57 replies to this topic

[Barry Boor]

Strange how your memory can play you false.... If you had asked me yesterday who was the better driver of the Hills, (not Phil - I mean the father & son pair) I would have said Graham, immediately and without question.

However, despite the fact that statistics figure just a tad further on than damn lies, when you look at the numbers, Damon comes out pretty well.

Consider, Graham drove in 179 Grands Prix, winning 14 and finishing in the first 3 36 times; Damon drove in 122, won 22 and figured 42 times in the top 3. Remember also that Damon raced in an era which one might consider to have been more competitive than his Dad's time (though that may be debatable) and allowing for his times with Brabham, Arrows and Jordan, he was not always in a race winning car.

Graham had spells when his car was not likely to win, either, of course, but overall I reckon young Damon did pretty well in comparison to his old man.

Opinions?

[Vitesse2]

Some years ago, I did some number-crunching on career stats. At the time (1994 IIRC) Damon figured in the top three in terms of win percentages and points average per race (counting a straight 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, with no weighting for wins). The other two were Ascari and Fangio ....

But my heart says Graham.

[Ray Bell]

On the other hand, Graham raced against Jim...

But what can you say? Damon raced against Michael, didn't he?

[Wolf]

For any stats, & stuff, I use this:

http://members.atlas...iams/index.html

Try listing all the WDCs and Moss and going for the 'SuperStat'...;)

Well, NGH's career span for quite a while, so no big surprise there- but let's see who he raced against- Jimmy Clark (even as teammate), JYS (even as teammate), SCM, Jack Brabham, John Surtees... And those are WDCs and a inevitable golden Boy- but I fear some may protest exclusion of Rindt, Hulme and few WDCs in his twilight years...

[scousepenguin]

The Williams was a very, very good car for several seasons, a car that Patrese and Mansell could win in!

Because of that, it makes it pretty difficult to know what to say about Damon's ability, other than that he was able to beat Prost on a number of occasions and looked hopeless in comparison to Senna in the same team before 'the big one'.

It would be interesting for those with longer memories than myself to make comparisons with Graham driving for Chapman at Lotus (interesting Graham Chapman juxtaposition, there, Monty Python fans!)

[rosemeyer]

I think Damon is the milk mans son

[llmaurice]

Grahams first 2 years at Lotus was like pitting the Minardi against Ferrari !

[Barry Boor]

....and Damon at Brabham?

(Though not for long, of course.)

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Barry Boor
....and Damon at Brabham?

(Though not for long, of course.)

At least he managed to get the thing on the grid - twice! His drive to 16th in the British GP got an enormous cheer from the crowd - well-deserved IMHO. The BT60B should have gone "woof", not "brrmm brmmm". (It was a hideous colour too....)

In 1989, he'd taken over the F3000 Footwork, with which Katayama had struggled, and managed to at least qualify it well. So the signs were there.

@scousepenguin: Damon was indeed in a good car. Which he'd done nearly all the testing for, since Our Noige didn't want to do it. As to comparisons with Senna: in the two pre-Imola races, Damon scored a second place in Brazil, while Ayrton spun off - at Aida Senna stuffed it on the first lap, while Damon retired with transmission failure. Hardly basis for comparison - admittedly Senna outqualified him twice, but poles were Ayrton's forte.

He then had to endure the team not believing him regarding the FW16's shortcomings - they only listened when Mansell came back from the States and made the same observations. Had they listened earlier, it's my firm belief Damon would have wrapped up the title before Adelaide. Despite Benetton ....

[jpm2]

Comparing pilots from different ages is a hard and tricky thing to do, in particular if we let our preferences interfere, and, as we all know, it is impossible to keep them away from our judgements.

Some 30 years ago I develloped a system of points that allows some form of comparison between drivers from the 1932 till now. Those of you who are familiar with the Spanish forum may have read about it there (in a topic named "mi campeonato").

Anyway, in "my system", the record of both drivers is as follows:

Graham Hill - Participated in 222 races
obtained 18 pole-positions and 17 victories
World Champion (and "best driver of the year") in 1962 and 1969
total of points - 1644
ratio of points/races - 7,405
Added percentages (this is the most important criterium in "my system") - 134,306

Damon Hill - Participated in 122 races
obtained 20 pole-positions and 21 victories
World Champion (and "best driver of the year") in 1996
Total of points - 1601
Ratio of points/races - 13, 123
Added percentages - 103,443


Overall, father and son seem to be on a similar level. Graham spent part of his career in lesser cars and he continued to race for many years (1970-75) when he was no longer at the top. Damon belongs to a time of technical regulations stability where hegemony of a team over others became common. Being at Williams, when it mattered, he won more races in a shorter career span, and that explains why his ratio of points/races is almost double his father's.

Betty Hill, who, as we can imagine, knew them both well, said that Damon was better than Graham. But, as they say (at least, in Portugal), a mother is always a mother.

Regards

[Paul Parker]

It is impossible to rate father against son, or rather a driver from the 1950s-1970s with someone of the modern era where careers are made and lost racing in one category, to the exclusion of all else.

There have been exceptions but once a driver has become competitive in F1 that is it until or unless they choose to race in other categories. No latter day F1 driver has raced in sports cars, GTs, saloons, F2 or equivalent concurrently with their world championship outings. Personally I believe that Damon was under rated and like his father did not get to race in a competitive F1 car until far too late. At least he got the chance however unlike so many other promising Brits who were either passed by or stuck with uncompetitive machinery.

As for Scousepenguin's observation that DH was OK against Prost but looked unconvincing against Senna I would add this rider. All of Senna's team mates (sic) were deliberately disadvantaged to suit Senna with the possible exception of Berger and it was no surprise that Hill's relative competitiveness immediately returned after the Brazilian's demise. Much the same pattern can be discerned in Schumacher's running mates.

[Mohican]

Originally posted by Paul Parker


As for Scousepenguin's observation that DH was OK against Prost but looked unconvincing against Senna I would add this rider. All of Senna's team mates (sic) were deliberately disadvantaged to suit Senna with the possible exception of Berger and it was no surprise that Hill's relative competitiveness immediately returned after the Brazilian's demise. Much the same pattern can be discerned in Schumacher's running mates.

This is going a bit far, in my opinion. Do not believe for a moment that Prost was "deliberately disadvantaged to suit Senna" at McLaren.

Also, what does "DH was OK against Prost" mean ? When Prost came into Williams, he has been out of action for more than a year - a year that Hill had spent testing and developing the car. But Prost still took charge of both car and team (compare Villeneuve today, but that is perhaps another story)

Fact is that Hill was a good driver, who had the fortune to find himself in the right team at the right team and deserved to win the championship in '96 - but he was never in the Prost/Senna/Schumacher/Hakkinen mould. But then, nor was anybody else.

When he got too big for his boots in '96, Williams and Head let him walk - as they had with Mansell a few years earlier.

Prost was a far better driver than Hill; simple as that.

[Mohican]

Originally posted by Paul Parker


As for Scousepenguin's observation that DH was OK against Prost but looked unconvincing against Senna I would add this rider. All of Senna's team mates (sic) were deliberately disadvantaged to suit Senna with the possible exception of Berger and it was no surprise that Hill's relative competitiveness immediately returned after the Brazilian's demise. Much the same pattern can be discerned in Schumacher's running mates.

This is going a bit far, in my opinion. Do not believe for a moment that Prost was "deliberately disadvantaged to suit Senna" at McLaren.

Also, what does "DH was OK against Prost" mean ? When Prost came into Williams, he has been out of action for more than a year - a year that Hill had spent testing and developing the car. But Prost still took charge of both car and team (compare Villeneuve today, but that is perhaps another story)

Fact is that Hill was a good driver, who had the fortune to find himself in the right team at the right team and deserved to win the championship in '96 - but he was never in the Prost/Senna/Schumacher/Hakkinen mould. But then, nor was anybody else.

When he got too big for his boots in '96, Williams and Head let him walk - as they had with Mansell a few years earlier. Always surprised me that Hill did not learn from that episode, having been the prime beneficiary of it himself.

Prost was a far better driver than Hill; simple as that.

[Gary C]

'When he got too big for his boots in '96'
I don't think Damon EVER got too big for his boots. To put it simply, I think that Frank Willianms and Patrick Head thought he had lost the plot in 95 and thought he wasn't good enough to win a WC and so let him go.....

[Tmeranda]

Hard to believe it, but this contest isn't even close. DH won 22% of his F1 races, his Dad only 8%. DH set pole in 20% vs. his Dad at only 7%. DH finished on the podium in 42% of his races, his Dad only 21%. DH set fastest lap in 19% vs Dad at only 6%. DH scored an average of 3.5 points for each of his races vs. Dad at only 1.6 points per race. I rate Damon as the 11th best GP driver ever, Dad only rated as the 33rd best.

[JohnS]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
I rate Damon as the 11th best GP driver ever, Dad only rated as the 33rd best.

I wouldn't go nearly that far, but I do think that Damon was very underrated, most obviously by Frank Williams, when he fired him!

Did Frank ever express any regret at letting Damon go, in light of how Frentzen underperformed?

John

[MoMurray]

I don't believe statistics tell the true story. (And I am a big fan of Damon). Consider the other father and son combo in modern F1. Jacques has 11 wins and one wdc to his fathers count of 6 and 0. Now find me one person who will say that Jacques was better than Gilles...

[Loud&Dangerous!]

Surprised that the records have Damon has the better driver than Graham

I don't know too much about Graham but I would have considered him the better driver on consisentsy and threat.

Damon was a very good driver in his day. A Prost-type racer. He made too many mistakes and missed chances to ever be called a great but he got the Championship. I'm sure that was his goal.

[bigbrickz]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
I rate Damon as the 11th best GP driver ever, Dad only rated as the 33rd best.

It seems to me that a "fair" ranking system would need to somehow factor in the driver's experience, the relative level of the driver's car's performance, his car's reliability and the relative quality of the competition.

So for instance Hill's '93 score should be increased to account for inexperience and the high quality of competition (Prost, Schumacher, Senna) and decreased to account for his car's reliability and high performance level.

Calculating such a score across 40 odd years of F1 seems a massive undertaking though, so I guess we'll just have to rely on the subjective judgment of people who saw both race !

[jpm2]

You will pardon me saying but Damon Hill as the 11th best Grand Prix driver EVER is certainly an article of faith.

There is more to it than just comparing percentages.

As a matter of fact, the percentage of races a driver wins, the podiums he achieves, and so on, can be a very misleading criterium. Consider, for instance, Mike Parkes career in Formula One.

Parkes finished in the podium in 33% of his races (or 50% if we also consider Siracusa and the International Trophy in 1967). Parkes set the pole in 17% of his races (or 25% if we consider those two races), and so on.

Much better than Graham Hill's record, don't you think? But was Parkes a better driver ? I don't think so. It just happened that he was at Ferrari's when the Italian Scuderia had the most powerful machine, and he started only 6 races (or 8, with Siracusa and Silverstone).

The same distorted conclusions could be reached with other drivers, of course.

Damon Hill in 11th overall is, in my view, a distorted analysis.

Was he better than Senna, Prost, Fangio, Moss, Brabham, Clark, Rosemeyer, Nuvolari, Lang, Ascari, Stewart, Schumacher, Hakkinen, Piquet, Mansell, Varzi, Lauda, Gurney, Peterson ?

It's true that Damon was a fine driver, who got a lot of wins and a lot of points, because he spent the greater part of his career at the wheel of a Williams, by far the best car of the time.

One could say the same about David Coulthard, who had the good fortune to be for a long time in a winning team.

Or of Phil Hill, for instance.

The most important point, in my view, is that Graham Hill left a lasting imprint in his time, both as a Formula One driver, as a man who won countless other races (including the Indianapolis 500 and Le Mans), as the owner of a Formula One team, not to mention his leadership in drivers associations. I think that one cannot say the same of Damon's, for all his worth.

Regards

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Mohican
When he got too big for his boots in '96, Williams and Head let him walk - as they had with Mansell a few years earlier. Always surprised me that Hill did not learn from that episode, having been the prime beneficiary of it himself.

The decision had been taken the year before, as Gary pointed out. But the only people who knew what would happen were Williams, Head and Frentzen. IIRC Frentzen had signed secretly for Williams in the 1995-6 off season. Damon was still negotiating what he believed would be a new contract when the announcement was made and compared to Schumacher he was still going to be paid peanuts ....

[D-Type]

It depends how you rate adriver. In my opinion father and sone were carved from the same block. Neither was overflowing with talent in the sense that Moss, Clark, Fittipaldi, Gilles, Senna, etc were. But they both set to and learned their trade thoroughly and made up for the lack of a sublime talent by sheer hard work.

I am always wary of statistics. in graham's case his record suffers from two seasons at Lotus when they were also-rans and from carrying on driving for the sheer love of it long after the pace had gone. Similarly Damon kept on racing past his'sell by date'

I've occasionally made a half-hearted try to work out drivers' hit rates based on the period between their first and last win, to eliminate the learning curve as some (Mario, Jacques) did their learning in other formulae and to eliminate those who kept on racing in uncompetitive machinery (Emerson). But even that doesn't work for the likes of jack Brabham who had a spell in the middle in uncompetitive machinery a cooper declined and he developedthe Brabham. The only statistical argument is'Shouldhe have achieved the results he did in that car and that again is really notthing more than a subjective judgement.

My subjective judgement is they were both top liners, both have their achievements underrated and if forced to say who was better I'll go for Damon on the somewhat spurious grounds that as test driver he provided mansell and Prost with the tools to do the job.

On the other hand we musn't forget the secondary skills. Could Damon have persuaded Indianapolis to provide civilised lavatories? Graham could probably have sold pizzas! Damon wouldn't have told the young lord march to 'sod off' but Graham could do it and not cause offence.

[HDonaldCapps]

Why does it never occur to anyone that they were damn good drivers and the sport is a better place for their presence? Does it really matter if one was "better" -- whatever that might mean -- than the other? I think not. However, I will refrain from any further remarks since we needless kill enough electrons as it is.

[Arjan de Roos]

Originally posted by jpm2
Comparing pilots from different ages is a hard and tricky thing to do, in particular if we let our preferences interfere, and, as we all know, it is impossible to keep them away from our judgements.

Some 30 years ago I develloped a system of points that allows some form of comparison between drivers from the 1932 till now. Those of you who are familiar with the Spanish forum may have read about it there (in a topic named "mi campeonato").

Anyway, in "my system", the record of both drivers is as follows:

jpm2 I miss one statistic: knocked out in last race by other contender and loose the championship: one each ?

Personally I never really got to comparing them both. As I think they are quite different in approach, driving style and character. Maybe thats why Damon did reach the top in the modern, where as Graham would not have been so succesful in the nineties...

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Arjan de Roos


jpm2 I miss one statistic: knocked out in last race by other contender and loose the championship: one each ?

Yes, you're quite right, although Bandini was not Graham's Championship rival.

But there are other coincidences. In 1968, Graham Hill was left with the responsability of leading Team Lotus, after Clark's tragic death in Hockenheim. And he did the job. It all went down to the last race and Graham got the Championship.

In 1994, Damon Hill was left with the responsability of leading the Williams Team, after Senna's catastrophe at Imola. And he didn't achieve his goal. It all went down to the last race and he lost the Championship.

I agree that there are, of course, a lot of differences between the two men, as there are, I think, between those who reced in the 50s and the drivers of today.

But the idea introduced by Barry Boor was comparing results.

And although their Formula One results are similar, I think Graham is in front.

On the other hand, results aside, Graham could be a sight to see. In his day he could deliver an outstanding performance (as he did, for instance, in the 1960 British Grand Prix). I don't remember any outstanding performances on the part of Damon. But maybe I'm forgetting something, or maybe it's because I'm 55 ...

Regards

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by jpm2

I don't remember any outstanding performances on the part of Damon. But maybe I'm forgetting something, or maybe it's because I'm 55 ...

Regards

There are so few performances these days that look outstanding. Young Alonso makes the car sing and dance this year; he's always good to watch; but since Senna's death there's not been much. Mika H. on a quick lap, maybe.

The modern F1 car is a vehicle for technicians, not artists.

[ian senior]

It's a fact of life that we only tend to judge such things in terms of results. This of course is all meat and drink to present day F1 enthusiasts, many of whom argue that M. Schumacher is undoubtedly the best racing driver of all time because he has won the most F1 races and championships. In terms of results, yes - fair enough. He's the best in that respect. But is he actually the best DRIVER?

There's more at stake here. You need to consider such things as racecraft, the ability to gain a decent result with an ailing car, how far up the grid or in the results you can get with a car that is uncompetitive, whether a driver is willing to settle for a place or go flat out at all time, how well a driver performs in different categories of racing, how well did he perform against his contemporaries when progressing through the junior formulae........... I suspect that you will never be able to do that with any degree of objectivity, especially when comparing drivers from different eras. I'd like to see someone try, though.

So it's an a argument that will never be concluded, but one that will give room for endless discussions.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by petefenelon


There are so few performances these days that look outstanding. Young Alonso makes the car sing and dance this year; he's always good to watch; but since Senna's death there's not been much. Mika H. on a quick lap, maybe.

The modern F1 car is a vehicle for technicians, not artists.

I couldn't agree more, with one exception, though : I saw some outstanding performances on the part of Michael Schumacher

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by jpm2


I couldn't agree more, with one exception, though : I saw some outstanding performances on the part of Michael Schumacher

I can only think of two occasions where Michael has made me sit up and gasp - with the Ferrari in the wet at Barcelona in '96, and with the Benetton stuck in 5th gear there in '94. He so rarely has to 'drive out of his skin' that it's only the rare occasions when he does the near-impossible that astound me.

Most of his drives are supreme examples of a pure technician, with very little spectacle. To me, anyway.;)

[Mallory Dan]

Don't Japan '94 and '96 (considering the pressure he was under that day) count as "outstanding peformances" from Damon ?

I also feel he was very underrated, OK the Williams was a great car from 92-97, but he blew off Mansell when he returned, took Coulthard, who was highly rated at the time, apart in '95, and was at least the equal of JV in '96. Also lets not forget Hungary in '97, would have been one of the all-time upsets I reckon, and winning at Spa in 98 proved he could do it outside of Willys.

A good point brought up earlier was whether SFW and PH have ever admitted they got it wrong by sacking Damo in favout of HHF for '97. Anyone know anything about this ?

[D-Type]

It's a pity that the modern racing is so unspectacular. There have been countless races where Schumacher has pulled of the Hungarian revolving door* trick. He is 3rd or 4th approaching the mid-race pitstops and magically appears in the lead after them. But there has been nothing visible like lightning fast chapit stops nges or throwing the car around. The skill is there but it doesn't attract attention.


*A Hungarian businessman will enter a revolving door behind you and come out ahead of you.



Edit: I meant to say pit stops but typed (wheel) changes

[Tmeranda]

Originally posted by jpm2
You will pardon me saying but Damon Hill as the 11th best Grand Prix driver EVER is certainly an article of faith...

Much better than Graham Hill's record, don't you think? But was Parkes a better driver ? I don't think so. It just happened that he was at Ferrari's when the Italian Scuderia had the most powerful machine, and he started only 6 races (or 8, with Siracusa and Silverstone)...

Regards

I only have statistics on drivers of the post 1950 start of the World Championship so I can not comment on Nuvolari, Lang or Rosemeyer; but DH was better than Braham, Piquet, Lauda, Gurney, Hakkinen, Mansell and Peterson. You may not agree with my statistical approach, but after all the object of the game is to win, not just look good while failing. I did realize that I have not updated JV's record after his "comeback". Based on JV's current rate of non-success, DH may very well soon move up to 10th best. Another interesting aside, JV rates much higher than GV! That should start a real debate.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Tmeranda


I only have statistics on drivers of the post 1950 start of the World Championship so I can not comment on Nuvolari, Lang or Rosemeyer; but DH was better than Braham, Piquet, Lauda, Gurney, Hakkinen, Mansell and Peterson. You may not agree with my statistical approach, but after all the object of the game is to win, not just look good while failing. I did realize that I have not updated JV's record after his "comeback". Based on JV's current rate of non-success, DH may very well soon move up to 10th best. Another interesting aside, JV rates much higher than GV! That should start a real debate.

I fail to understand your criteria. The object of the game is to win, we agree on that. I wrote about it in the Spanish Forum. But, if the object of the game is to win, how on Earth can Damon Hill be considered better than the likes of Brabham, or Piquet, or Lauda (three time world champions, and winners of more races, each, than Damon) ?

If, on the other hand, you are considering not the overall totals of wins, but the percentages of points per race, than you'll be faced the sindrom of "one hit wonders" drivers, as I said befoe, and at the top of your list will appear the likes of Parkes, Karl Kling, and so forth. An obvious distortion, don't you agree?

The all thing is a matter of oppinion, of course. I attended my first Formula One race in 1959 and had the privilege to see fantastic drivers in action. Damon Hill is not one of them, although he otained good results when he was at Williams (but so did Jones, or Reutemann, or Rosberg, or Regazzoni, or Jacques Villeneuve).

[Keir]

As almost anyone can tell you, I rarely use the stat sheet to make decisions.

There are three things I truly believe.

Damon was pretty good, but he wasn't as good as Graham.

Michael was pretty good, but he wasn't as good as Mario.

Al Jr was pretty good, but he wasn't as good as Al.

[Tmeranda]

JPM2,

Brabham had 25 more GP's then DH yet 8 fewer victories.
Lauda needed 71 more GP's then DH to record only 3 more victories!
Piquet needed 103 more GP's to record only 1 more win than DH!

enought said.

As to "One hit wonders," you are taking the concept to the absurd (which , by the way, is one of my favorite tactics when making a point).

I think it is safe to save that DH was one of the most underrated GP drivers of all times. It is hard to say what would have happen if Frank Williams wasn't such a tight wad.

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
JPM2,

Brabham had 25 more GP's then DH yet 8 fewer victories.
Lauda needed 71 more GP's then DH to record only 3 more victories!
Piquet needed 103 more GP's to record only 1 more win than DH!

enought said.

As to "One hit wonders," you are taking the concept to the absurd (which , by the way, is one of my favorite tactics when making a point).

I think it is safe to save that DH was one of the most underrated GP drivers of all times. It is hard to say what would have happen if Frank Williams wasn't such a tight wad.

I don't think it's terribly difficult - another excellent Damon/JV battle in '97, probably splitting the points and letting Schumacher through to win the Drivers' title but with Williams taking the Constructors. Which as we know is what Sir Frank wants ;)

'98, customer engine, forget it, both Damon and Jacques get demoralised; Damon goes to Jordan for '99 and still loses the urge to race round about mid-season; Jacques goes off to BAR, farce ensues.

Only difference is without a strong team lead/development driver like Damon, Jordan's 98 season remains farcical rather than dramatically improving halfway through and they're nowhere near as strong into '99 -- certainly not outside hopes for a title.

Interestingly, it also places Williams in the "two new drivers" situation. Who could they have gone for in '99...? - Ralf/HHF?

[911]

I'm not much of a Damon fan, and I always thought that much of his success was due to the car he was driving (i.e. Williams), BUT his Arrows' drive in Hungary was simply amazing. I was rooting for him the whole time and I wanted to see him win. Had he pulled that off it would have probably been remembered as one of the best drives in the '90s, IMHO.

[jgm]

Although I think we should be cautious about answering such questions purely in statistical terms I seem to recall one figure that seriously surprised and impressed me. This was to the effect that Damon Hill posted more fastest GP laps than Aryton Senna.

[Tmeranda]

19 Fastest laps for DH vs. 18 for AS. Shocking to say the least.

[jcbc3]

I'm with Barry on this one. Before having given it thought I'd say Graham (triple crown and all that). But considering Damons statistics you have to say that it isn't clear cut at all.

[Barry Boor]

Time for me to chip in again, I think.

I have been delighted with the discussion on this thread. From the beginning, I was really playing Devil's Advocate.... I can't really say that I think one or the other was better because as several people have said, you simply cannot compare drivers from different eras and results, most emphatically, do NOT necessarily give a true reflection. (E.g. those fastest laps just mentioned and the results of the Villeneuves.)

I would have to say that if the thread was designed for a single purpose, it was to show that Damon Hill's racing achievements would seem to show him to be a better driver than many give him credit for.

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Tmeranda
JPM2,

Brabham had 25 more GP's then DH yet 8 fewer victories.
Lauda needed 71 more GP's then DH to record only 3 more victories!
Piquet needed 103 more GP's to record only 1 more win than DH!

enought said.

As to "One hit wonders," you are taking the concept to the absurd (which , by the way, is one of my favorite tactics when making a point).

I think it is safe to save that DH was one of the most underrated GP drivers of all times. It is hard to say what would have happen if Frank Williams wasn't such a tight wad.

Tmeranda

I don't think that I'm taking any concept to the absurd when I'm using the examples of Parkes or Kling . They did participate and you surely considered them both in your statistics. Could you please tell us how they stand in your list, what is their position in your statistics ?

And not only them. In what position, may I ask, do you rank men like, say, Froilan Gonzalez or Ludovico Scarfiotti ?

But if I was taking the concept to the absurd, I would ask you something like this: imagine, for instance, that Giancarlo Baghetti had the very bad luck to die in January 1962. How would he figure in the list of best drivers of all times ?

I think the answer to that question would be a very test to validate your criteria.

And that's the whole point here. As I said before, I do not understand your criteria. Maybe you could explain it, in detail ?

How do you compare results? Is it the overall results that matter? Or, the ratio of points (or wins, or pole-positions) per races entered?

And what do you value, exactly, and why?

What points system do you consider (as you know, they changed in the course of time) ?

I think that some explanation of that sort would probably shed some light in our disagreement.


PS: I do not think that fastest laps is a very trustworthy criteria of comparison, for several reasons, one of them being that the drivers are not all in the same footing to achieve it. Those who have abandoned in the first laps of a race, with their cars in full tanks (and in the 60s and 70s there were no refuelling pit-stops), don't stand a chance. That is why we can find people like Pescarolo credited with fastest laps in a Grand Prix.

[Doug Nye]

But for the fact that I fully appreciate this thread is a bit of harmless fun, I would be spitting blood over some of the posts here which promote World Championship-qualifying Formula 1 career statistics as being some kind of unchallengeable and faultless yardstick of a driver's value.

At least do Graham's memory the favour of including his non-Championship Formula 1 performances and then rolling in his record in non-F1 appearances as well as Damon's record in non-F1 appearances. It's still an act of fancy to attempt to compare such drivers from totally different periods - and in effect from two immensely different kinds of sporting activity - but if you really must do it, at least choose a meaningful basis of comparison between these two.

I don't profess to know what the answer is - but the F1 WDC statistical list ain't it!

DCN

[Ray Bell]

On that basis then, Doug, Damon's lack of wins at Longford and Lakeside go against him?

I think the biggest coincidence about the two is the fact that both struggle for recognition and are only seen among the 'great' by their results.

[Ian McKean]

When I first saw the title of this thread I was somewhat reluctant to get involved on the grounds that, as my late father once said to me, "Personal comparisons are always invidious". Perhaps DH reads this forum!

Then again, anyone living celebrity seems to be fair game these days, and as usual TNF as a whole has dealt with the subject in a very sensible and restrained way, so that I doubt DH would be too displeased at what most people think.

Having started, though I suppose I must get off the wall and say that I agree with Keir.

What I really wanted to say though, was that in the sixties I and no doubt all the other wrinklies who were young then would form opinions as to the merits of drivers based on all the events they competed in, not just F1 or WDC events. When Hill and others raced F2 against Brabham, Clark, Rindt etc. Lightweight E's against Salvadori, etc. and GT's against Parkes, etc. it was much easier to make a balanced judgement suitably discounting how good their F1 car was. And my balanced (IMHO) opinion was that Parkes was one of the real aces of the era, probably past his peak when he got to formula one, but still able to post some very good statistics. I think it would be a big mistake to say that a system of comparative evaluation was bad just because it allowed Parkes to come out ahead of better-known F1 drivers.

The question of why Williams preferred HHF to Damon is interesting, and I think the answer was that when they did the deal with HHF it was clear that DH would not match MS in equal cars. But it was claimed by some that HHF had been better in Mercedes junior team so might be able to match him in F1. So when you suspect or fear that your car may not always have an advantage, who do you go for - the man you know is good but not good enough to match the opposition (MS) in an equal car, or the man who may be good enough to match or beat MS even in an equal car? The logic and facts as known to Williams in 95/6 surely justified signing HHF at the expense of DH.

So HHF disappointed at Williams, but this is one of the most intriguing puzzles of the Nineties. I believe that HHF failed to do justice to himself at Williams and can only surmise that he had some setup or handling problem with the car that held him back. Without doing any analysis to support my gut feel, I find it impossible to believe that HHF did/does not have more natural ability than JV. Yet he was overshdowed by JV in 97.

Sorry if this is off topic!

{Edited to remove typos}

[petefenelon]

So HHF disappointed at Williams, but this is one of the most intriguing puzzles of the Nineties. I believe that HHF failed to do justice to himself at Williams and can only surmise that he had some setup or handling problem with the car that held him back.

Ian, I think the "problem" wasn't a technical one - I think it was a personality one. He wasn't a "Williams Driver" in the way that Regga, Rosberg, Jones, Mansell, Piquet, Prost, Jacques were for a while -- they were all pretty tough characters who could stand the fairly non-supportive atmosphere in the team. Damon was slightly different- I think he went from respected to revered as he held the team together post-Senna, but the relationship seemed to disintegrate when Jacques came into the setup.

I think HHF's career at Williams parallels Thierry Boutsen's - a highly talented driver, capable of race wins if not quite of Championship calibre, but essentially a quiet guy, reserved, formal, and not willing to get involved in the "vigorous" atmosphere there.

It doesn't even seem to matter if the results come or don't - I got the impression in '99 that Williams stood by Zanardi as long as they could because he was 'their sort of driver' despite his terrible season; the only thing that amazes me is how Ralf Schumacher stayed there so long given that there was clearly very little 'bonding' between him and the team...

I think more than any other top team, Williams is one where a driver makes his own luck - or at least carves his own niche. In some teams, drivers are 'components' to be slotted smoothly in and out; at Williams it seems that if you're the right sort of driver your relationship with the team is good; if not..... regardless of how good you are you'll be cast aside.

This season's interesting; Webber is and always was a 'Williams driver', but the maturity and gravitas that Heidfeld seems to be acquiring is fascinating. I never really rated him as a character before, but he's showing quite a lot of backbone.

[petefenelon]

I always wonder how Damon might've got on at McLaren, where it seems Ron is very keen to make his drivers feel 'part of the family'...

[jpm2]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
But for the fact that I fully appreciate this thread is a bit of harmless fun, I would be spitting blood over some of the posts here which promote World Championship-qualifying Formula 1 career statistics as being some kind of unchallengeable and faultless yardstick of a driver's value.

At least do Graham's memory the favour of including his non-Championship Formula 1 performances and then rolling in his record in non-F1 appearances as well as Damon's record in non-F1 appearances. It's still an act of fancy to attempt to compare such drivers from totally different periods - and in effect from two immensely different kinds of sporting activity - but if you really must do it, at least choose a meaningful basis of comparison between these two.

I don't profess to know what the answer is - but the F1 WDC statistical list ain't it!

DCN

I think that one can compare results of drivers from different eras, if one sticks to a single category or Formula, and if correction mechanisms are introduced into that comparison. Otherwise it would be pointless (and not fair at all to drivers of the 30s-60s) to compare the results obtained in, say, 2005, with its 19 World Championship Grand Prix, with, say, 1955, with its meagre 6 World Championship races.

As you say the F1 WDC statistical list ain't the way to do a worthy and fair comparison.

The system I work with has several mechanisms of correction. One of them is to consider some of the F1 non-cjhampionship races, in accordance with a criterium of "quality" of the race, i. e., the "quality" of the drivers who were there, that applies even to the WDC races. In "my championship", for instance, I do not consider the 1960 Italian Grand Prix. Not enough top-ranking drivers on track, that day...

And that is why, in "my championship", Jack Brabham has 23 victories (not the 14 of the official list)

and Graham Hill has 17 victories (not the 14 of the said list).

Of course, there's more to it than just victories. There are other items that do count. But the point is that in most of the selected criteriums both of them, Brabham and Graham, are in front of Damon

I can say more about the system, if anyone wants to know how it works.

Regards

[Arjan de Roos]

If I think of Graham Hill I also think of Monaco (5), Indy and many Le Mans entries. Quite a difference and with the many non champ races: a big difference (but a sign of time).

OT maybe, but I always wondered about this big auction of many racing attributes of Graham (helmets, signed documents, etc.), sold of around the end of the eighties. This was all property of the Hill family.
Was their financial situation not so as it is today?

[Vincenzo Lancia]

As far as I remember Winston Churchill is quoted for saying something like:

"There are lies, big lies and statistics!" ( quoted as said by memory )

The reason for this statement being so often true is in my mind a widespread mix up of the natures of quantity and quality. Statistics by nature tells you a lot about quantity but often very little if anything at all about quality.
Its in my mind a basic fact that as soon as you put things into a box to get the big picture, you are also telling a lie. All systems and statistics have their flaws, and these flaws only grows when it comes to telling something definitive about anything than numbers.
Terms like flair, talent, skill, style, courage, all sorts of personal individualities - are not very well covered by statistics - and all those things are imho a part of the quality of a racing driver.

I understand the temptation to find a system that shows a "fair" picture - but the problem is that it's the statistic maker that decides what's fair, and the more complicated any statistic is, the more traps it will contain. ( well ... haven't thought much about the last sentence.. )

Anyway - Statistics are good at numbers, and can be very informative and interesting, but they can imho NEVER tell THE truth about anything else than numbers.

Sorry if this has been said 117 times before, but if it has I guess it needs to be said again.

( in my very humble opinion )

Svend Seegert