138 replies to this topic

[BorderReiver]

I would like to point out that this is in no way a flamebait post, or even an attempt to reignite the terrible Best Driver Ever debates, but these number's are very interesting and your comments would be very valuable.
*
*

. . . . .Since we are not in a position to ask Jimmy ourselves we have to make do with documentary evidence. Actually this is another interesting point. Jim Clark was killed at the start of his eigth season in Formula One, 1968, Schumacher's 8th season was 1999, a year where, helpfully for the point of this comparison he missed over half through injury. Now by 1968 Jim Clark had amassed 2 WDC and 25 wins from 72 starts, this is a win to start ratio of 0.34 wins a race. It is safe to assume that had Clark lived and got his hands on the decent model Lotus 49 and after that the 72, he would have been in line for 3 more championships before retiring at the age of 36 say in 1972? This brings his hypothetical championship total to 5, add to this the titles he lost in 62, 64 and 67 by a whisker and you have 8 WDC's. Of course this is speculation (a word that I am sure will be used against me very shortly). Lets dismiss what might have been.

In 1960 and 61 the Lotus was not a Championship contender, neither was it in 1966.
In 91, 92 and 93 the Benetton was not a championship contender, neither was the Ferrari in 1996. Very similar indeed.

By the end 1999 (lets be generous and give Schumacher more time) Schumacher had amassed 2 WDC and 35 wins from 127 starts. This is a start to win ratio of 0.27 wins per start. Clark leads. Lets look at Poles now shall we? By 1968 Clark had scored 33 Pole positions an average of 0.45 a race, nerely half. By the end of 1999, we'll let Schumacher have the few races he returned for as well, Schumacher had 23 Pole Positions from 127 starts, a ratio of 0.18 poles a race, nowhere near Clark. Just to make this disection complete lets look at fastest laps, not a great indicator at the best of times, but interesting. Clark by the end of his career had scored 28 from 72 starts, an average of 0.38 a start, Schumacher? 39 from 127 an average of 0.30. Clark wins again.

So now we remove the stats for when Jimmy wasn't active we get a very different picture indeed dont we? Schumacher of course went on to have great success at Ferrari, can anyone argue that Clark wouldnt have managed the same with the Lotus 49 and 72 had he lived? Let us not forget that in the 1970's drivers carried on into their 40's, so that brings in the Lotus 79 and the like, Clark may well have won races in those too had he lived.

I think the most conclusive thing to do would be to extend Jimmy's averages to a modern race total like that of Schumacher's.. To do this we must multiply Jimmy's 72 starts by a factor to reach 127. 72 x 1.75 = 126. This gives Schumacher a race in hand, but its as close as is practical. Now we must multiply Jimmy's other totals by the same factor. 33x1.75=57.75, so lets round that down to 57, just to be harsh, so 57 poles. 28x1.79=49, 49 fastest laps. 24x1.75 is 43.75 again being harsh 43.

So the amended results are:-

Jim Clark
Races Started 126
Wins 43
Poles 57
FL 49

Michael Schumacher
Races Started 127
Wins 35
Poles 23
FL 39

Now of course we have to remember that these are only mathematical projections, but given the statistical analysis that the modern F1 fan finds so necessary to justify everythinf they make VERY compelling reading. Of course there are many other factors, opposition etc. But in terms of RAW stats, by the same points in their careers we can now see how far Jim was ahead of Schumacher in real terms. He was still a young man 32, Schumacher granted has the advantage of age at this point aged only 30. But all things being considered it is reasonable to assume that had Clark lived he would have raced at least 4 more years, this gives him the rest of 68 69 70 71 and 72. In these years Lotus won 3 championships, Clark, the fastest man of his generation may well have won four, beating Stewart to the title in 69 (an open year). But lets stick with three. This gives Clark five WDC by 1972. Schumacher by 2004, four years after the accident at silverstone may only have won five as well, though I admit this is unlikely, its more likely to be six or seven. But factoring in Clarks potential in 69, and his narrow losses in 62, 64 and 67? 9 world titles aren't out of the question! It should be remembered that back in the 1960's it was not unusual for half the drivers on the grid to be race winners in race winning cars. Something that doesnt happen today. The competition was much fiercer.

Make of this what you will, but I think it is VERY compelling evidence.

[HP]

Too many ifs, besides it's impossible to compare driver from different generations.

For example can you garantuee that Clark would have stayed with Lotus, or other upcoming drivers not outdriving him?

In short we cannot rewrite history.

[BorderReiver]

I would disagree with that, I think Clark at Lotus is a given, he worked fantastically well with Colin Chapman, as well as getting on well with him. He never drove in F1 for anyone else and with Lotus' continued superiority he wouldnt have moved either.

[Flying Panda]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
Make of this what you will, but I think it is VERY compelling evidence.

Mate, You're overlooking one big aspect.
Clark drove in the 60's.
Schumacher drove in the 90's.

If you're saying one is better than the other, then he must be better at him in something they both did.
Schumacher did not race in F1 in the 60's.
Clark did not race in F1 in the 90's.

so a comparison between the two of them is completely futile.

[HP]

Sure his relationship with Colin Chapman was good, but people have seperated sometimes because of little things. We will never now

I just prefer to say both were among the outstanding drivers in their generation. I view the statistical part more and more in terms of efficiency of a given driver. Some drivers exploit the potential of their car better than others, but it's a small part of the overall picture what makes a driver successful in the eyes of us spectactors. Personality is a factor of our assessment of drivers, and that's when we start talking personal preferences. In the end this is the root of this argument. Both are exeptional in their own way, and as such to be viewed. If we start to compare, we diminish the achievements of all drivers involved. It's happening in almost every driver comparison thread here.

[BorderReiver]

A fair point HP.

One thing I do thing this analysis proves however is that at the point of Clark's fatal accident and Schumacher's Injury Clark was way ahead in terms of the statisitcs.

Would anyone argue this point? I would like to hear just how they intended to do it.

Thanks HP for some very constructive criticism by the way.

[Psychoman]

Interesting, but one thing that isn't factored in: Jackie Stewart. If Jim Clark had lived, he would have spent the next five or six years duking it out on the track with him, and I think his personal totals would be lower as a result.

[baddog]

compelling evidence of what exactly?

that jim clarke was a very fine driver? yessss...

that michael schumacher is also a very fine driver? yesss...

that f1 has changed in rules, structure, format etc beyond recognition?

all true. what of it?

Shaun

[HSJ]

BorderReiver, that seems like a perfectly valid analysis, though perhaps I'd leave the projections out, you don't need those IMO. You might also take into account the reliability of the cars (how many wins out of race finishes). In Clark's days the reliability was worse. However there's a catch of course: you'd have to take each driver's opposition's reliability into account as well, how many race wins each driver inherited because someone in front of them had a DNF. I bet Clark would look even better with that analysis.

IMO Jim Clark was one of the very best ever, I rank him behind only AS and AP really, and actually probably level with AP and thus only behind AS.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by HP
Too many ifs, besides it's impossible to compare driver from different generations.

For example can you garantuee that Clark would have stayed with Lotus, or other upcoming drivers not outdriving him?

In short we cannot rewrite history.

That's why the comparison is made up until the same point in their careers. Nothing wrong with that. However the result (the numbers) and it's meaning is debatable. You can ask whether the result can be made to draw conclusions about this or that, for example.

[GadgetMan]

I think you cannot count 62, 64 and 67 as probable WDC's. Clark did not win them period. I don't think it's useful to add further speculation by saying he could have won the WDC in these years. Stick to what hard data you have.

The "per race started" ratios are a good start for the purposes of this exercise.

The real issue lies in answering the question as to what was the relative value of Clark's competition throughout his career as opposed to that of Michael during his? That should be a start. Then, you could develop a handicap system based on the relative value of the competition each had to face to try and make the "per race started" ratios more meaningful.

No need to extrapolate. Use the facts for each guy and bring it down to a "per race started" basis. Try to establish a system that allows a valid comparison between the two drivers on the basis of what kind of competition they had to face.

On the face of it, stats make Clark look good but I don't know if he faced strong competition, how many competitors, etc. If he was always in the best team, it renders his stats less impressive than they might look. Michael was not always in the best team throughout his career and this might be the determining factor.

GadgetMan

[RSNS]

If you make that kind of analysis you do get the degree of dominance a driver had over other drivers. But note that if you perform it for all the drivers of the F1 era, the winner is still old devil Fangio - in ALL statistics. Also he was 5 times WC having participated in only seven series.

Now it is difficult to compare the demands from a driver in the fifties and a modern one.

Fangio had more courage, he made less mistakes, he had a good tactical sense, he was amazingly quick. But put Fangio in a modern day car and he probably wouldn’t be able to drive it (although he used to drive anything with panache and speed, even when he was quite old).

And Schumacher himself said that he would never had taken the risks of the Fangio era.

So every era has a dominant driver: Ascari, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Villeneuve père, Prost, Senna, Schumacher. To the question which of them was more dominant you can safely say: Fangio, then Ascari and Clark and then Schumacher. But that is all.

[Aubwi]

I thought Clark was planning on retiring in 1968.

[skinnylizard]

even when good drivers go head to head in the same era it isnt always clear which driver is better which isnt.
therefore trying to come to a clear cut conclusion on something where drivers drove in diff eras u can forget it.
not happening.
xxx
www.pi-media.com
www.eranstudio.com

[ffiloseta]

I voted no. I did so because I think F1 has evolved in a way that makes comparisons, uhm, let's say unfair.

When people ask me if Schumi is as good as Fangio (please note: not better but as good as) I reply that I really couldn't say, but if Schumi drove back then he would have got killed more than once (based on the crashes he's been through, both racing and testing). One guy answered back that, to me then, Fangio achieved what he did by surviving everyone else, and he is probably right. Nevertheless, to me this distinction makes it clear that there is no proper way to compare drivers belonging to different times. Hell, it's difficult to compare drivers that belong to the same historic moment; take Fisichella, or Alesi, many have praised them as top drivers, but in the end what counts is the achievements.

As you know, this predicament is common to all sports. Take Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's record of 61 HRs in 1961. He slammed 62 that year, yet for years and only until very recently, his record was tagged with an asterisk, stating that even though he achieved the mark of 62, it took him more games than it took the Babe.

I see an obvious analogy to F1. How true is the breaking of a record when the deed is done on different grounds?

Well, to me it is quite simple, the state of the art is any state the sport is at the time. So, to me, Maris was more than deserving of recognition for his record and Michael Schumacher is truly a great champion and a legend in the making.

Now about Clark. It's quite a coincidence that I was talking about him just a couple of hours ago with some friends over some bottles of Old Number Seven. I was telling them how racing in that era of no aerodynamics, skinny tires but very powerful engines was really an art. An art that suited Jim Clark's talent quite allright.

Now this is an adjective I would never use to qualify Schumacher's skills. Not that it is his fault, modern F1 is about technique, not art, and he excels at this. I am inclined to think that if Schumi raced with Clark, his talent would show artistically, because that's what was required, but since it is not so, well, Jim Clark is a name that carries a baggage of magic, art and the essence of racing.

To be thorough, I must say that there is another driver that, to me, shares that high echelon, and it is Gilles Villeneuve, he may not have achieved what Clark did, but I simply believe he is one of the greats.

There, my US$0.02

[Group B]

There are countless variables you fail to consider; reliability, crashes caused by other drivers, quality of competition, quality of competition's machinery, amount of competetive competition, previous track knowledge, effect of changing rules & regs, unknown outside pressures, influences and commitments, etc, etc.

You cannot and will not EVER make a fair comparison of drivers based on statistics alone.

Maybe Clark was better, maybe he wasn't - either way you'll never know by juggling stats.

[Mosquito]

You equate the Lotus of 1960 and 1961 to the Benneton of 1992 and 1993. That's nonsense. The Lotus wasn't that sheit at all in those years. 1991, 1992, and 1993 were totally dominated by McLaren and Williams. I'd say you'd have a much better chance running in a 61 Lotus than running a 91, 92 or 93 Benneton.

You could also compare the peak years (dominance years) of the drivers, and then you get 7 out of 10 (70%) wins for Clark compared to 11 out of 17 (65%) wins for Schumacher, 90% podiums for Clark, 100% podiums for Schumacher. (How many driver have a 100% podium finish, especially amazing if you take into account it's a 17 races wdc?)

You can look at all these figures left and rigth, toss them around and all, but they're just that: stats and figures. Since I never saw Clark race, I can only judge him by the stats, and that doesn't tell me anything about what kind of driver he was. It's a bit like comparing the Beatles and the Rolling Stones based number of records sold, #1 chart history and concert attendance.

[JtP]

Border Riever, you make the assumption Clark would have raced on till 72 and the age of 36. Graham Gauld for one, has stated this was unlikely for personal reasons and would probably have retired at the end of 68.

It is almost impossible to compare drivers of different eras. The world of F1 is totally different now to that of the 60s. People complain that F1 drivers no longer compete in other forms of racing. Where would they find the time? Most of the grid from San Marino have spent most days this week testing cars.

My best judgement of comparison is, the normal driving talent at the front of the F1 field is probably constant over the years. So how great the top driver is compared to others of previous or future eras is how high they stand above the norm. In Clark's day, when TV coverage was not as complete as today, the only way of getting the race result was checking the paper the following day. You picked it up, dug through the back till you found the race report. Checked to see who won and if it wasn't Clark, you looked to see why he retired. No one, possibly bar Schumacher has ever reached that level above his peers.

Prost and Senna have the disadvantage of being two superior talents who actually had their careers together. The only difference I ever saw between them was Prost had been to a race where drivers had been killed and the only race Senna attended in F1 was the one he was killed at.

Who do I think was best, Clark no contest, but that may be the hero of my youth. Do I consider Schumacher one of the greats, undoubtedly. He might be the first driver since Clark to win simply because he drove faster than anyone else. No 70bhp power buttons for Schumacher to make Senna type demon starts. Do I wish Schumacher had a better public image, undoubtedly and maybe that will change after Imola last week.

Around the time of 500 Gps there was a program interviewing F1 drivers from the past.
Moss said Fangio was the greatest and he could beat him on occasion.
Fiitipaldi had the big smile and said it was great.
Piquet said everyone else, especially Fittipaldi, were rubbish.
Senna said he God.
Mansell said it was "unfair"
And Stewart told you how great Clark was.

That probably tells you more about them than their race results.

[Robbie]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
I would like to point out that this is in no.... attempt to reignite the terrible Best Driver Ever debates.... but I think it is VERY compelling evidence.

:

Nice piece of arithmetic. But?

[Williams]

If you want to talk stats, IMO Jimmy simply beats Schumacher hands down without the need for projection at all.

If you take the number of races finished without a mechanical failure, but still leaving in races not finished due to an error on the driver's part, using stats up to the present day, out of 183 starts for Schumacher and 74 starts for Clark, you get 158 starts for Schumacher, 51 starts for Clark. This gives this gives Clark a winning percentage of 49% over Schumacher's 41%.

If you take some other stats without benefit of considering mechanical failures (i.e. leave the mechanical failures in), Clark beats Schumacher pole strike rate with 44% to 28%. Clark also has has more pole,win,fastest laps in a race weekend for his race starts, with 21% vs. 8%. He also beats Schumacher in wins from pole with 20% vs. 14%, although Schumacher has been able to capitalize (wins from pole) on his poles more efficiently, with 50% vs. 45% (Senna was 44% in this department). Clark also had a better fastest lap record 37% to 28%.

In the drivers errors department, Clark really shone, with racing-ending errors in only 2.7% of the races he started. Schumacher's error rate is a comparitively whopping 10.3%.

But one thing you can say about Schumacher is that his results are very consistent. Schumacher's average grid position against Clark's is better at 2.95 vs. 3.36 and so was his average race classification 2.28 vs. 3.61. And Schumacher has podiumed in 62% of his starts vs. Clark's 43%, probably a tribute to Ferrari's bullet-proof reliability record against the notorious fragility of the Lotus.

Stats like this really don't tell you a whole lot because you have to consider the relative competitiveness of the cars against the rest of the grids. Even things like driver errors have to be taken with a grain of salt, since they often indicate how hard a driver had to push, and how much risk he could to take on (in Clark's day too much risk tended to short the career). And even car performance: how much credit does the does the driver get for picking the right team and developing the car.

Stats are fun to play with but they can never conclusively tell you who the "better" driver was.

[AlesiUK]

There are lies,damn lies and statistics :


cant judge anybody on statistics,its foolish to do so.


Stirling Moss : WDC = 0

Damon Hill : WDC = 1


see.

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by HSJ
BorderReiver, that seems like a perfectly valid analysis, though perhaps I'd leave the projections out, you don't need those IMO. You might also take into account the reliability of the cars (how many wins out of race finishes). In Clark's days the reliability was worse. However there's a catch of course: you'd have to take each driver's opposition's reliability into account as well, how many race wins each driver inherited because someone in front of them had a DNF. I bet Clark would look even better with that analysis.

IMO Jim Clark was one of the very best ever, I rank him behind only AS and AP really, and actually probably level with AP and thus only behind AS.

I knew the two "statistical and logical" giants would sooner or later encounter one another!

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by HSJ

IMO Jim Clark was one of the very best ever, I rank him behind only AS and AP really, and actually probably level with AP and thus only behind AS.

....all of whom you never saw racing on a regular basis!

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by HSJ


That's why the comparison is made up until the same point in their careers. Nothing wrong with that. However the result (the numbers) and it's meaning is debatable. You can ask whether the result can be made to draw conclusions about this or that, for example.

On the basis of these calculations, where would it leave drivers like Hakkinen and Mansell for example? They both racked up the numbers later on in their careers. This whole argument is flawed.

[Group B]

Originally posted by AlesiUK
There are lies,damn lies and statistics :


cant judge anybody on statistics,its foolish to do so.


Stirling Moss : WDC = 0

Damon Hill : WDC = 1


see.

As I said in my earlier post, your argument is a veritable collander - even if we overlook all the missing variables, even your foundations themselves are ludicrous:

Take this example;

In 1960 and 61 the Lotus was not a Championship contender, neither was it in 1966.
In 91, 92 and 93 the Benetton was not a championship contender, neither was the Ferrari in 1996. Very similar indeed .

It is utterly unscientific, and a massive generalisation; it's like me saying "the paint in this tin isn't blue, and nor is the paint in that tin - so they must be very similar indeed "


Why are people so insecure as to feel the need anyway? Just accept that we'll never know who was the best and appreciate all these great drivers. I'm a Schumi fan and hence could easily quote statistics all day, but I know damn well that stats are 90% misleading; what if Clark had spent his whole career in the worst car avilable and won nothing? would he still be your hero? what if DC had spent the last 9 years at Minardi - would he be 300 times less good because he 0 points instead of 300?

I don't know who's better out of MS and JC, and more to the point I don't care.

[Rediscoveryx]

Stats can never be misleading - it's the interpretation of the stats that can be misleading

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by The RedBaron



I knew the two "statistical and logical" giants would sooner or later encounter one another!

Sorry, but to Red Baron, he did predict this in another previous thread with the identical discussion going on here...

[AlesiUK]

what if Clark had spent his whole career in the worst car avilable and won nothing? would he still be your hero?

Asolutely.your reasons for choosing a driver as your hero should have nothing to do with his results.

I don't know who's better out of MS and JC, and more to the point I don't care.

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by Williams

In the drivers errors department, Clark really shone, with racing-ending errors in only 2.7% of the races he started. Schumacher's error rate is a comparitively whopping 10.3%.

Even this is meaningless, it's a question of mentality and not wanting to take unnesssary risks in that given era. One mistake during Clark's day could ultimately result in death, nowadays with the relative saftey of current F1 cars and large run-off areas on most tracks, that risk has been taken away.
Any given driver on today's grid could be involved in a dozen shunts throughout a season (races and testing) and come away without so much as a bruise.
I guess it means that modern day drivers can actually explore the limits of the car more aggressively and take more risks knowing that their monocoque would be able to withstand most impacts.
How many 19 year olds were driving in F1 during the 60's with relatively little experience?

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by The RedBaron

How many 19 year olds were driving in F1 during the 60's with relatively little experience?

Ricardo Rodriguez

[The RedBaron]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx


Ricardo Rodriguez

I should really shut-up now!

Aside from the above, I think you know where I'm going with this.
i.e that earlier era's were far more dangerous to drive in and one had to be a bit sensible.

[Williams]

Originally posted by The RedBaron


Even this is meaningless, it's a question of mentality and not wanting to take unnesssary risks in that given era. One mistake during Clark's day could ultimately result in death, nowadays with the relative saftey of current F1 cars and large run-off areas on most tracks, that risk has been taken away.
Any given driver on today's grid could be involved in a dozen shunts throughout a season (races and testing) and come away without so much as a bruise.
I guess it means that modern day drivers can actually explore the limits of the car more aggressively and take more risks knowing that their monocoque would be able to withstand most impacts.

Hmmm, just like I said in the part of the post you didn't quote:

Even things like driver errors have to be taken with a grain of salt, since they often indicate how hard a driver had to push, and how much risk he could take on (in Clark's day too much risk tended to short(en) the career).

[BorderReiver]

Arrghhh, I have opened a Pandora's Box of conjecture and counter conjecture. Then again. . . .

The RedBaron

How many 19 year olds were driving in F1 during the 60's with relatively little experience?

Surely this sums up some of the problems with F1 today? When 17 year old Nico Rosberg can jump in a McLaren and post competetive lap times despite being only just out of shorts, there something very wrong with the standard or driving needed to race the modern machines effectivly. No wonder half decent drivers dominate to the extent they do.

As for equating the 60 and 61 Lotus (should that be Loti) to the 91 and 92 bennetons you actually find they each averaged one to two wins for each season. And for Lotus two of these came from Stirling Moss' genius, granted under Rob Walker colours.

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
Surely this sums up some of the problems with F1 today? When 17 year old Nico Rosberg can jump in a McLaren and post competetive lap times despite being only just out of shorts, there something very wrong with the standard or driving needed to race the modern machines effectivly. No wonder half decent drivers dominate to the extent they do.

Rosberg was driving a Williams not a McLaren and being 2.8seconds off JPM's pace in the same car is not posting competitive times.

A 53 year old 3 times WDC in Lauda, was unable to keep the car on track when he drove one of these oh so easy to drive modern machines.

[BorderReiver]

Barely able to keep it on the track? He spun twice, not bad for a man who hasn't been in the cockpit for 19 years.

You havent yet actually made any reference to the numbers. Surely the whole point of the thread?

[raceday]

Originally posted by Nikolas Garth
A 53 year old 3 times WDC in Lauda, was unable to keep the car on track when he drove one of these oh so easy to drive modern machines.

My impression is that it probably easier to get to a level of about 90-95 % of what the car can acomplish with a hypermodern F1 car. That is what many confuse with these cars beeing easy to drive. But to get up near the 99-100% mark could actually be more difficult than it has ever been?

Edit: forgot to say something on topic, I basically agree with what many has already said, that they were from different eras with different conditions making it impossible to say anythig defenite. I never saw JC drive live and, unlike some "experts" above who didn't see him either, i cant say much for certain about him. I've seen some old footage of him and read some about him and it seems obvious that he was the best of his generation, the same as MS is the best of his generation, which puts him among the all time greats with MS and a handfull of others imo.

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
You havent yet actually made any reference to the numbers. Surely the whole point of the thread?

I think your numbers are ****.

You have made ludicrous assumptions and interpretations.

You want to take into account WDC's that Clarke missed out on, but ignore those MS just missed out on.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

BorderReiver, you seem to have a very hard time accepting that your stats, (which you copy and pasted from a prevoius post of your's, why the need for a new thread?) are meaningless and not applicable in giving a 'verdict' as you call refer to it in your title. This is comming from several posters whom have been watching and understanding F1 for way more than you. And their experience is not limited to just reading history books.

Posters have been asking you to defend your conclusion, compelling evidence of what? yet you prefer get off in a slagging match yourself because clearly you yourself are not convinced of their validity in reaching a conclusion.

F1 drivers will tell u that stats are meaningless in comparing drivers over diff. eras, yet u insist that is not the case and you are correct.

If u want to be taken seriously, defend your assumptions and conclusions and why you think they are applicable.

BTW, for the record, they are not.

[BorderReiver]

Since when did I say they were a definitive verdict, I mearly said they were compelling, which judging by the amount of offense MS supporters seem to have taken, appears to be justified. I agree that the comparison over driver era's is difficult, but not impossible, after all, the dynamic is exactly the same as it always has been.

As far as I'm aware this is the first time a comparison like this has been posted, perhaps if it was in Michael Schumacher's favour you'd have nothing but support for this system?

Note the title a definitive verdict?

That question mark seems to have been missed by you and many of your type.

[BorderReiver]

I also go to painstaking lengths within the post to point out that this is only maths, simply maths of a different kind. I beleive that this system enables drivers to be quantified in a much better fashion than the simple wins and titles numbers. You must see that it is a little bit more in depth than that. I for one think stats mean very little in certain instances, but since they had been used to many times to bash my Clark theories I thought I'd better back my assertations up with stats of my own, these are they.

[Group B]

BorderReiver, will you please respond to some of my earlier points regarding your driver comparison system - or are you just going to ignore anything that doesn't fit your spin?

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
I mearly said they were compelling, which judging by the amount of offense MS supporters seem to have taken, appears to be justified. I agree that the comparison over driver era's is difficult, but not impossible, after all, the dynamic is exactly the same as it always has been.

Well, many posters are merely saying it is not compelling.
Driver comparo over diff. eras, especially by using fuzzy math, is impossible, you are nearly getting there. What dynamics are you specifically refering to? The fact that they both got into a 4-wheeled car and drove around a circuit?

As far as I'm aware this is the first time a comparison like this has been posted, perhaps if it was in Michael Schumacher's favour you'd have nothing but support for this system?

And hopefully the last because it's pointless, especially considering the methodolgies u use.
F1 Racing did a feature a few years ago, comparing all-time greats, Clark came out on top, yet the panel that was asked to come up with the final verdict didn't use stats to form a conclusion.

Note the title a definitive verdict?

Note the several NOs as an answer.

That question mark seems to have been missed by you and many of your type.

No it was not, u, and your type, could have saved yourself typing it considering how much you are unwilling to accept other people's rejection of your 'compelling evidence'.

[David McKinney]

As someone who rarely strays from TNF, I find little sense in the argumentum ad hominem approach to debate
BR's figures, without proving anything, do provide an interesting comparison - I would have done it by percentages of races won, but the result would have been the same
I think however that the biggest difference between the two drivers can be shown by the following:
From 1960, the year of his first world championship Grand Prix, until 1968, the year of his last, Clark competed in the following categories:
world championship F1: 72
non-championship F1: 60
Sports & GT: 40
Formula 2: 38
Intercontinetal/Tasman/libre: 33
Touring cars/NASCAR: 23
Formula Junior: 13
USAC: 9
international hillclimbs: 2
international rallies: 1
TOTAL: 291
Perhaps someone more knoweldgeable of contemporary racing than I am could show how many events in these or other categories Schumacher has contested since his first year in F1?

[BorderReiver]

Very well Group B, you seem to be arguing that Clark and Schumacher not having competetive cars at very similar times during their respective careers is somehow extremely dissimilar.

My point was this.

In the first two years of Clark's career his Lotus was not a competetive car, in reguards to the championship. In the first three years of Schumacher's career he did not have a competetive car in reguards to the championship. This is a quite similar case of affairs. Added to this in 1966, after winning his second championship Clark did not have a competetive car. In 1996, after winning his second championship, Schumacher did not have a competetive car either.

Now, why are the two cases so different? This was my point nothing more. In the end this has nothing to do with the Win to start ratios of either driver. It was only to make the point that the comparison between Jim Clark and Michael Schumacher for the first 8 years of their careers is a lot more similar than people would seem to think. It is EXACTLY because their careers weren't so different over this period that a comparison is slightly easier to make.

Both won their second championship for the same team they won their first. Both found themselves with inferior equipment after winning their second titles and ground out some amazing results with the equipment they had. Speculating on event that didn't occur, which I admit I did in the post, BUT NOT IN THE STATISTICS, was unhelpful, but so is your speculation about DC in a Minardi, or even MS. If Michael Schumacher had had his first run in 1991 with Lotus or Life or Andrea Moda, would he be the 5 times World Champion he is now? Likewise Clark, what if he had stayed loyal to his Aston Martin contract? We would never have even seen him in F1.

I'm not saying that my conjecture is perfect, I never ever claimed that, people have seemed to thrust it onto me. However it does help to put Jim's career in a more modern context. Put it this way, most of us would predict that if Michael Schumacher races on a few more years he will win another title, we can have no proof of this but it seems very likely. If Jim Clark had raced 16 races a year instead or 9 or 10 he would have a lot more wins, this too in VERY likely.

Granted there are variables that can't be taken into account, but that is true of everything. This form of statistical analysis is called a Data Trend Projection Analysis, it is used in many thinks including in the prediction of the treatment of diseases such as SARS. Right now people are running the numbers by projecting SARS agains the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1919, using EXACTLY this method, albeit more complex. The two diseases are very different animals, like Clark and Schumacher, yet the data gained from these tests could prove invaluable. On the whole this kind of analysis is extremely useful in many areas. I have applied it to Formula One rather than a disease, or accident statistics, or budget forecasts. These things are just as complex, if not more so than motor racing, yet the results of these analysies are things that we base our lives around every day.

This was meant as an interesting exercise, not a definitive answer. I asked you to make of it what you will and draw your own conclusions. I did not expect to be lampooned for making the very effort.

[Jaybee]

Border Reiver - your name is such a give-away as to where your loyalties lie. I too thought that Jim Clark was the King of the Road when he was at his best (I lived in Galashiels and we had his original rally car parked at the foot of the drive). However I defy anyone to draw an accurate comparison between two drivers who drove in different eras, in fact to try to do so is to insult both of them!

Jim Clark ruled OK!
Michael Schumacher rules OK!

Get it?

[GerardF1]

The amount of electrons being burned up over the "my driver can is better than your driver arguements" always amazes me.

If you want to compare two drivers who drove at the same time that is one thing but to comapre two drivers seperated by over 30 years, and the technical advancements made during that period, is wasting time and is impossible.

It like argueing that the Titanic wouldn't have sunk if they had done x y or z. The fact is that it sunk. The fact is that Clark was a great driver.

End of the story


Gerard

[Group B]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
Very well Group B, you seem to be arguing that Clark and Schumacher not having competetive cars at very similar times during their respective careers is somehow extremely dissimilar.

I'm not saying it is extremely dissimilar, I'm disputing your claim that is extremely similar.

There is a difference. The uncompetitiveness of any car is relative - to both the current top car and to the other uncompetitive cars - both of these factors affect the results attainable in the said car car.

[BorderReiver]

Agreed, but would you agree that their two careers up until the eigth season were more similar than dissimilar?

[Group B]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
but would you agree that their two careers up until the eigth season were more similar than dissimilar?

Yes - I would certainly agree with similar , but just not enough so, especially considering those other variables, to make a truly representative comparison based on the resultant figures.

Why are you so keen to prove JC the best anyway? If it's because MS has bigger stats the you should just let it go - it's always annoyed the hell out of me that DC and DH have such apparently excellent records after spending so much time in top cars - where as someone like GF appears massively inferior on paper - but at the end of the day anyone with a little intelligence who really knows & loves the sport has a pretty good idea who the true performers are/were, and we all know that JC was one of the very best - maybe the best, but we simply cannot say for certain how he would have fared on a grid containing MS, AS, AP, NL, NP, or indeed Caracciola, Rosemeyer, Lang and Nuvolari.

[BorderReiver]

Thats sense talking

As for dimished stats, what attracted me to this method was the fact that it evens two careers over a period of time. I multiplied Clark's results by a factor to bring him in line with Schumacher. Equally we could have divided Schumacher's results by a factor to bring him in line with Clark. The end result would have been exactly the same.

I have the utmost respect for your views Group B, and in many ways I agree with them, but I was just trying something new that has, in my opinion, produced quite an interesting result. Flawed? Certainly. Irrelevant? I doubt it.