, 10 March 2010 - 16:06.