986 replies to this topic

[juicy sushi]

Oh, so that merely gains them entry? I dread to think what trials await beyond that.... wrestling a Minotaur?

 

I kind of understand moral exclusion because a driver's actions might jut up against your compass, but dismissing them on a weirdly specific technicality they can't control is bizarre. 

 

Out of interest, who passes the test into the Ring of Doom?

Well, every driver discussed in this thread won a title in the fastest car.  It is not an impressive achievement, it's just the minimum display of competence.  So, if that's not something special, what is?

 

I think my shortlist would be Schumacher, Prost, Lauda, Stewart, and Fangio.  They all did something more than winning in the fastest car.  Schumacher did win titles while not in the fastest car, and also showed blinding dominance when in them.  He also showed how a top driver can motivate and lead the team around them to create a more successful larger entity.  But he loses points for ramming title rivals and perhaps not being as good in a wheel to wheel fight as some others.  Prost showed blinding speed at times, dominated in great cars, and won a WDC in a car significantly worse than the car his rivals had.  He lost to a great teammate, beat a great teammate, and it took the lessons learned from that first loss to improve himself as a driver.  He loses points for at times questionable motivation, and perhaps just plain slacking off at times when other drivers would have chosen to deliver psychological hammer blows to their opponents.  Lauda had blinding speed, incredible technical abilities to lead development of a car, possibly upped the game in driver fitness to a point it hadn't been before, and successfully came out of retirement to beat another GOAT candidate to a title while being the slower driver in the team.  Loses points for personality and perhaps raw speed.  Stewart had speed, dominated rivals, won in different teams, and then quit very early.  But also had the wider impact of changing the sport in terms of both driver professionalism and safety demands.  Loses points for the early retirement essentially freezing his record at a much lower level than it would otherwise have been.  Fangio showed up in his 40s, beat the young men with dominant driving, and completely changed how people thought of driving.  But it was a much less professional era with a smaller talent pool.

 

Of that group, I think Lauda or Stewart might be the best GOAT candidates for their overall accomplishments, but I think Prost also deserves a hearing, certainly more than Senna does, at any rate.

[Countersteer]

Of that group, I think Lauda or Stewart might be the best GOAT candidates for their overall accomplishments, but I think Prost also deserves a hearing, certainly more than Senna does, at any rate.

That would be a valid argument, if Senna didn’t trash (and I mean destroy) Prost when they were teammates.

[juicy sushi]

That would be a valid argument, if Senna didn’t trash (and I mean destroy) Prost when they were teammates.

1 title each would be a score draw at best. Senna could drive faster than Alain, but he didn't win more than Prost doing so.  There was a lesson there which Senna never learned.

[Collombin]

he didn't win more than Prost doing so

Well he did in both of their seasons together. In the first part of 1989 Senna was starting to make things boring, but that's when their feud really got going and things got interesting again!

[Peeko]

That would be a valid argument, if Senna didn’t trash (and I mean destroy) Prost when they were teammates.

You'd think with this destruction Senna wouldn't have been outscored 186-154 by such an inferior teammate.

[Risil]

Oh, so that merely gains them entry? I dread to think what trials await beyond that.... wrestling a Minotaur?

 

I kind of understand moral exclusion because a driver's actions might jut up against your compass, but dismissing them on a weirdly specific technicality they can't control is bizarre. 

 

This reminds me of how Bill Clinton (weirdly) used to worry that he would never be considered by historians as among the Greatest Presidents Of All Time (GPOAT) because there were no wars going on and great presidents only really get to show themselves at that supreme test of character. But of course equally going out looking for a war to prove himself would be (to us modern-day people anyway) the mark of a very bad president.

 

It's a Catch-22. If a great driver wasn't trying to get into the best car, then they couldn't call themselves a great driver. But unless they prove themselves in the adversity that comes from not having the best car, they can't call themselves a great driver either.

[juicy sushi]

Well he did in both of their seasons together. In the first part of 1989 Senna was starting to make things boring, but that's when their feud really got going and things got interesting again!

That's fair, although he still lost the title that year (and I'm not kicking this thread into the weeds over the Japanese GP).  My point was that Senna was faster than Prost at that point in their careers, yet Prost still beat him to a title.  It's not just about being the fastest guy in the fastest car.  We need to see more than that for someone to really be dubbed "the Greatest."  And I think that Stewart and Lauda probably have the strongest cases on that basis.  If we're trying to establish who is the fastest, that's a different conversation, with much different criteria.

[Countersteer]

You'd think with this destruction Senna wouldn't have been outscored 186-154 by such an inferior teammate.

Points are heavily influenced by reliability and luck.

In qualifying Senna trashed Prost 28-4. Average gap was around 0.650 seconds.
On race day, when a reasonable comparison could be made, Senna was better 17-5.

Rosberg was far closer to Hamilton on raw pace, than Prost ever was to Senna.

This is why I place Prost a tier below the Senna/Hamilton/Schumacher group. No serious GOAT contender should be getting tonked like that in his prime.

[Peeko]

Points are heavily influenced by reliability and luck.

In qualifying Senna trashed Prost 28-4. Average gap was around 0.650 seconds.
On race day, when a reasonable comparison could be made, Senna was better 17-5.

Rosberg was far closer to Hamilton on raw pace, than Prost ever was to Senna.

This is why I place Prost a tier below the Senna/Hamilton/Schumacher group. No serious GOAT contender should be getting tonked like that in his prime.

Prost didn't care about qualifying, he was fine starting the races on the front row. If the driver's best 11 results silly points system didn't exist, Senna would be short a championship, to an inferior driver. Ouch.

Edited by Peeko, 27 February 2024 - 16:27.

[Collombin]

If a great driver wasn't trying to get into the best car, then they couldn't call themselves a great driver

Just for holding that attitude? It wouldn't mean any less of a desire to win, just that winning as an underdog would mean much more to them. I think Raymond Sommer had that kind of approach.

[Countersteer]

Prost didn't care about qualifying, he was fine starting the races front the front row. If the driver's best 11 results silly points system didn't exist, Senna would be short a championship, to an inferior driver. Ouch.

And if F1 was decided on a medal system basis, Senna wins both 1988 and 1989. I don’t see much point in making up imaginary scenarios with different point systems.

Prost needed unreliability to compete with Senna as it was evident that he couldn’t compete with him innate ability. Prost didn’t even win a single race on merit in 1989, all his wins required bad luck from Senna.

[Peeko]

And if F1 was decided on a medal system basis, Senna wins both 1988 and 1989. I don’t see much point in making up imaginary scenarios with different point systems.

Prost needed unreliability to compete with Senna as it was evident that he couldn’t compete with him innate ability. Prost didn’t even win a single race on merit in 1989, all his wins required bad luck from Senna.

F1 never used a medal system. Counting every driver's point tally towards a championship is a thing.

 

Senna had McLaren and Honda favouritism in 89, something Dennis was not unknown for (see 2007). Still, he couldn't seal the deal. Should have been a piece of cake, especially against such an inferior driver.
 

Edited by Peeko, 27 February 2024 - 16:35.

[PlatenGlass]

And if F1 was decided on a medal system basis, Senna wins both 1988 and 1989. I don’t see much point in making up imaginary scenarios with different point systems.

Prost needed unreliability to compete with Senna as it was evident that he couldn’t compete with him innate ability. Prost didn’t even win a single race on merit in 1989, all his wins required bad luck from Senna.

 

I think it's a bit unfair to say he didn't win France on merit, based on the possibility that Senna might have beaten him from behind on the grid if he hadn't retired.

[Collombin]

F1 never used a medal system. Counting every driver's point tally towards a championship is a thing

1988 used the normal system, but more than any other season it was a de facto medals system. That was obvious from fairly early on.

[Risil]

Just for holding that attitude? It wouldn't mean any less of a desire to win, just that winning as an underdog would mean much more to them. I think Raymond Sommer had that kind of approach.

Does anybody claim Raymond Sommer was the greatest driver of all time though? (I don't know anything about Raymond Sommer.)

[Collombin]

Does anybody claim Raymond Sommer was the greatest driver of all time though?

Don't know. The people who voted Other haven't elaborated!

[juicy sushi]

I mean, I would to go back and change my vote, as after giving it more thought, I think that the person I voted for is less deserving than another driver.  But that's not affecting the overall totals, which are skewing a long way in other directions.

[F1Frog]

Does anybody claim Raymond Sommer was the greatest driver of all time though? (I don't know anything about Raymond Sommer.)

I think he was probably the second-best driver after Wimille in 1947-48.

[aportinga]

Don't know. The people who voted Other haven't elaborated!

 

AJ Foyt 

[GlenWatkins]

I voted for Burt.

[juicy sushi]

I voted for Burt.

He was good, but I though Ernie was better over the full season.

 

[Ragamuffin]

Well, every driver discussed in this thread won a title in the fastest car.  It is not an impressive achievement, it's just the minimum display of competence.  So, if that's not something special, what is?

 

I think my shortlist would be Schumacher, Prost, Lauda, Stewart, and Fangio.  They all did something more than winning in the fastest car.  Schumacher did win titles while not in the fastest car, and also showed blinding dominance when in them.  He also showed how a top driver can motivate and lead the team around them to create a more successful larger entity.  But he loses points for ramming title rivals and perhaps not being as good in a wheel to wheel fight as some others.  Prost showed blinding speed at times, dominated in great cars, and won a WDC in a car significantly worse than the car his rivals had.  He lost to a great teammate, beat a great teammate, and it took the lessons learned from that first loss to improve himself as a driver.  He loses points for at times questionable motivation, and perhaps just plain slacking off at times when other drivers would have chosen to deliver psychological hammer blows to their opponents.  Lauda had blinding speed, incredible technical abilities to lead development of a car, possibly upped the game in driver fitness to a point it hadn't been before, and successfully came out of retirement to beat another GOAT candidate to a title while being the slower driver in the team.  Loses points for personality and perhaps raw speed.  Stewart had speed, dominated rivals, won in different teams, and then quit very early.  But also had the wider impact of changing the sport in terms of both driver professionalism and safety demands.  Loses points for the early retirement essentially freezing his record at a much lower level than it would otherwise have been.  Fangio showed up in his 40s, beat the young men with dominant driving, and completely changed how people thought of driving.  But it was a much less professional era with a smaller talent pool.

 

Of that group, I think Lauda or Stewart might be the best GOAT candidates for their overall accomplishments, but I think Prost also deserves a hearing, certainly more than Senna does, at any rate.

 

Nice answer. Lots of great points that would be hard to argue. 

[ForzaFormula]

F1 never used a medal system. Counting every driver's point tally towards a championship is a thing.

 

Senna had McLaren and Honda favouritism in 89, something Dennis was not unknown for (see 2007). Still, he couldn't seal the deal. Should have been a piece of cake, especially against such an inferior driver.
 

Come on he brought Alonso in as a two time reigning F1 champion and the current best F1 driver, expecting him to lead the team, nobody expected Hamilton to do what he did, but a certain Hamilton showed up and ratted Alonso and the whole F1 world, and as years went by going up against world champion team mates shown why he is considered upon of one the GOAT/. 

 

Alonso flopped and was expected to lead the team and go onto further seasons (If he played things better he would of won 2007/2008) even in 2012 Alonso could of won the title without key mistakes, which keep him away from the GOAT, Alonso could of easily been a 4/5 world champion if he was not so fragile.

 

But the same goes with Schumacher, if he had not retired, for me he would of wrapped up both 2007/2008 titles quite easily, as the Ferrari in those years for me was easily faster than the McLaren, but Kimi/Masa never really shown it to be, Kimi just lucked his way into the title with the chaos that surrounded McLaren with a certain rookie creating an atomic bomb within the team, both Alonso & Hamilton failed on a title there as Kimi was never really fast after leaving those Michelins, and was on masa's level, Schumacher could of easily been a 9 times world champion if he kept on going, which would firmly put him as the GOAT? Even with his unsporting side earlier in his career. 

 

So it could still easily be a mix of Senna / Prost / Schumacher / Hamilton for GOAT if we talking from the 80's onwards.

Edited by ForzaFormula, 27 February 2024 - 22:13.

[TAFormula1]

F1 never used a medal system. Counting every driver's point tally towards a championship is a thing.

 

Senna had McLaren and Honda favouritism in 89, something Dennis was not unknown for (see 2007). Still, he couldn't seal the deal. Should have been a piece of cake, especially against such an inferior driver.
 

You can be sarcastic all you want, but its pretty clear who the better driver was looking at the stats when both were in a comparable car  (and im very nice not counting the 91 season because it would be embarassing for Prost)

 

https://i.ibb.co/5FZF7v1/sennp.jpg

 

4 more DNF from Senna, yet 4 wins more, the win % is almost 60% vs 40%... thats crazy, you can't deny that, it is clear as day who the better driver was.

Edited by TAFormula1, 27 February 2024 - 22:35.

[ForzaFormula]

You can be sarcastic all you want, but its pretty clear who the better driver was looking at the stats when both were in a comparable car (and im very nice not counting the 91 season because it would be embarassing for Prost)

https://i.ibb.co/5FZF7v1/sennp.jpg

4 more DNF from Senna, yet 4 wins more, the win % is almost 60% vs 40%... thats crazy, you can't deny that, it is clear as day who the better driver was.

Those stats you posted apart from poles shows how close they were on important stats

[Schumisenna23]

I think if Jim Clark is still alive to this day, he would’ve won in 68,70 and 72. After 72 it depended on his decision about retirement from f1 or not.

 

He would’ve been 5 times World Champion.

[Collombin]

Quite possibly, even probably (buggers up that English/Scottish even/odd stat really early on though). But we can only judge drivers on what they did, not what they could have done - eg Rosemeyer was younger than Farina, Moll even younger than both.

[Henri Greuter]

Somehow, i have the feeling that once the wings became onto F1 cars, Clark might have faded slightly from the scene, if not retiring from racing soon thereafter. 

Personally I doubt if he would have been racing in the 70s. Can't explain why but a gut feeling about him retiring before 1970.

[Collombin]

That's the thing - we can but speculate.

I do know that Clark was quite intrigued by the little wing arrangement on the Vollstedt, and a wing was fitted to one of his cars in New Zealand during the next Tasman, but I don't think he ever actually drove it. I suppose the Lotus 56 could be described as one big wing though.

[Astandahl]

Nick Shorrock, Michelin F1 director:

"What can I say? Michelin drivers set the top 12 times in Q1, the top eight in Q2 and took nine of the top 10 grid positions. It has been a conclusive demonstration of the performance of Michelin's wet-weather tyres."

 

 

[Countersteer]

Serious question,

At what stage do we collectively agree that Hamilton is too old, and a mediocre performance can no longer be held against him for his legacy?

Does his age have to begin with a 4?

Because apart from a few desperate Schumacher detractors, I rarely see his Mercedes stint used against him in a GOAT debate.

[thefinalapex]

Serious question,

At what stage do we collectively agree that Hamilton is too old, and a mediocre performance can no longer be held against him for his legacy?

Does his age have to begin with a 4?

Because apart from a few desperate Schumacher detractors, I rarely see his Mercedes stint used against him in a GOAT debate.

 

He finished 3rd in the championship last year and its far too early to write him off after todays race or yesterdays qualifying. If Russell beats Hamilton consistently then maybe Hamilton is declining but honestly i haven't seen anything that makes me think that will be the case this year.   

[RacingFan10]

Ayrton Senna. He had alien-esque skill and speed, in both dry and wet, you could see it well in the onboards. He beat all the best of his era fair and square, a very competitive era. Sure the McLarens were great, but he won many races without the best car, and who knows how many times he would have become champion with Williams and in total, had not he died

Edited by RacingFan10, 02 March 2024 - 21:54.

[George Costanza]

Nick Shorrock, Michelin F1 director:
"What can I say? Michelin drivers set the top 12 times in Q1, the top eight in Q2 and took nine of the top 10 grid positions. It has been a conclusive demonstration of the performance of Michelin's wet-weather tyres."

That really was very special by Michael. One of his finest wins. And Michelin was way better in 2006 in the wet for sure.

Edited by George Costanza, 03 March 2024 - 00:00.

[Flyhigh]

I think Hamilton will have a hard time in Ferrari at 40 with Leclerc. Leclerc is not a very complete driver yet, not great racecraft yet, etc. But one thing he has which is absolutely top tier is pure speed, and I don´t think Hamilton can play a Button, Prost, Piquet type of driver, winning it by consistency and just capitalizing on opponent´s adversities. I think if he feels Leclerc truly got him covered speed wise, could be quite disheartening for him overall.   

If Hamilton could go there and still lead a team, be ahead, it will add another outstanding layer to his legacy. It would not be the first time I saw a GOAT level sportsman doing something unheard of defying age, Federer  2017 coming back from injury to be number one again, win slams against his younger and bad match up style wise rival Nadal, at 36-38 year old was something quite amazing.   

[ForzaFormula]

I think Hamilton will have a hard time in Ferrari at 40 with Leclerc. Leclerc is not a very complete driver yet, not great racecraft yet, etc. But one thing he has which is absolutely top tier is pure speed, and I don´t think Hamilton can play a Button, Prost, Piquet type of driver, winning it by consistency and just capitalizing on opponent´s adversities. I think if he feels Leclerc truly got him covered speed wise, could be quite disheartening for him overall.   

If Hamilton could go there and still lead a team, be ahead, it will add another outstanding layer to his legacy. It would not be the first time I saw a GOAT level sportsman doing something unheard of defying age, Federer  2017 coming back from injury to be number one again, win slams against his younger and bad match up style wise rival Nadal, at 36-38 year old was something quite amazing.   

I have my doubts that is true, on pure qualifying pace Leclerc will mostly beat Hamilton, but on pure raw race speed, tyre managing, and intelligence on race day Hamilton will still easily be a match and better than Leclerc, I suspect people are trying to downplay Hamilton incase this is not the case but he himself will be going there to win and not be beating by any  team mate.

 

I do feel though he may have adjust to the Ferrari, and we may not see him fully comfortable till mid way through the season, but as we have seen Charles is often vulnerable and sensitive to many factors on race day and Hamilton will take advantage, he is still even in his 40's a much better driver than Sainz...

Also these drivers guys in their 40's are supremely fit, Hamilton is still a proper athlete and very fit, he is working hard in the gym and even after Bahrain after the race he said he felt great and the work in the gym over winter paid of.

Edited by ForzaFormula, 03 March 2024 - 16:42.

[CasualFan]

This is an interesting thread.

 

When I started thinking about who I would regard as the greatest of all time I kept changing my mind, the ones I considered the most were those I regarded as standouts within their generation like: Fangio, Clark, Schumacher and Hamilton. There were other great drivers like Senna I considered briefly, but discounted, because I didn't think there was a large enough gap between them and their rivals. And I'm sure there were plenty of drivers that I should have considered but I don't know the history of F1 well enough to reach those conclusions. Then I realised that I didn't have a clear idea of what "greatest" actually entailed.

 

If I limit "greatness" to simply driver skill, then modern drivers have a massive advantage as they have the benefit of all of the accumulated knowledge of decades of racing, state of the art feedback from telemetry, and the ability to compete at a high level at a very early age. There is no question for me that if we put Max Verstappen in a time machine and sent him back to the 1950s he would obliterate the field, even in a car he had never driven before. He would know about driving techniques that haven't been invented yet, plus he has been trained since a child to be an elite driver. It's not a fair contest. This would be like sending Magnus Carlsen back in time to play the chess grandmasters of old, he would annihilate them because so much more is known about chess now. Chess is an extreme example, I don't think the difference in elite drivers would be the same as the difference in chess grandmasters but there would still be a sizeable difference. Based on this narrow definition of greatness Lewis Hamilton is the greatest of all time, but I expect Max Verstappen to eventually surpass him. 

 

If on the other hand I change "greatness" to include everything, not just driver skill, but personal traits then for me the greatest is: Fangio. I never watched him race, but based on the written accounts I have read and old YouTube videos he was the epitome of a legendary grand prix driver: brave, adaptable, tactically smart, highly skilled, well-spoken, well-respected, and a gentleman.