497 replies to this topic

[zanquis]

While discussing with some friends, we came to the topic of trying to make our own list of how we feel F1 champions rank,

Would like to have some feedback input from others, especially about some of the older drivers (like pre-80's) where a lot we know is just based on stories we read about them and just race results. So we found it hard to rank them. In hour opinion older era drivers rank slightly higher on average due to the fact that it was more dangerous. And for various drivers we would base our ranking on results outside their championship year to see if he was just a year where everything clicked or that there was more.

 

Please do NOT reply with:

- Your own complete list, as this would make a topic unreadable

- Complaints that your favorite driver is ranked too low, These drivers are some of the great drivers in the history of F1, being on the list should be sufficiént.
 Somebody has to be at the top and somebody needs to be at the bottom. 

 

 

Do reply if you feel a driver is ranked too high and low and you can provide proper arguments where he should be compared to other drivers.

We can edit and alter the list till we find a list that we think is awesome. 

 

And then we can argue where Rosberg (Nico) belongs on the list.

1. Fangio
2. Clark
3. Senna
4. Schumacher
5. Prost
6. Stewart
7. Lauda
8. Hamilton
9. Alonso
10. Rindt
11. Vettel
12. Brabham
13. Ascari
14. Piquet
15. Hill (Graham)
16. Fittipaldi
17. Surtees
18. Mansell
19. Hakkinen
20. Rosberg (Nico)
21. Raikkonen
22. Rosberg (Keke)
23. Button
24. Hawthorn
25. Hunt
26. Farina
27. Andretti
28. Jones
29. Hill (Damon)
30. Scheckter
31. Hulme
32. Villeneuve
33. Hill (Phil)

Edited by zanquis, 28 November 2016 - 09:30.

[Joseki]

I can see Fangio, Stewart, Clark, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Alonso as the best driver of their times but any sort of classification would be biased.

[superden]

Different generations are completely incomparable for a multitude of reasons. This old chestnut has been rolled out a million times and always proves to be a pointless exercise.

[Marklar]

Senna, Clark, Fangio & Prost are for me on the top. Then a few others like Stewart, Lauda, G. Hill or Schumacher are following. And Alonso & Hamilton. I see both in the top 10 close together. Alonso would be my pick for 5th.

From the current drivers I see Vettel in the top 15, Button in the top 20 and Kimi somewhere around 20th. Rosberg would be somewhere around these two.

From the 1×WDC Mansell & Rindt are the best IMO. Villeneuve is last on my list.

Ranking is hard though and I dont know all drivers equally good. Particulary those from the 50s and 60s

Edited by Marklar, 10 November 2016 - 14:40.

[LiftAndCoast]

The BBC had a go a few years ago at ranking the best 20 drivers of all time.

http://www.bbc.com/s...rmula1/20324109

Strictly speaking, this is a slightly different question, since it wasn't limited to champions (eg. Gilles Villeneuve is included) but it still provides an interesting comparison.

Frankly, I wouldn't try to make my own list, since I haven't seen all of the candidates drive.

[PlatenGlass]

Interesting thread. I'll point out a few disagreements I have.

I'm not sure what the grounds are for putting Prost ahead of Senna other than looking at pure numbers. To me, and I think most people, Senna was the better overall driver.

I don't think Vettel should be as high as 6th. Yes, he won for titles but they were all against Webber, and since then he hasn't driven like the number 6. Beaten by Ricciardo in 2014, and a similar level to Raikkonen this year. I think Hamilton and Alonso should be above him (although I wouldn't mind particularly which order you decided to put those two in - I'd probably put Hamilton slightly ahead though).

I think Rosberg and Button are slightly hard done by. While Rosberg's career ultimately ended on a heavy defeat by Prost, he looked as impressive to me as anyone else over the 1982-1985 period. Button also has a decent "body of work" (quite a few wins). Some of the drivers who I think have escaped your implicit criticism despite not having really done any more than these drivers are Surtees, Hunt, Farina, Hill (Phil), Hawthorn and Andretti. I'd probably put Rosberg and Button ahead of Hulme as well and possibly Scheckter, although these two are fairly low down anyway.

Hakkinen is a difficult one to place. On his day he was very good, and would be very high up if he had been at his best the whole time, but he was far too inconsistent. And although he has two titles, I would put Mansell above him, who had greater success in non-title terms. I think Mansell is underrated here, and he could also be above Piquet. If he'd won instead of Piquet in 1987 (as he should have) they'd be equal on titles, and Mansell would have the head-to-head record and more wins.

Raikkonen is quite tricky to place given that his high placing is presumably due to his form in around 2003-2006, rather than his championship year or anything since. But I don't think your positioning of him is unreasonable.

I also think Lauda's a bit high. He wasn't racing against many other greats when he won his titles in the 70s and I don't think his 80s comeback was as impressive as some people think. He was beaten by Watson both years together, and the year he won his title, he was easily the inferior McLaren driver.

Finally, it's obviously very difficult to compare eras and most of us just make stuff up as we go along based on our biases (even if we don't admit it), but I would say that I think that there is probably a greater pool of talent in later years than earlier years (more people attempting to get into the sport), so that's one reason why some of the one-time champions from the earlier days would probably go down if I did a list - and behind Rosberg and Button. Well, Rosberg is still earlyish I suppose but I'd put him ahead of the likes of Phil Hill.

As for where Nico Rosberg would go if he wins this year - hmm, tricky! But I'd probably at least put him above the drivers that I complained that Keke Rosberg and Button are behind.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 10 November 2016 - 15:14.

[noriaki]

Ranking any set of drivers without first determining the parameters to greatness is always a dumb exercise. Do we rank them by sheer pace? Or racecraft or ability to build a team around you, do we count non-f1 results, how about their sportsmanship (I value this personally).. do we measure them over their entire career or only their peak or only their championship year, etc. 

 

Or do we just look at their results and not the reasons behind them...

 

--

 

Nonetheless, no matter what your parameter is, I can assure you Jim Clark is way too low on that list and I can only assume it's becasue you looked at his wikipedia page and it said just two titles. Nope. This man was revered by anyone who raced against him. Literally everybody. Just read any piece about him by his contemporaries. Go ahead. 

[PlatenGlass]

Nonetheless, no matter what your parameter is, I can assure you Jim Clark is way too low on that list and I can only assume it's becasue you looked at his wikipedia page and it said just two titles. Nope. This man was revered by anyone who raced against him. Literally everybody. Just read any piece about him by his contemporaries. Go ahead.

Yeah, I missed that. I agree.

[D28]

All such lists are hugely subjective, one reason why they differ so much depending on the source.They also tend to favour more current drivers whose exploits are more easily remembered.

 

The most misplaced ranking here is for Alberto Ascari and Jim Clark.

Winning 79 % of European WC races entered in 2 seasons surely should be enough to rank Ascari among the top 6. He also won several non-championship F2 races over the period. In short he was unbeatable in major races at the time. Not his fault that Fangio missed the 52 season, he was present in 53, that races were F2 not F1, the change offered competitors some hope against Ferrari. Finally he was the only driver to seriously attempt Indy at the time. His Ferrari was unsuited to the task, but his driving was not, his qualifying 4 laps were so close (2 identical) that they were a record for some years.

 

For Clark simply look at his 65 season. Winning 6 F1 races, plus Indy and the WC despite missing Monaco. Many other feats ensure a ranking much higher in the top 3 at least.

 

[uffen]

Clark should be higher. I say this not because I saw him race, but because when he was active all his competitors saw him as the best.

I have issues with some of the other placings but the Clark placing is the one I believe is truly supportable.

[zanquis]

Interesting thread. I'll point out a few disagreements I have.

I'm not sure what the grounds are for putting Prost ahead of Senna other than looking at pure numbers. To me, and I think most people, Senna was the better overall driver.

I don't think Vettel should be as high as 6th. Yes, he won for titles but they were all against Webber, and since then he hasn't driven like the number 6. Beaten by Ricciardo in 2014, and a similar level to Raikkonen this year. I think Hamilton and Alonso should be above him (although I wouldn't mind particularly which order you decided to put those two in - I'd probably put Hamilton slightly ahead though).

I think Rosberg and Button are slightly hard done by. While Rosberg's career ultimately ended on a heavy defeat by Prost, he looked as impressive to me as anyone else over the 1982-1985 period. Button also has a decent "body of work" (quite a few wins). Some of the drivers who I think have escaped your implicit criticism despite not having really done any more than these drivers are Surtees, Hunt, Farina, Hill (Phil), Hawthorn and Andretti. I'd probably put Rosberg and Button ahead of Hulme as well and possibly Scheckter, although these two are fairly low down anyway.

Hakkinen is a difficult one to place. On his day he was very good, and would be very high up if he had been at his best the whole time, but he was far too inconsistent. And although he has two titles, I would put Mansell above him, who had greater success in non-title terms. I think Mansell is underrated here, and he could also be above Piquet. If he'd won instead of Piquet in 1987 (as he should have) they'd be equal on titles, and Mansell would have the head-to-head record and more wins.

Raikkonen is quite tricky to place given that his high placing is presumably due to his form in around 2003-2006, rather than his championship year or anything since. But I don't think your positioning of him is unreasonable.

I also think Lauda's a bit high. He wasn't racing against many other greats when he won his titles in the 70s and I don't think his 80s comeback was as impressive as some people think. He was beaten by Watson both years together, and the year he won his title, he was easily the inferior McLaren driver.

Finally, it's obviously very difficult to compare eras and most of us just make stuff up as we go along based on our biases (even if we don't admit it), but I would say that I think that there is probably a greater pool of talent in later years than earlier years (more people attempting to get into the sport), so that's one reason why some of the one-time champions from the earlier days would probably go down if I did a list - and behind Rosberg and Button. Well, Rosberg is still earlyish I suppose but I'd put him ahead of the likes of Phil Hill.

As for where Nico Rosberg would go if he wins this year - hmm, tricky! But I'd probably at least put him above the drivers that I complained that Keke Rosberg and Button are behind.

 

With regard to Senna vs Prost, I think Senna was the better driver, but Prost edge him as a better Champion more on that fact that Prost drove to win the F1 championship where Senna was more driving from race to race. That is how I felt when I was watching them when I was young. I loved Senna more but Prost was probably the smarter driver that could more easily consolidate points where Senna would be more all or nothing.

 

I also felt Vettel was ranked to high, but as I mentioned this was not just my own list. I had to compromise with a friend who based on his 4 titles wanted to put him even above Senna.....   I hope to find some solid arguments that can put him a bit lower myself 

 

Single year champions are indeed very hard to rank, especially for a driver like Mansell who had to fight against a extremly strong field. Button is one of my Favorite drivers and I think he is a great driver but I found it hard to rank much higher then some legends of the old days

 

 

 

Nonetheless, no matter what your parameter is, I can assure you Jim Clark is way too low on that list and I can only assume it's becasue you looked at his wikipedia page and it said just two titles. Nope. This man was revered by anyone who raced against him. Literally everybody. Just read any piece about him by his contemporaries. Go ahead. 

 

If you paid attention you would see I did not rank Clark as very low, and looked a lot further then just "Oh just 2 title's" There are drivers with 3 titles that I ranked lower then him. But the problem I see is how much higher to put him? Almost every one above him is a legend also, I could see him above some drivers. But probably not higher then 5th I think.

[messy]

It's an interesting idea, but an impossible job. Who on here has actually seen all those drivers live, who on here actually knows about all of their strengths, weaknesses, quirks, circumstances, influence, and how they would have stacked up against drivers from a different era? Who can say whether Jim Clark would have been any good in a 2014 Mercedes, or whether Lewis Hamilton would have been a frontrunner in a 1980 Williams?

 

I've grown up watching F1 from 1994 on. That means I consider myself completely unqualified to give any informed opinion on Prost vs Senna, however much I've read about it. 

Edited by messy, 10 November 2016 - 16:08.

[zanquis]

Hmmm, where to start to get this thread locked the quickest.

 

If that is your goal? i can help by ranking nr 44 between Hill and Villeneuve.....  
Come on, I  had a discussion with some friends about it and like every position has some margin but I hope to find something where most feel that their driver is within at least 3 positions of where they feel he should be..

[Atreiu]

1 - Senna/Prost

3 - Schumacher

4 - Fangio/Clark

6 - Piquet/Lauda/Stewart

 

Then it becomes too hard for me to distinguish them.

[Collombin]

None of your rankings made my eyes pop out in horror, although generally Ascari was considered faster than Fangio by many, and you are a bit harsh on Mario and Jochen. I would have Schumi about 5 places lower too. The guys just beneath him would have done just as well stats wise given his machinery.

Edited by E.B., 10 November 2016 - 16:15.

[BuddyHolly]

Uh.  I don't see this thread ending well so I think I'll chicken out lol.

[7MGTEsup]

I think the problem with F1 is it's so hard to separate driver from car so you have that overlap to account for too.

 

Would be interesting if there was some way to switch drives between cars and re run championships to see what would have been the outcome.

 

Would anyone on the grid be able to win a title in a MP4/4 a W05/6/7 a Redbull RB6/7/8 or Williams FW10/11/14/15? Or do the drivers truly make the difference?

[Radion]

Senna

Clark

Fangio

Schumacher

Prost

Lauda

Hamilton

Brabham

Vettel

Stewart

Piquet

etc....

 

Raikkonen luckiest and worst champion ever.

No, Hamilton. Won 2008 due to luck and since then only in a rocketship.

 

Just wanted to point this out before lock. 

[f1paul]

It's nearly impossible to rank because people were driving in different eras, in different cars and with different levels of competition. 

[zanquis]

Senna

Clark

Fangio

Schumacher

Prost

Lauda

Hamilton

Brabham

Vettel

Stewart

Piquet

etc....

 

Raikkonen luckiest and worst champion ever.

 

Read first post on how NOT to reply..

[P123]

The longer time passes the more crowded that top 10 gets...

[TomNokoe]

Christ who thought this was a good idea

[LiftAndCoast]

On reflection I've deleted my posts, I don't want to contribute to a pointless argument.

[sennafan24]

I can only rank from the 80's onward. I would dispute the O.P's list of modern Champions. 

 

I have Senna as my outright number 1 (big shock I know). Behind him things get a bit more cluttered. I can't pick between Alonso, Prost, and Lewis for 2nd-4th. I therefore usually rank them the same. Schumacher is an uncontested 5th. Behind him, I have Mika, Button, Vettel, Piquet and Mansell all in the same range. With Kimi, Damon, and J.V just falling slightly behind them.

 

We haven't had a truly average driver win the WDC since I can remember. All the names above are very good drivers. Nico would be no exception. The top 5 in my rankings are off-limit for him. The 2nd cluster? That's arguable, but then again, an argument could be made for why Kimi or Damon are on his level. Without going into too much, it's very much what you like. I would have him somewhere near the bottom of the 2nd cluster. I say that regret, as Kimi was a very special talent from 2003-2006, and Damon Hill was a bit better than some remember. 

[Kev00]

How good was Jochen Rindt? He was obviously way before my time but I always considered him and Jim Clark as two of the best ever based on what I've heard or read about them. Yet he is rarely picked out by many fans as one of the best.

[PlatenGlass]

If you paid attention you would see I did not rank Clark as very low, and looked a lot further then just "Oh just 2 title's" There are drivers with 3 titles that I ranked lower then him. But the problem I see is how much higher to put him? Almost every one above him is a legend also, I could see him above some drivers. But probably not higher then 5th I think.

I think Clark would actually be in a "standard" top four along with Fangio, Senna and Schumacher. But in any case, I might start by using tiers and then deciding between the drivers in each tier afterwards. So you might have (purely for illustrative purposes!) :

1. Fangio, Clark, Senna, Schumacher
2. Ascari, Stewart, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton
3. Brabham, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell, Vettel
4. G. Hill, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Hakkinen

Etc.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 10 November 2016 - 18:40.

[Collombin]

How good was Jochen Rindt? He was obviously way before my time but I always considered him and Jim Clark as two of the best ever based on what I've heard or read about them. Yet he is rarely picked out by many fans as one of the best.

Sir Frank calls Rindt the best ever, Jack Brabham rated him over Clark. Last time I tried an all time top 10 (WDC era but non champions allowed) I put him 10th.

[derstatic]

I think you have generally done a pretty good job with the list. I would argue that Hamilton and Alonso could move up ahead of Lauda. I would say that they are the top drivers of their generation in a way Lauda was not. Sure Vettel has more titles (so far) but the latest seasons has done his legacy no good. I agree that Rindt deserves better than 17th. Just outside top 10 would be fine. Andretti could move down a few positions because it seems quite obvious Peterson was quicker than him and team orders played a big part in his title. I think Damon Hill is underrated in your list. He had a fairly short career but was a class act on and off the track. A very very fine driver. Towards the low 20's with Damon.

[zanquis]

Well at least most argue about a few top picking, but I guess a lot of the lesser Champions people are relatively to what people see them    

 

The longer time passes the more crowded that top 10 gets...

 

If i would give everyone their way we would have 25 drivers in that top 10   people seem to think not being in a top 10 makes a driver bad, but the fact is that to me the top 25 are for me for sure some of the greatest drivers in history out of thousands that tried to reach that point.

[Slowersofterdumber]

From the ones I could watch for long enough to be able to judge (mid 80´s on), I like the list.

 

Would change small things only:

- Mansell probably deserves a bit more credit.

- Rosberg Jr. should (if he makes it) be ahead of Jenson. Both got one in a dominant car, Rosberg did it with way harder opposition.

- Vettel should be ahead of Lewis. He had it harder to win his titles overall.

 

For the rest, would it sign myself, maybe putting Prost and Senna tied together.

[zanquis]

I think you have generally done a pretty good job with the list. I would argue that Hamilton and Alonso could move up ahead of Lauda. I would say that they are the top drivers of their generation in a way Lauda was not. Sure Vettel has more titles (so far) but the latest seasons has done his legacy no good. I agree that Rindt deserves better than 17th. Just outside top 10 would be fine. Andretti could move down a few positions because it seems quite obvious Peterson was quicker than him and team orders played a big part in his title. I think Damon Hill is underrated in your list. He had a fairly short career but was a class act on and off the track. A very very fine driver. Towards the low 20's with Damon.

 

Damon I always find difficult to rate, he won the title in a car that was as dominant back then as the Mercedes is now or the RedBull was in Vettel years. He clearly had a advantage that he learned from 3 of the greatest drivers of his time (if only for a year and a half). The only reason I rate him above Villeneuve is because Hill can actually win a race in the rain and could win races after his WDC. 

 

But would you rate him better then Andretti? Hawthorn? If I put the record of any of those drivers against him, the other drivers seem to come out on top every time.

[noriaki]

May I also ask - what has Farina done to merit being ranked above ten other champions? Surely if we pretend that racing started in 1950 (as seen in Ascari's low position) and no other racing but the WDC exists (as seen in Mario and JV's low position), Nino never made wonders apart from winning a title in the most dominant Formula One car in history, against an unlucky Fangio and an ancient Fagioli. 

[l2k2]

1. Schumacher
2. Fangio
3. Prost
4. Senna
5. Clark
6. Stewart
7. ...

I think your top 5 seems somewhat reasonable, however, I find it bit odd that there are no drivers from between "late 60s early 80s" and both of the "late 80s early 90s" top two made it to the list; but which one to drop below Stewart: Prost or Senna.

 

In my opinion, MSC is quite clear number one. He was, among other things the guy to bring modern telemetry based driving (he wanted, and got, the soon-to-be-banned "two speedometers" setup, with one maintaining the apex speed) and corner-by-corner car adjustments to F1 (the "one hand at the brake-balance-level style"). And, was the last guy to master driving with the stick, in a day when nice rain enabled his midfield car to win the 1992-edition of the "2014– Mercedes"!

[sennafan24]

 

- Rosberg Jr. should (if he makes it) be ahead of Jenson. Both got one in a dominant car, Rosberg did it with way harder opposition.

The 2009 Brawn wasn't dominant. I swear some people just watched the first few races of that year. It wasn't even the outright best car in 2009. 

[Henri Greuter]

Probably the wrong kind of post according the OP that I will make but...

 

I find it impossible to create a list because era's in which these men drove were so different that it is almost impossible to rate them on near equal basis. For example, in recent years the actual track testing is so limited that drivers have little input in improving their cars and develop them. Engineers are mainly responsible for that. But Niki Lauda's input at Ferrari to make the 1974-1977 Ferrari's as good as they were to make him champion twice, such input is hardly possible nowadays anymore. Just an example.

 

But I can name two world champions who shall never ever till the day that I die will top my list. I shall only give the reason why and then you may figure out who I mean:

 

A true world champion is also a sportsman who can accept defeat and shall never, ever jeopardise the safety of opponents on track during his attempts to refuse accepting defeat by a stronger and better driver&car combination than his own and steps beyond the lines of sportsmanship and acceptable behaviour to win at all costs, no matter what it took.

 

Henri

[Collombin]

Reading the list more thoroughly, I think Brabham might be somewhat too high (taking driving abilities alone into account). He was never remotely the greatest of his era at any point, although admittedly only a couple of the people ranked below him were either.

Phil Hill usually props up the pack in these sort of lists, nice to see him not get so readily dismissed on this one.

Edited by E.B., 10 November 2016 - 19:11.

[ehagar]

One of the things I struggle with when reading these lists is when I see where people rank drivers like Mario Andretti. I realize that we are talking about 'F1 champions'. But as a racing driver (in the general sense), and as an overall career, I would rank him very, very high.

 

Anyway... while they can be fun to debate, lists are essentially meaningless.

[Szoelloe]

Personally I would agree with MS at the top of the list. What he achieved is very hard to emulate, and it seems it will not be equaled or surpassed in the near future. He had the greatest impact on the sport - it was a sport at the time - compared to anyone mentioned in the list. But he himself had always stated that whatever he achieved is not comparable to Fangio, and - although he never said so - he looked upon Ayrton Senna as a deity. He was(MS) in fact at least an equal to Ayrton S for me, but here it is: I would put Fangio in 1st, MS and AS in 2nd tied, Lauda as third( he had nearly as big an impact on the sport as MS), and maybe Alonso higher than he is now, right behind the aforementioned.. 

Edited by Szoelloe, 10 November 2016 - 19:34.

[D28]

May I also ask - what has Farina done to merit being ranked above ten other champions? Surely if we pretend that racing started in 1950 (as seen in Ascari's low position) and no other racing but the WDC exists (as seen in Mario and JV's low position), Nino never made wonders apart from winning a title in the most dominant Formula One car in history, against an unlucky Fangio and an ancient Fagioli. 

Agreed Farina seems to be ranked much too high, compared to Andretti for one. Granted he did win in 2 different teams, but both were overly dominant.

 

The real problem is ranking the bottom 7 or so, I understand Villeneuve is discounted for winning all his races in 1 year and for 1 team. Still is he really worse than  D Hill or Button? His impressive rookie records held or shared with Hamilton could alter his ranking. Also winning for just 1 team puts him with P Hill, Hawthorn, Hakinnen,  Rosberg. and others.

Hulme's feat of never winning pole in his championship year, indeed only 1 pole ever, could lower his ranking a bit.

 

Obviously subjective considerations come into it especially at the bottom of the pack, plus the fact that only F1 results are to be considered. Maybe it would be fairer simply to group the last 10 together.

[Collombin]

I would put Fangio in 1st, MS and AS in 2nd tied, Lauda as third

4th surely? That's the way we did counting at my school anyway.

[Szoelloe]

4th surely? That's the way we did counting at my school anyway.

 

wot?

 

edit.

 

sorry, yes, in case of a tie in 2nd, no third is awrded. so it is 4th

Edited by Szoelloe, 10 November 2016 - 19:51.

[zanquis]

So Rindt should move up some spots.

Farina down a few.

What position should they be?

Overall feel the list is not that far off there are always a few positions up for debate. Personally I would rank Fangio as nr1 because of mix of skill and personality. He was not just a great driver, but from what i read honorable and respected.

[derstatic]

Damon I always find difficult to rate, he won the title in a car that was as dominant back then as the Mercedes is now or the RedBull was in Vettel years. He clearly had a advantage that he learned from 3 of the greatest drivers of his time (if only for a year and a half). The only reason I rate him above Villeneuve is because Hill can actually win a race in the rain and could win races after his WDC. 

 

But would you rate him better then Andretti? Hawthorn? If I put the record of any of those drivers against him, the other drivers seem to come out on top every time.

I would place Damon Hill above Andretti at least based on his championship. Andretti's career including everything he did outside F1 is mighty impressive, no doubt about that but as I wrote I have a little problem with the fact that Peterson was such a clear #2 in the team and Peterson was on several occations in '78 quicker than Andretti but not allowed to win. I know that Schumacher received much criticism on the #1 status at Ferrari, but the difference is he didn't really need it. He destroyed all teammates he had, except Rosberg.

 

I don't know enough about Mike Hawthorn to judge his abilities, you may very well be right that he was better than I gave him credit for.

[scheivlak]

1. Jim Clark

 

The rest is debatable.

[thefinalapex]

1. Clark

2. Schumacher

3. Senna

4. Fangio

5. Prost

6. Lauda

7. Alonso

 

Rest is debatable.

[zanquis]

1. Jim Clark

The rest is debatable.

K on what field does he trumph Fangio? As almost anything I read about Clark I have read similar things about Fangio and almost all stats point in Fangio's favor. Not saying you are wrong but most list i have seen have Clark at 5 or 4 at best.

[zanquis]

I would place Damon Hill above Andretti at least based on his championship. Andretti's career including everything he did outside F1 is mighty impressive, no doubt about that but as I wrote I have a little problem with the fact that Peterson was such a clear #2 in the team and Peterson was on several occations in '78 quicker than Andretti but not allowed to win. I know that Schumacher received much criticism on the #1 status at Ferrari, but the difference is he didn't really need it. He destroyed all teammates he had, except Rosberg.

I don't know enough about Mike Hawthorn to judge his abilities, you may very well be right that he was better than I gave him credit for.

So based on this I should bring Andretti down a lot. I put him relatively high because it is such a big name in the sport, but yeah that is mostly because he raced a lot.

But how about Hill vs some of the others above him? I can not rank Hill above Button, to me Button was much better and got the title in a less dominant car (over the season) than Hill and with a much stronger and experienced teammate. I always felt Hill had good speed but he lacked the foundation of racing cars ad he had a unusual path into F1 and it showed when fighting for positions.

[zanquis]

....

But I can name two world champions who shall never ever till the day that I die will top my list. I shall only give the reason why and then you may figure out who I mean:

A true world champion is also a sportsman who can accept defeat and shall never, ever jeopardise the safety of opponents on track during his attempts to refuse accepting defeat by a stronger and better driver&car combination than his own and steps beyond the lines of sportsmanship and acceptable behaviour to win at all costs, no matter what it took.

Henri

Nothing wrong with a balanced opinion, much better than just blurting out: driver x should nr 1, or just a list.

But I guess that doesn't just rule out a Brazilian champion but also every German on the list (including one that is not on the list yet).

[messy]

I think Hill and Villeneuve are underrated in this kind of stuff. They're not at the top of the list sure; but they seem instead default names at the bottom. Villeneuve almost won the championship in his debut season, won it in his second and was excellent for at least three years after his title win. Hill drove some great races, fought Schumacher and fully deserved his World Championship and 22 Grand Prix wins. Is it because they were driving for 'dominant' Williams? Hakkinen's McLaren was surely as far ahead of Ferrari over the balance of 1998 and 1999 as the Williams-Renaults were in 96 and 97?

[sennafan24]

Hakkinen's McLaren was surely as far ahead of Ferrari over the balance of 1998 and 1999 as the Williams-Renaults were in 96 and 97?

No. 

 

The Ferrari was the best car in 1999. At the best equal.