497 replies to this topic

[sopa]

I got some inspiration from the tier-idea and decided to create a 5-tier list of champions:

 

T1 (4): Fangio, Clark, Senna, Schumacher

T2 (7): Ascari, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel

T3 (8): Brabham, G. Hill, Surtees, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Piquet, Mansell, Hakkinen

T4 (8): Hunt, Andretti, Scheckter, Jones, K. Rosberg, Raikkonen, Button, N. Rosberg

T5 (6): Farina, Hawthorn, P. Hill, Hulme, D. Hill, Villeneuve

 

Total: 33

 

Admittedly several drivers are with heavy asterisks, because it was a tough dilemma to choose a tier. But it is only a matter of moving one level up or down.

 

Also it is not easy to choose a criteria, because their careers are very different, starting from career length alone. I.e we have simply more data and variables about drivers, who have had longer careers.

 

In the end this cross-era exercise boils down to... just a feeling. Okay, just let's put them in like that and see, what happens. 

Edited by sopa, 27 November 2016 - 23:25.

[Collombin]

Not too many arguments from me, I might swap Vettel and Rindt, and drop Schumi to tier 2, but all minor tweaking really.

[sopa]

Reading the arguments on this thread makes my head spin. So many different views.

 

But one thing. In this thread here was a comment like that - we should not rate current drivers, because we don't know yet, how they would be viewed by the end of their careers? I.e Raikkonen would have had a very different historic perspective after 2005, than right now. Of course it goes the other way around too - i.e Mansell's rating, was he gone after 1985.

 

This makes me question, which standard is used on those drivers, whose careers were cut short or ended early? Jochen Rindt is a perfect case. He left at a young age of 28 at the height of his career. So he looks good. Had he raced on, who knows what might have happened. Maybe would have put in great seasons, maybe so-so-seasons, which would have influenced his historic ranking.

Edited by sopa, 27 November 2016 - 23:54.

[rm7667]

Button is the worst or better say weakest. That's all i know. Until Rosberg wins it. Vettel is 3rd worst one.

Who is the best I dont know. But if I need to give it to someone or be my favorite I would say Michael Schumacher

Vettel is 4 time champ, def. not the weakest one. He was more than a match for Nando and Lewis.

[Collombin]

Well the actual answer with regard to Rindt is that he would likely have quit after one more season.

He was rated very highly by many long before his death though, partly due to his F2 dominance at a time when many F1 drivers still raced in F2, his obvious speed and flair, ability to run wheel to wheel with JYS etc. Hell he even cost Jenks a beard.

[rm7667]

I got some inspiration from the tier-idea and decided to create a 5-tier list of champions:

T1 (4): Fangio, Clark, Senna, Schumacher
T2 (7): Ascari, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel
T3 (8): Brabham, G. Hill, Surtees, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Piquet, Mansell, Hakkinen
T4 (8): Hunt, Andretti, Scheckter, Jones, K. Rosberg, Raikkonen, Button, N. Rosberg
T5 (6): Farina, Hawthorn, P. Hill, Hulme, D. Hill, Villeneuve

Total: 33

Admittedly several drivers are with heavy asterisks, because it was a tough dilemma to choose a tier. But it is only a matter of moving one level up or down.

Also it is not easy to choose a criteria, because their careers are very different, starting from career length alone. I.e we have simply more data and variables about drivers, who have had longer careers.

In the end this cross-era exercise boils down to... just a feeling. Okay, just let's put them in like that and see, what happens.

Great list! Doubt you were born in many of those years though lol.

[Ricardo F1]

If Kimi and Jenson are in bucket 5, then Nico should be in bucket 6 for now.

be interesting to see a list of WDCs who failed to get more wins or poles than their team mate.

[D28]

be interesting to see a list of WDCs who failed to get more wins or poles than their team mate.

1967,  Denis Hulme 2 wins, equal to Jack and no poles, Jack had 2.

1989 Senna had more wins and poles but Prost was WDC.

1987 Piquet

!950 Farina and Fangio had equal wins but Fangio more poles.

Probably others but those 4 stand out.

Edited by D28, 28 November 2016 - 03:41.

[PlayboyRacer]

I like this tier system your all throwing around.... perfect really.

So long as you apply a criteria and treat every driver exactly the same. Judged by the same parameters.

I do have a bit of an issue with the ranking of many of the 1 time Champions, I don't think much thought is put in at all.

Even some of the multiple champions, such as the Prost/Schumacher example I used earlier in the thread... its contentious. You apply a really strict criteria and Schumacher falls.

I don't see it really happening though.

[Kalmake]

be interesting to see a list of WDCs who failed to get more wins or poles than their team mate.

My attempt at a full list:

2016 Rosberg less wins and poles

2014 Hamilton less poles

2007 Räikkönen less poles

1989 Prost less poles and wins

1987 Piquet less poles and wins

1984 Lauda less (zero) poles and less wins

1967 Hulme less (zero) poles

1962 Hill less poles

1950 Farina less poles

Edited by Kalmake, 28 November 2016 - 06:37.

[Clrnc]

I got some inspiration from the tier-idea and decided to create a 5-tier list of champions:

 

T1 (4): Fangio, Clark, Senna, Schumacher

T2 (7): Ascari, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel

T3 (8): Brabham, G. Hill, Surtees, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Piquet, Mansell, Hakkinen

T4 (8): Hunt, Andretti, Scheckter, Jones, K. Rosberg, Raikkonen, Button, N. Rosberg

T5 (6): Farina, Hawthorn, P. Hill, Hulme, D. Hill, Villeneuve

 

Total: 33

 

Admittedly several drivers are with heavy asterisks, because it was a tough dilemma to choose a tier. But it is only a matter of moving one level up or down.

 

Also it is not easy to choose a criteria, because their careers are very different, starting from career length alone. I.e we have simply more data and variables about drivers, who have had longer careers.

 

In the end this cross-era exercise boils down to... just a feeling. Okay, just let's put them in like that and see, what happens. 

Generally agree with this, other than dropping Schumi down to tier 2. 

[Massa_f1]

I didn't mention Hill, he's actually one of these people that were so over-rated at one point they have become under-rated. Damon was a fantastic Grand Prix driver who certainly deserved his world title. 

 

I didn't rank anyone at number 1, I think you are reading what you want to read.

 

JV's 97 season was pretty damn poor in a car that should have won the title very easily. There were some awful Grand Prix by him, Monaco, Canada, Germany, Italy and Belgium. Poor driving, silly mistakes or just downright slow. 

 

Oh and since you are complaining about Dangerous driving, I suggest you watch the 1997 Japanese Grand Prix. Man possessed springs to mind. But that doesn't fit your narrow narrative and is a largely forgotten event, which is quite sad really. 

 

I actually think Hill would of beat JV to the 97 title if he was still at Williams that year, and I don't really rate Hill that highly, but think he would of been more consistent than JV.

[PlayboyRacer]

I think with JV people need to understand two things.

1) He was in only his 2nd year of Formula One when he won the championship
2) The Williams was not 'dominant'...not by any stretch. Apart from the very early part of the season, where JV was using the advantage he had. Great wins in Brazil, Argentina, Spain... punted off in Australia after dominating qualifying in a huge way, mechanical trouble at Imola. Racked up poles in all those races.

Thereafter Williams development stalled, Newey was gone, Ferrari and McLaren began reeling them in.

1997 was a much more even season than people assume.Even Prost, Jordan and Benetton all had strong races. Hence Jacques having to fight at places like Monza and Hockenheim.

Yes he was poor at Monaco, Belgium he lost with the weather and being outfoxed (after a brilliant pole), Canada he spun off. No excuses and he gave none.

It's amazing the way people describe the 1997 season and his title. You'd think Williams were 2 seconds a lap quicker all year and Jacques controlled the car from the pitlane by remote....whilst duelling with and passing Giovanni Lavaggi at the final race.

No threat of getting any balanced opinion on Villeneuve and 1997 in here it seems.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 28 November 2016 - 09:22.

[Spillage]

I think Villeneuve's 1997 season is underrated because of his subsequent career. Taken on their own, his first two seasons were very impressive, but his decline thereafter was steep. He didn't excel when the Williams was difficult in 1998 and the move to BAR cost him another shot at a top team. By the early 2000s he looked like a midfield journeyman.

1997 is a bit undermined by Schumacher, as well. He turned in a couple of cracking wet-weather drives in Monaco and Spa to leave little doubt that he was the best driver on the grid. And then he tried to take Villeneuve out in Jerez and ensured the abiding memory of 1997 was not Villeneuve's remarkable achievement, but Schumacher's flawed genius.

[zanquis]

So where to put Nico?

 

I put him where I feel for now he should be. 

[PlayboyRacer]

20th?

You sure you couldn't squeeze Nico into the top 10?

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 28 November 2016 - 10:10.

[zanquis]

I actually think Hill would of beat JV to the 97 title if he was still at Williams that year, and I don't really rate Hill that highly, but think he would of been more consistent than JV.

 

I think I would agree that all though Villeneuve would beat Hill often, Hill was a strong driver leading the field with very few errors and he would have most likely dropped less points in the rain races. They where very unlike, the strong points of Villeneuve where the weak points of Hill and vice versa.

 

I think with JV people need to understand two things.

1) He was in only his 2nd year of Formula One when he won the championship
2) The Williams was not 'dominant'...not by any stretch. Apart from the very early part of the season, where JV was using the advantage he had. Great wins in Brazil, Argentina, Spain... punted off in Australia after dominating qualifying in a huge way, mechanical trouble at Imola. Racked up poles in all those races.

Thereafter Williams development stalled, Newey was gone, Ferrari and McLaren began reeling them in.

1997 was a much more even season than people assume.Even Prost, Jordan and Benetton all had strong races. Hence Jacques having to fight at places like Monza and Hockenheim.

Yes he was poor at Monaco, Belgium he lost with the weather and being outfoxed (after a brilliant pole), Canada he spun off. No excuses and he gave none.

It's amazing the way people describe the 1997 season and his title. You'd think Williams were 2 seconds a lap quicker all year and Jacques controlled the car from the pitlane by remote....whilst duelling with and passing Giovanni Lavaggi at the final race.

No threat of getting any balanced opinion on Villeneuve and 1997 in here it seems.

 

I agree that the Williams advantage stalled and was nearly gone by the end of the season. But they started still very dominant as Newey effect at McLaren didn't happen until and in the end McLaren where on par with them, but the Ferrari where still off. Some cars did great on a few tracks, but that is kind of also in his advantage, there was no real pecking order like there is now. The other teams mostly sneaked points away from any rivals to the challange. I am not saying Villeneuve did a bad job, as some some seem to argue, but even some of the drivers around him on the list they had some great strong points that people seem to forget trying to push Villeneuve up. 

 

Villeneuve had great speed and overtaking bravory and he was probably overdriving the car a lot trying to push it forward after he left Williams. But I feel he lacked mostly on wet driving skills (can't blame him with his CART racing background) and he didn't really bring anything extra to the team, which in the time of forming BAR was something they really needed. For instance some drivers like Schumacher, Surtees, Lauda, and many more they would push the engineers and car forward. They contributed to the succes of their team by going beyond what is to be expected of a driver to maximize their results. Villeneuve lacked imho self reflection to see that he could have been better spending his hours working with people than acting the way he did. A lot of people didn't like him because of his behavior. 

 

And again this is not like how some people suggested it a list to diss Villeneuve, but yeah we originally did put him last, mostly because we overestimated Phil Hill, we kind of mixed him reputation with Damon Hill's dad. Looking back to his track record, we adjusted the list to where he is now. Villeneuve went up a position. But looking at many of the drivers above him they all have some great strong points.

 

20th?

Wow. Ok then

 

Well it is just to provoke a bit but, I feel he should be somewhere in the 20-25 range. but maybe others feel different. I like to hear it.
- The car was so dominant that only he and his teammate had a shot at the title

- His teammate had loads of bad luck during the season vs virtually none for him, even when he had bad luck his teammate got it worse.

- Generally no great overtaking, for instance his overtake on Raikonnen in Malaysia was just a ugly overtake, and he fumbled vs Verstappen in Canada despite having a Merc and DRS.

+ Still lots of wins (also 

+ Still 8 poles against a teammate that is rated very high for his one-lap pace. (again here he was helped with a bit of luck a few times)

 

So is he as good as his teammate? Hell no, not even close but his teammate is in the top 10 for a reason. But that doesn't make him a bad racer. 

[PlayboyRacer]

I do agree with you Zanquis that Villeneuve was not in the 'Schumacher mould' of building a team around him and motivating. He was not that sort of character. Which is why BAR was a huge mistake.

On top of that, it was a team starting from new. With vital technical people involved who had CART backgrounds (Oastler, Reynard). It simply was not going to work, they were poor cars. Schumacher helped rebuild and turn Ferrari into a dominant team... but it was an established team which had still been a top 3/4 team.

BAR was simply put a much more ridiculous challenge that Jacques should not have wasted his prime years on. His fault, he was a shareholder, on big money with great perks. He had minimal PR work and BAT used his image, name and reputation to sell more cigarettes. Winners all round... except on the track.

He must shoulder the blame. I'm sure he does given he's quite an upfront character.

I've said he's between 20-25 on the list and I maintain that. Again though it depends on ones criteria.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 28 November 2016 - 10:58.

[PlatenGlass]

I got some inspiration from the tier-idea and decided to create a 5-tier list of champions:
 
T1 (4): Fangio, Clark, Senna, Schumacher
T2 (7): Ascari, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel
T3 (8): Brabham, G. Hill, Surtees, Rindt, Fittipaldi, Piquet, Mansell, Hakkinen
T4 (8): Hunt, Andretti, Scheckter, Jones, K. Rosberg, Raikkonen, Button, N. Rosberg
T5 (6): Farina, Hawthorn, P. Hill, Hulme, D. Hill, Villeneuve
 
Total: 33
 
Admittedly several drivers are with heavy asterisks, because it was a tough dilemma to choose a tier. But it is only a matter of moving one level up or down.
 
Also it is not easy to choose a criteria, because their careers are very different, starting from career length alone. I.e we have simply more data and variables about drivers, who have had longer careers.
 
In the end this cross-era exercise boils down to... just a feeling. Okay, just let's put them in like that and see, what happens. 

I like the way you've compressed it into five tiers compared to my six. Maybe I'll have to do a four-tier list now!

On your list, I am a bit uncomfortable with Vettel being alongside those tier two drivers. I know he's won four titles, but they were all against Webber, and what he's done since has created more doubts than confirmation.

Also, while I'm no expert on 60s F1, I wonder if Surtees gets such high ratings because he was a motorbike champion as well, rather than based purely on F1 results. Do his performances warrant that placing?

Edited by PlatenGlass, 28 November 2016 - 14:03.

[PlatenGlass]

Looking at zanquis's list with Nico Rosberg now added, I agree with his general ballpark, including being slightly ahead of Button. Rosberg has been closer to Hamilton than Button was on the whole, and had Rosberg been Hamilton's team-mate in a year where he self-destructed, he too would have beaten him.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 28 November 2016 - 14:06.

[sopa]

I like the way you've compressed it into five tiers compared to my six. Maybe I'll have to do a four-tier list now!

On your list, I am a bit uncomfortable with Vettel being alongside those tier two drivers. I know he's won four titles, but they were all against Webber, and what he's done since has created more doubts than confirmation.

Also, while I'm no expert on 60s F1, I wonder if Surtees gets such high ratings because he was a motorbike champion as well, rather than based purely on F1 results. Do his performances warrant that placing?

 

Vettel is an asterisk driver. I wouldn't mind him in tier 3.

 

As for Surtees, I feel his performances from 1962 till 1967 at least were excellent throughout. This includes putting in standout drives in Lola (62), Honda (67) and also Cooper (66) despite a mid-season switch from Ferrari. I think in terms of sheer driver performance Surtees, Gurney and G. Hill were Clark's closest threats for a few years.

[Ricardo F1]

Looking at zanquis's list with Nico Rosberg now added, I agree with his general ballpark, including being slightly ahead of Button. Rosberg has been closer to Hamilton than Button was on the whole, and had Rosberg been Hamilton's team-mate in a year where he self-destructed, he too would have beaten him.

True but you can or should only compare like for like. Button was clearly better than his team mate when he won his title, Rosberg clearly wasn't.

[PlatenGlass]

True but you can or should only compare like for like. Button was clearly better than his team mate when he won his title, Rosberg clearly wasn't.

But then I don't regard someone as a more worthy champion because they beat an awful team-mate easily than by beating a great one through a bit of luck. Not that Barrichello was awful - I'm just making the point. I don't rate someone's title purely on performance versus their own team-mate.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 28 November 2016 - 15:09.

[D28]

Yes he was poor at Monaco, Belgium he lost with the weather and being outfoxed (after a brilliant pole), Canada he spun off. No excuses and he gave none.

It's amazing the way people describe the 1997 season and his title. You'd think Williams were 2 seconds a lap quicker all year and Jacques controlled the car from the pitlane by remote....whilst duelling with and passing Giovanni Lavaggi at the final race.

No threat of getting any balanced opinion on Villeneuve and 1997 in here it seems.

I agree but hoped we were through discussing him. As you point out if the 97 Williams was so dominant a monkey could drive it, how to explain the performance of Frenzen? JV doubled his points (practically)

 

I still think his biggest error was listening to his manager and going to BAR in the first place. at the time I expected Williams to win before BAR and they did, but not till 2001 (R Scumacher). Every title from 98 till 2004 was won by Ferrari or McLaren so if these seats were taken, obviously Ferrari and possibly McLaren, then he didn't have many options in 99. Perhaps his real mistake was staying there too long.

On the revised original list G Farina is 6 spots above JV and this is extremely hard to justify on comparable criteria. I pointed out before he had one good season in a totally dominant car, then under achieved afterward. We have seen JV race on TV or listened to him (too much?), not Farina and therein  lies the  problem.

 

Spillage states:   "And then he tried to take Villeneuve out in Jerez and ensured the abiding memory of 1997 was not Villeneuve's remarkable achievement, but Schumacher's flawed genius". 

 

I do not see it that way at all and at the time I don't think anyone, even Ferrari were talking about flawed genius. He was extremely fortunate to keep his wins from 97 and not be disciplined with suspension or worse for 98. It is revisionist thinking to downgrade JV WDC won on the track, the way everyone prefers.

I can live with the tier approach and JV grouped with Hulme, Farina, Hawthorn and so on, that is fair enough. lets leave it at that.

Edited by D28, 28 November 2016 - 15:50.

[fque]

I won't rank all the WDCs, based on the data at hand going back to 1970s.

I used ELO ranking system to perform rating calculation based on team mate head to head results, where both finished the race.

 

By only looking at the last 10 WDCs, I have the following ratings:

Alonso 4.75 Elo gain per race (over respective careers)

Vettel 4.1

Hamilton 2.91

Schumi 1.92

Rosberg 0.63

Button 0.49

Villeneuve -1.02

Hakkinen -1.5

Kimi -1.78

Hill -1.91

 

I haven't done much tuning of the model yet, but the initial result isn't exactly unexpected.

Alonso has DOMINATED in terms of absolute winning percentage (staggering 80% of the time), that helps a lot in terms of Elo type calculations.

Vettel is also very high at 70% winning rate.

Hamilton is very very good as we all know, but he hasn't beaten a teammate with a winning rate more than 67%, even against 'weak' Kovalainen, he was only 67%. This has hurt his Elo quite a bit.

Schumi's score is really not a surprise, having Roberg took a huge chunk out of his Elo, without Rosberg, Schumi would be 3rd.

Rosberg's score on Schumi is basically evened out by loses to Hamilton.

Button is in the same boat as Rosberg, and is the biggest 'contributor' to Hamilton. But Button is also the only driver who beat Hamilton (2011) AND Alonso (2015) over a season.

Villeneuve... no surprises?

Hakkinen, his problem is that he has not dominated Coulthard like he should have, 28-20 (58% with team orders) against Coulthard wasn't good enough, to be honest...

Kimi, smashed by Alonso (1-15), Vettel (7-20) and beaten by Massa (15-17) didn't help at all.

Hill winning 52% of the match ups like Kimi.

[zanquis]

I like the way you've compressed it into five tiers compared to my six. Maybe I'll have to do a four-tier list now!

On your list, I am a bit uncomfortable with Vettel being alongside those tier two drivers. I know he's won four titles, but they were all against Webber, and what he's done since has created more doubts than confirmation.

Also, while I'm no expert on 60s F1, I wonder if Surtees gets such high ratings because he was a motorbike champion as well, rather than based purely on F1 results. Do his performances warrant that placing?

 

Surtees basically came into F1 and was instantly a force to be reckoned with. And he had the skills needed at that time to make his car a winning car even if it wasn't one. Modern F1 drivers do not need to be that great in as they have a fleet of engineers behind them back then drivers had way more input and few drivers would be perfectionist like Surtees, from what i hear he would spend loads of time getting things just right to perform to the best. That are the skills that can make someone also a great champion. If it wasn't for his fighting with his teams he probably would have been a double or triple champion.

 

I won't rank all the WDCs, based on the data at hand going back to 1970s.

I used ELO ranking system to perform rating calculation based on team mate head to head results, where both finished the race.

 

By only looking at the last 10 WDCs, I have the following ratings:

Alonso 4.75 Elo gain per race (over respective careers)

Vettel 4.1

Hamilton 2.91

Schumi 1.92

Rosberg 0.63

Button 0.49

Villeneuve -1.02

Hakkinen -1.5

Kimi -1.78

Hill -1.91

 

I haven't done much tuning of the model yet, but the initial result isn't exactly unexpected.

Alonso has DOMINATED in terms of absolute winning percentage (staggering 80% of the time), that helps a lot in terms of Elo type calculations.

Vettel is also very high at 70% winning rate.

Hamilton is very very good as we all know, but he hasn't beaten a teammate with a winning rate more than 67%, even against 'weak' Kovalainen, he was only 67%. This has hurt his Elo quite a bit.

Schumi's score is really not a surprise, having Roberg took a huge chunk out of his Elo, without Rosberg, Schumi would be 3rd.

Rosberg's score on Schumi is basically evened out by loses to Hamilton.

Button is in the same boat as Rosberg, and is the biggest 'contributor' to Hamilton. But Button is also the only driver who beat Hamilton (2011) AND Alonso (2015) over a season.

Villeneuve... no surprises?

Hakkinen, his problem is that he has not dominated Coulthard like he should have, 28-20 (58% with team orders) against Coulthard wasn't good enough, to be honest...

Kimi, smashed by Alonso (1-15), Vettel (7-20) and beaten by Massa (15-17) didn't help at all.

Hill winning 52% of the match ups like Kimi.

 

The problem I always have with these ratings is that it doesn't compensate for where drivers are in their career. Schumacher is a big example. He should not have returned, the cars, rules, tires, himself etc too much was changed to be as good as before. He was still a very decent driver but not nearly as good as before. A bit like Lauda (vs Prost) in his comeback or Piquet at his end (vs Schumacher). And othersides sometimes drivers are paired when one is just learned and the other is at their peak.

 

Button is kind of weird to see him so low as if I am not mistake he is the only driver to have beaten 3 world champions in his career as a teammate.

[PlayboyRacer]

Schumacher never having a genuine quality teammate on equal status should ultimately count against him...in a huge way.

Teammate battles are significant in ranking drivers IMO and should be emphasised. Michael was a brilliant driver, a great of the sport... but you can't just gloss over that.

Had he partnered a Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Montoya, Raikkonen or Alonso etc somewhere through the mid 90s till his first retirement - would be a different story.

I've long said you need solid, defined criteria for this exercise and two IMO would certainly be *teammates* and *sportsmanship*. Without a shadow of doubt.

[messy]

Schumacher made damn sure he never had a top class team-mate and I agree, that does go against him. Even against Barrichello, most of Rubens' wins were scored in the second half of the dominant 2002/2004 seasons when Schumacher had his foot half of the gas and was just toying with the rest of the field. 

 

I remember when he was heavily linked to a move to McLaren-Mercedes in late 1998 (ish?), where presumably if that had come to fruition he'd have been going up against Hakkinen. That would have been worth seeing. 

[chunder27]

I think for some, the main reasons guys like Schumacher and even Senna are not rated at the very, very top is their desire to win at ANY cost.

 

To some of us that is a quality that meant they were prepared to do literally anything to win. Including having hissy fits about there they started on a grid then taking their opponent out, or if I drive into him and take him out I win the title.

 

That fact, for a lot of us is enough to rank drivers that might not be as fast or as driven above them, as they were able to win without doing those things and not being that ruthless.

 

For some of us that quality matters more than most.

[Szoelloe]

Schumacher made damn sure he never had a top class team-mate and I agree, that does go against him. Even against Barrichello, most of Rubens' wins were scored in the second half of the dominant 2002/2004 seasons when Schumacher had his foot half of the gas and was just toying with the rest of the field. 

 

I remember when he was heavily linked to a move to McLaren-Mercedes in late 1998 (ish?), where presumably if that had come to fruition he'd have been going up against Hakkinen. That would have been worth seeing. 

 

No he did not. Ferrari may have thogh. He was never linked to McLaren. That was Ron's wet dream, but MS has turned him down personally.

[PlayboyRacer]

Schumacher was linked to McLaren, in the late 90s. Ron may have made a play earlier in the decade but Mercedes were most definetly still wanting to snatch him around 98/99. So was Villeneuve, that driven heavily by Adrian Newey.

There is little doubt Schumacher had a say in his teammates. To think otherwise you'd need your head in the sand.

[Marklar]

True but you can or should only compare like for like. Button was clearly better than his team mate when he won his title, Rosberg clearly wasn't.

I guess beating an heavily hampered Hamilton *could* (dont say it does) count as a better achievement than beating Rubens.

Edited by Marklar, 30 November 2016 - 09:27.

[fque]

By looking purely based on ELO of drivers that have raced between and including 1994~2004 where Schumi/Ferrari dominated F1 and Schumi obtained an ELO of 1879 by the end of 2004.

The drivers raced for at least 6 seasons in the period with the next highest peak ELO was Coulthard (1689), Villeneuve (1660), Trulli (1622) and Fisi (1607) rounded out the top 5.

 

If we look at the period of 2005~2015 as "Post-Schumi/Ferrari" era, Alonso top the chart at 2393, followed by Vettel (2018), Hamilton (1877), Rosberg (1774) and Button (1667) rounded out the top 5. (I took out Schumi since he only raced 5 seasons in this period).

 

It's very clear the competitiveness of the field from the two eras are night and days.

I am not trying to take away anything from Schumi/Ferrari, but if you have the best driver, the best team in a weak era, 5 championships isn't too difficult to obtain.

Schumi competes with 1 WDC and 3 other 'decent' race winners, where the next generation of competition was between 5 champs, 3 of them multiple champs.

Edited by fque, 30 November 2016 - 10:39.

[Collombin]

I know Mosely said F1 is now like chess, but Professor Elo's system really doesn't work for ranking drivers. Remember that list that had John Watson ludicrously high for similar reasons?

[Spillage]

Indeed. If I remember correctly Frentzen was very highly rated as well. The Elo system does not take into account the decline of drivers as they age - so guys like Graham Hill, who race on until well past their best, are penalised. Hill's performances in the 1970s should not be used to take anything away from his achievements in the 1960s, but that is what the Elo ranking does.

Edited by Spillage, 30 November 2016 - 11:15.

[RedFlag]

Poor Hills -  none of them managed to make it even near the top of the mountain. Phil's still at base camp, Damon's walking back towards him and Graham's been distracted by the view.

Edited by RedFlag, 30 November 2016 - 15:37.

[scheivlak]

Indeed. If I remember correctly Frentzen was very highly rated as well. The Elo system does not take into account the decline of drivers as they age - so guys like Graham Hill, who race on until well past their best, are penalised. Hill's performances in the 1970s should not be used to take anything away from his achievements in the 1960s, but that is what the Elo ranking does.

Not when you use the Elo rating system the way the FIDE does. There is no career Elo rating. There is only a rating at a given moment, which is published every month. So Graham Hill would have top rating at the end of 1962 (especially because all his results of 1962 would count), somewhat lower in December 1963, much lower in December 1966, higher in December 1968 etc. Which means that it will mirror - at the end of the year!- the actual result table to a great amount, with some differences due to Non-Championship races (there is no reason why they shouldn't count) and scrapped points in the years that only a limited number of results would count. Of course during the year the later results of the former year may still count.

Edited by scheivlak, 30 November 2016 - 15:49.

[noriaki]

 

You've bigged up Surtees' achievement of being the only F1&Motorcycle WDC several times on this topic now; and not to take anything away from him, he was an absolute master at both -, but not sure if you are aware that making a successful conversion wasn't quite as unique in the pre-downforce times as it might now seem in the 2010's.

 

None of the Cecottos, Stoners, Agostinis, Lawsons became absolute world beaters in car racing side of things, sure. However, even around Surtees' time, there was another motorcycle legend Mike Hailwood who was handy on the F1 side of things too. Not to forget the third champ Gary Hocking, who - upon deciding motorcycle racing was too dangerous - was instantly quick in the wheel of his Lotus despite no prior car racing experience, and won half the non-championship F1 races he took part in... before getting killed the same year. Bob Anderson did alright on both sides of things, too. 

 

Hermann Paul Müller is a Motorcycle World Champion (250cc) and the rightful Grand Prix European Champion (1939) in a field that was probably stronger than the first four years of F1 WDC. Caracciola and Varzi used to compete in motorcycling before switching to car racing, too -- in fact, the Silver Arrow teams frequently used motorcyclists in their one-off rides. Not to forget about the italian Motorcycle European Champions Piero Taruffi (also a Formula One Grand Prix winner) and Tazio Nuvolari, whoever he might be... 

 

--

 

My point being? It's that, whilst Surtees absolutely was a huge talent in both disciplines, it wasn't that unique on his era - the time before the arrival of wings changed the driving technique in car racing (coincidentally, Surtees himself didn't fully adapt to winged cars). Therefore, if you aim to be consistent with your ratings, I don't think you should give Surtees any more extra points for his "versatility" than you would give to say, Mario Andretti. You know, Mario, who put an F1 car on pole in both 1968 and 1982, who started winning major sportscar races in the sixties and still came damn near winning Le Mans in 1995, who won in IndyCars for 28 years on both dirt and paved ovals, street courses and Road Americas, wingless death traps and high power CART beasts of the nineties, who won in NASCAR, who won in dirt track racing, who raced god knows how many cars so different to each other it is mind boggling, hell he even won at Pikes Peak. Indeed I would consider rather many of the other WDC's roughly as versatile as John Surtees, too.

[Seanspeed]

How do so many people have confidence in ranking drivers from the 50's and 60's?  Hell, even in the 70's, TV coverage was sparse and underrepresented.  

 

I dont feel comfortable ranking any driver I haven't actually seen race a whole lot myself.  Sure, I can read up impressions from others or look at results on Wikipedia, but my time watching motorsports indicates this is NOT a good way of assessing drivers whatsoever.  

 

Also, for my money, Alonso and Hamilton should be up there with the top tier with Senna and Schumacher.  I really think they are that good.  Vettel is a clear 'tier' behind, this year being another example why, along with 2014.  

[D28]

noriaki:

That is an interesting point re Surtees. I'm sure zanquis can address it.

 

I absolutely agree with your assessment of Andretti, F1 was but one of his pursuits, indeed most seasons he did not commit totally to the WC, But all 3 N American champions  are devalued if other wins are not included, as are Hulme, Clark, G Hill and Surtees himself. However the original list did limit the evaluation to F1 results which is fair enough so long as it applies evenly.

Edited by D28, 30 November 2016 - 19:10.

[Atreiu]

I wonder how knowledgeable NASCAR fans rate Jimmie Johnson.

[fque]

I have shaped the data in a way that ELO can be looked at per season, as in absolute gains and losses.

I can also look at first X years and compare first X years between drivers.

This is still at draft stage, I need more time to refine a few parameters, ELO system can definitely work.

I don't have time to do this but the ELO can be calculated at race-by-race level, rather than season by season level.

 

For drivers before 1970s, it's difficult to use ELO, the rate of DNFs are too high and there are single driver teams too, or using different cars for each driver.

So my data collection will not go beyond that point.

[Dan333SP]

Regarding Schumacher, I think he's solidly on the Mount Rushmore (top 4 all time) of F1 drivers. I don't think his teammates detract from his performances. If you want to make obtuse comparisons, you can say that he beat Massa as comprehensively in 2006 as Alonso did while paired with Felipe, and IMO Massa was stronger before his 2009 incident. I don't think 2010-2012 MSC was up to the standard of his younger self, so I don't think it's fair to count that against him either. Plus, he was teamed with a future world champion ;)

 

One point this debate raises that I find interesting... I wonder how far Vettel has fallen down people's tiered rankings in the last 3 seasons. 2013 and prior, people were talking about Seb being one of he top 2 or 3 all time drivers. Then he got crushed by DR, regained some form last year, and was matched by Kimi this year who many regard as over the hill.

[Collombin]

How do so many people have confidence in ranking drivers from the 50's and 60's? .......I dont feel comfortable ranking any driver I haven't actually seen race a whole lot myself. Sure, I can read up impressions from others or look at results on Wikipedia, but my time watching motorsports indicates this is NOT a good way of assessing drivers whatsoever.

Quite so - anyone using Wikipedia as a guide to rating drivers before their time should keep schtum. But a surprisingly high amount of posters do stick to only rating drivers that were around after they started watching, if they aren't overly clued up on the sport's history. Fair play to them.

[zanquis]

You've bigged up Surtees' achievement of being the only F1&Motorcycle WDC several times on this topic now; and not to take anything away from him, he was an absolute master at both -, but not sure if you are aware that making a successful conversion wasn't quite as unique in the pre-downforce times as it might now seem in the 2010's.

 

None of the Cecottos, Stoners, Agostinis, Lawsons became absolute world beaters in car racing side of things, sure. However, even around Surtees' time, there was another motorcycle legend Mike Hailwood who was handy on the F1 side of things too. Not to forget the third champ Gary Hocking, who - upon deciding motorcycle racing was too dangerous - was instantly quick in the wheel of his Lotus despite no prior car racing experience, and won half the non-championship F1 races he took part in... before getting killed the same year. Bob Anderson did alright on both sides of things, too. 

 

Hermann Paul Müller is a Motorcycle World Champion (250cc) and the rightful Grand Prix European Champion (1939) in a field that was probably stronger than the first four years of F1 WDC. Caracciola and Varzi used to compete in motorcycling before switching to car racing, too -- in fact, the Silver Arrow teams frequently used motorcyclists in their one-off rides. Not to forget about the italian Motorcycle European Champions Piero Taruffi (also a Formula One Grand Prix winner) and Tazio Nuvolari, whoever he might be... 

 

--

 

My point being? It's that, whilst Surtees absolutely was a huge talent in both disciplines, it wasn't that unique on his era - the time before the arrival of wings changed the driving technique in car racing (coincidentally, Surtees himself didn't fully adapt to winged cars). Therefore, if you aim to be consistent with your ratings, I don't think you should give Surtees any more extra points for his "versatility" than you would give to say, Mario Andretti. You know, Mario, who put an F1 car on pole in both 1968 and 1982, who started winning major sportscar races in the sixties and still came damn near winning Le Mans in 1995, who won in IndyCars for 28 years on both dirt and paved ovals, street courses and Road Americas, wingless death traps and high power CART beasts of the nineties, who won in NASCAR, who won in dirt track racing, who raced god knows how many cars so different to each other it is mind boggling, hell he even won at Pikes Peak. Indeed I would consider rather many of the other WDC's roughly as versatile as John Surtees, too.

 

No problem, as any driver in the ratings they get 0 points bonus of penalty for being good in other racing divisions. He might go up on my personal awesome rating but in this list I have given no driver a bonus for what they did outside their F1 career. His biggest bonus points is in his ability to be up to speed almost instantly while getting in F1 irregardless of where he is coming from, but also his ability to push his team forward with his drive to perfection.

 

So while I might talk with great admiration for being so far the only driver to do so well on both 2 and 4 wheels, when I made the rankings I didn't put him higher because of that. And if you get the feeling I did than I not made myself clear enough or send mixed signals. I am not sure if i said it here or somewhere else and can't bother to look it up on my phone, but I said if I would make a list of greatest racers in history Andretti and Surtees would surely be near the top if not on top but since it is not their positions are less.

Edited by zanquis, 30 November 2016 - 21:15.

[scheivlak]

 

For drivers before 1970s, it's difficult to use ELO, the rate of DNFs are too high and there are single driver teams too, or using different cars for each driver.

So my data collection will not go beyond that point.

Single driver teams or using different cars is not relevant. Remember, Elo is not about who is the best. It's about results. Who is the most successful.

And yes, DNFs are very significant. So a strict Elo system will measure reliability just as much as the competitiveness of a driver and a car. It's a nice exercise but not helpful at all if you intend to use it a way of ranking a driver's ability.

[chunder27]

Making the change from bikes to cars was a little easier in Surtees time.

 

Plus he rode for by far the best team in bikes, but you had to be good obviously tog et that ride. Same as Agostini did too, plus Ago was often doing 2 or 3 races a day in GP's back then.

 

Ceccotto was a very young world champion on bikes, and was very good in cars, especially tin tops, and lots of people forget that Hailwood went back to bikes just before he died and was mercurially quick again!

 

Not many current bike guys have been good in cars. Rossi is a decent rally driver, but only when he has enough practice!!!

[Collombin]

I think in Surtees' case he is often underrated because of his bike career rather than overrated, as if the uniqueness of his world championships in both disciplines is the only noteworthy thing. But in his early F1 days wasn't he arguably looking like a better prospect than Clark?