Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Top 10 British Drivers


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#51 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,289 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted Yesterday, 15:01

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

 

1. Clark 182

2. Stewart 150

3. Hamilton 143

4. Moss 118

5. Graham Hill 93

6. Mansell 84

7. Surtees 59

8. Button 32

= Hunt

10. Colin McRae 30

 

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

 

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



Advertisement

#52 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 16:12

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.  C'mon.   :stoned:  :drunk:

 

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


Edited by MKSixer, Yesterday, 16:16.


#53 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted Yesterday, 16:15

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.  C'mon.   :stoned:  :drunk:

 


Why?

#54 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 16:42

Why?

 

               Jackie Stewart                           Lewis Hamilton

GP started            99                                  229

Wins                  27   27.3%                       73       31.9%

Podium places  43   43.4%                       134     58.5%

Pole positions   17   17.2%                        83      36.2%

Front row          42    42.4%                      132       57.6%

Fastest laps      15    15.2%                       41        17.9%

Points               360     3.64                      3018      13.18

Laps raced     5225     52.8                     12954      56.6

km raced       25837   261.0                    65215      284.8

G.Prix led         51      51.5%                    129        56.3%

Laps led         1921     19.4                      3975       17.4

km led            9191     92.8                    20190       88.2

 

 

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

 

What say you?



#55 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted Yesterday, 16:45

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

Edited by E.B., Yesterday, 16:45.


#56 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 16:49

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

That's all you got from the chart?   :stoned:



#57 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 13,452 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted Yesterday, 16:58

What say you?

 

That F1 is now very different from F1 then.

 

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


Edited by Nonesuch, Yesterday, 16:58.


#58 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted Yesterday, 17:01

               Jackie Stewart                           Lewis Hamilton

GP started            99                                  229

Wins                  27   27.3%                       73       31.9%

Podium places  43   43.4%                       134     58.5%

Pole positions   17   17.2%                        83      36.2%

Front row          42    42.4%                      132       57.6%

Fastest laps      15    15.2%                       41        17.9%

Points               360     3.64                      3018      13.18

Laps raced     5225     52.8                     12954      56.6

km raced       25837   261.0                    65215      284.8

G.Prix led         51      51.5%                    129        56.3%

Laps led         1921     19.4                      3975       17.4

km led            9191     92.8                    20190       88.2

 

 

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

 

What say you?

 


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

#59 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted Yesterday, 17:05

That's all you got from the chart? :stoned:


Just starting at the point of maximum absurdity. I'm sure others who aren't still at work can cover off the rest.

Advertisement

#60 chrisj

chrisj
  • Member

  • 759 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted Yesterday, 17:36

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.  C'mon.   :stoned:  :drunk:

 

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



#61 realracer200

realracer200
  • Member

  • 997 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted Yesterday, 17:38

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.

 

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



#62 nordschleife

nordschleife
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted Yesterday, 18:12

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Edited by nordschleife, Yesterday, 18:29.


#63 BuddyHolly

BuddyHolly
  • Member

  • 2,202 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted Yesterday, 18:56

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

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



#64 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 18:57

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Cheers-mk



#65 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 19:01

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

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

 

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



#66 realracer200

realracer200
  • Member

  • 997 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted Yesterday, 19:05

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

 

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



#67 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,289 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted Yesterday, 19:08

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

 

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

 

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


Edited by sopa, Yesterday, 19:09.


#68 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 19:08

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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



#69 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 19:11

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

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

 

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

Cheers-mk



#70 realracer200

realracer200
  • Member

  • 997 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted Yesterday, 19:23

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

 

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



#71 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 1,123 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted Yesterday, 19:24

Putting Stewart above Hamilton is comical.  C'mon.   :stoned:  :drunk:

 

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

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



#72 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 1,123 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted Yesterday, 19:27

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

 

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

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


Edited by hittheapex, Yesterday, 19:29.


#73 SonGoku

SonGoku
  • Member

  • 1,646 posts
  • Joined: July 17

Posted Yesterday, 19:34

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



#74 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted Yesterday, 19:38

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

 

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

 

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



#75 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 19:54

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

I respect that.

 

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

 

Cheers-mk



#76 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted Yesterday, 20:04

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

#77 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 20:13

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Cheers-mk



#78 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted Yesterday, 20:22

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

 

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

 

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



#79 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 20:26

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

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

 

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



Advertisement

#80 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted Yesterday, 20:34

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

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

#81 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 20:36

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Cheers-mk



#82 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 20:38

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

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

<sigh>

More clarifying and qualifying statements.  

Cheers-mk



#83 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted Yesterday, 20:44

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


Was it? And when was it created?

#84 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 20:51

Was it? And when was it created?

Really?



#85 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted Yesterday, 20:57

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

#86 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted Yesterday, 21:09

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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


Edited by noriaki, Yesterday, 21:10.


#87 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 21:18

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Cheers-mk



#88 MKSixer

MKSixer
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted Yesterday, 21:23

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Under one Formula or set of rules agreed upon by the various Grand Prix racing associations.  The WDC was first in 1950 with the Constructors following some years later...8 or so if memory serves.

Edited by MKSixer, Yesterday, 21:23.


#89 RacingGreen

RacingGreen
  • Member

  • 2,064 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted Yesterday, 22:07

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

 

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

1    Jim Clark           - simply the best ever

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

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

4    Lewis Hamilton  - best of the modern era

5    Graham Hill       - the only triple crown winner

 

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

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

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

6=   Derek Bell      - Le Mans great

6=    Colin McRea  - Britains No 1 rally driver

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

 

and because I want an eleventh

 

11 Malcolm Campbell


Edited by RacingGreen, Yesterday, 22:12.


#90 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 1,348 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted Yesterday, 22:13

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

I certainly took the 'F1 only' approach. Would look rather different adjusted and McRae would definetly feature.

I'm a bit amazed at how many people rate
Jenson Button ahead of Damon Hill. There isn't much in it... but I certainly have Damon ahead.

#91 MarshalMike

MarshalMike
  • New Member

  • 6 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted Yesterday, 22:19

1. Jim Clark

2. Everyone else.



#92 realracer200

realracer200
  • Member

  • 997 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted Yesterday, 22:26

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



#93 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 14,806 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted Yesterday, 23:45

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


I don't think it's possible to stick McRae in a list of predominantly F1 drivers..... even more impossible to compare that discipline with single seaters than it is comparing F1 between eras. But I'd say he had the talent and speed of Clark, but not the discipline of Stewart. He just happened to drive something very different. 6=? He should be hovering off the the right, somewhere between Clark and Moss. :)

I'd still have Hamilton above Stewart- greater one lap pace, just as good in the races, as potent in the wet, and not worn down by all that transatlantic travelling, as JYS readily admits he was, and able to back-to-back his WDCs.

Edited by P123, Yesterday, 23:47.


#94 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 3,915 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted Today, 00:06

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

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

 

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



#95 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 5,000 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted Today, 10:04

Just F1. I have a very hard time rating modern day drivers better than the glory day gladiators.

Clark
Stewart
Hamilton
Moss
G Hill
Surtees
Mansell
Hunt
Button
D Hill

#96 Cornholio

Cornholio
  • Member

  • 384 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted Today, 10:57

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

 

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

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

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



#97 ForzaSurtees

ForzaSurtees
  • New Member

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: March 18

Posted Today, 11:24

1. John Surtees
2. Jim Clark
3. Graham Hill
4. Lewis Hamilton
5. Jackie Stewart
6. Stirling Moss
7. Nigel Mansell
8. Dario Franchitti
9. Colin McRae
10. Derek Bell

Edited by ForzaSurtees, Today, 11:31.