All time best drivers?

[Bononi]

Truth is there's no such thing as All time best driver.

All champions are restricted to their own eras and can only be viewed within this paradigm.

Although I believe from the middle 90s backwards the cars presented much more challenges to a driver than the current ones.

[strider]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Truth is there's no such thing as All time best driver.

All champions are restricted to their own eras and can only be viewed within this paradigm.

Although I believe from the middle 90s backwards the cars presented much more challenges to a driver than the current ones.

That's all that needs to be said on the subject really.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Truth is there's no such thing as All time best driver.

All champions are restricted to their own eras and can only be viewed within this paradigm.

Although I believe from the middle 90s backwards the cars presented much more challenges to a driver than the current ones.

Doesn't stop people making lists though mate after all Murray managed to sell a DVD of his top 5

[F.O.F.]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Don't get me wrong I think the current best are highly talented but when you throw a serious risk of death into the equation that puts the accomplishments of a man like Fangio way onto another level.

I think it puts it into another context of heroic human achievement, the danger that is; like the way I marvel at motorbike road racers today. They're gladiators, pure and simple, like Fangio, Moss et al were.

But in terms of driving talent I think you can make a comparison, to a certain degree anyway. I would be confident that any successful F1 driver brought up in any other generation would be capable of success, but would they be brave enough to achieve it?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Nor do I think that 7 WDC's automatically puts Schumacher alongside Clark or Fangio.

That's right. It puts him leagues ahead of them.

The current crop are very talented. They wouldn't be in Formula One if they weren't. To be a true great, you need to win multiple WDCs while wiping the floor with your team mate. They don't come along very often and the last one we've seen was Schumacher in his prime*. Alonso is about the closest we have today, but he's managed to achieve nowhere near as much over the same period of time. Let's not forget, Alonso's completed the same number of full F1 seasons as Ayrton Senna's entire career there.

* We can not compare 41 year old Michael Schumacher of 2010 to the robot-like domineering figure of his heyday. So I'm not.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The current crop are very talented. They wouldn't be in Formula One if they weren't. To be a true great, you need to win multiple WDCs while wiping the floor with your team mate.

Even better if you can wipe the floor with your team-mate contractually before a wheel has been turned.

[Taprobane]

Personally I feel that the general standard in F1 is better than ever. Obviously my evidence for this is weak at best but I shall give it a go. Never before have so many people entered karting giving the sport a greater talent pool than ever before, just look at the numbers driving in junior formulae. Add this to greater professionalism and fitness amongst drivers and you get a higher general level of drivers. However this doesn't really help when comparing the very best.

Personally, I agree with most that Alonso is well on his way and Hamilton and Vettel also have the talent to put themselves up there. These guys are also very young and we are most hopefully in for a decade of titanic battles that will allow them to go down in history!

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Even better if you can wipe the floor with your team-mate contractually before a wheel has been turned.

Indeed, and galvanizing an entire [previously chaotic] team to do everything around you. Motor racing has always been about absolutely maximizing your advantage before you sit in the car - hence its nearly always the guy in the best car that wins, irrespective of how talented they are.

[Chiefy]

It's hard to know whether the guys we are watching now will be remembered as truly awesome drivers when they have so few accolades to their names at present.

After Hakkinen's two world titles Michael Schumacher pumped out five and Alonso then sealed two. How many guys were you watching in F1 during that era thinking maybe these will be remembered as greats? If none, then fair enough. But drivers who were once very highly regarded feel almost forgotten now. Fisichella, Trulli, Coulthard... They've all achieved more than Nico Rosberg, but what a great driver he looks at the moment!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Chiefy

It's hard to know whether the guys we are watching now will be remembered as truly awesome drivers when they have so few accolades to their names at present.

After Hakkinen's two world titles Michael Schumacher pumped out five and Alonso then sealed two. How many guys were you watching in F1 during that era thinking maybe these will be remembered as greats? If none, then fair enough. But drivers who were once very highly regarded feel almost forgotten now. Fisichella, Trulli, Coulthard... They've all achieved more than Nico Rosberg, but what a great driver he looks at the moment!

I wonder if in time this last decade will b elooked upon as anything great at all other than Schumi's seven titles.

We can all look through rose tinted glasses at the past, but the last decade for me has been nothing at all compared with the 90's and 80's. Maybe it is just age, I'm growing up at last.
The 2000-2010 decade hasn't excited me at all although this years title battle has revived interest.
So in ten years time will I remember Rosberg, Kubica, Alonso, Webber and Hamilton with the same respect and affection I think of when I consider Prost Senna, Mansell, Piquet, Rosberg snr, Warwick, berger, Nannini, Albereto, Cheever et al.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I wonder if in time this last decade will b elooked upon as anything great at all other than Schumi's seven titles.

We can all look through rose tinted glasses at the past, but the last decade for me has been nothing at all compared with the 90's and 80's. Maybe it is just age, I'm growing up at last.
The 2000-2010 decade hasn't excited me at all although this years title battle has revived interest.
So in ten years time will I remember Rosberg, Kubica, Alonso, Webber and Hamilton with the same respect and affection I think of when I consider Prost Senna, Mansell, Piquet, Rosberg snr, Warwick, berger, Nannini, Albereto, Cheever et al.

Alain Prost - 4 WDC
Ayrton Senna - 3 WDC
Nelson Piquet - 3 WDC

----------

Nico Rosberg - 0 WDC [and 0 wins]
Robert Kubica - 0 WDC [and 1 win]
Mark Webber - 0 WDC
Lewis Hamilton - 1 WDC
Fernando Alonso - 2 WDC

Given that the three from the 1980s achieved what they did during an era of immense competition, I think today's guys have quite some bar to clear before they could be considered all time greats.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Alain Prost - 4 WDC
Ayrton Senna - 3 WDC
Nelson Piquet - 3 WDC

----------

Nico Rosberg - 0 WDC [and 0 wins]
Robert Kubica - 0 WDC [and 1 win]
Mark Webber - 0 WDC
Lewis Hamilton - 1 WDC
Fernando Alonso - 2 WDC

Given that the three from the 1980s achieved what they did during an era of immense competition, I think today's guys have quite some bar to clear before they could be considered all time greats.

It wasn't about who was great, it was about how I feel towards them. The others I mentioned from the 80's & 90's didn't achieve any wins either but I remember them with some respect and affection.
I am not sure if this last decade will provide me with the same sense of a great GP era. In fact Iam bored by it. Its not that the drivers are mediocre but for me the racing has been unexciting and mostly very medicore.

[davyboy]

True the racing has been very processional these past few years, but I remember the same kind of thing back in the 1980s too. In fact 'field spread' back then was far greater than today.

[ASCII Man]

I think one of the reasons why people remember the drivers of old more fondly is because they still had this kind of mystique about them.
Not like now where a driver can just as much as sneeze, and we could read all about it in great detail on the multitude of internet blogs and newspapers.

But I guess they gotta write about something, even if it's only Heikki's body odor, or what Lewis had for dinner the day before.

I'd really like to strangle the life out of whoever writes those 'Driver X eyes Y' type of articles, though.
Well, maybe not strangle, but perhaps poke them with a hot cattle prod, or something.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by davyboy

True the racing has been very processional these past few years, but I remember the same kind of thing back in the 1980s too. In fact 'field spread' back then was far greater than today.

On some occasions yes it was processional but there was far more anticipation and excitement, for me anyway. Maybe, as I said, I'm just getting older.

[jab]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

I think one of the reasons why people remember the drivers of old more fondly is because they still had this kind of mystique about them.
Not like now where a driver can just as much as sneeze, and we could read all about it in great detail on the multitude of internet blogs and newspapers.

But I guess they gotta write about something, even if it's only Heikki's body odor, or what Lewis had for dinner the day before.

I'd really like to strangle the life out of whoever writes those 'Driver X eyes Y' type of articles, though.
Well, maybe not strangle, but perhaps poke them with a hot cattle prod, or something.

I agree with all of those things

I'd like to see someone in the media remove any rose-tinted glasses they may be wearing and actually objectively analyse, say, performances of drivers in the 1980s. I think people would be surprised by the findings - I'd be very surprised if the guys that are thought of as far better than the rest, your Sennas, Prosts, Piquets, Mansells etc, were actually that much better than the rest of the field. Problem is contemporary F1 writers don't take off their rose-tinted spectacles, probably because if they found out that an Alboreto or a Boutsen was as good as Mansell, it wouldn't make a good story

2009 taught me a lot. It's the first time there was almost a complete reversal of the form book. Suddenly drivers people thought of as not that great were winning races, and the accepted best drivers were struggling. It implies the gap between the top guys and the "second tier" isn't great

Granted, this year has reversed that a bit, but I still think you could apply this to most decades - maybe not the 50s and early 60s because you had a few talented guys and a lot of comparative amateurs at that point, but certainly the 70s and 80s. I'm sure there's a hidden gem of a driver everyone overlooks out there somewhere

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by jab

I'd like to see someone in the media remove any rose-tinted glasses they may be wearing and actually objectively analyse, say, performances of drivers in the 1980s. I think people would be surprised by the findings - I'd be very surprised if the guys that are thought of as far better than the rest, your Sennas, Prosts, Piquets, Mansells etc, were actually that much better than the rest of the field.

Senna and Prost were. Piquet and Mansell not so much. By the time the others were peaking, though, Piquet was on cruise mode.

Look at the facts - Senna destroyed de Angelis, who was no slouch (and generally on a similar pace to Mansell; and de Angelis destroyed Andretti in his second season). Prost was faster than Watson in his first season and destroyed Cheever, who was on a par with Lafitte, who nearly won the 1981 title; Prost was well faster than Lauda in 1984 and only lost the title thanks to accountancy. Prost also destroyed Johansson, Rosberg, Mansell...and Mansell destroyed Patrese, who was on a par with Boutsen. Who in turn was generally similar to Berger when they were at Arrows. There's a lot of stuff you can extrapolate. It all points to Senna and Prost being very, very special.

Your hidden gem of a driver is either Fittipaldi or Hunt; Emmo was champ in his third season and won his 4th F1vrace, a year out of FFord, but wrecked his career by going with Coppersucker, Hunt had maybe 3 years of peak, but was a champion in a 4 year old car - and marmelized a team-mate who wasn't that much slower than Fittipaldi.

As for the sixties...Clark, Hill G, Hill P, Surtees, Gurney, Brabham, McLaren, Stewart...ouchie.

[Paradise City]

Yes, I grew up with Prost and Senna racing and they where like knights surrounded by mystery.

The current drivers are not only my age but we are bombarded with information about them from specialist magazines, to in-depth reporting, to online news bombardment that strips away all that mystery.

[jab]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Senna and Prost were. Piquet and Mansell not so much. By the time the others were peaking, though, Piquet was on cruise mode.

Look at the facts - Senna destroyed de Angelis, who was no slouch (and generally on a similar pace to Mansell; and de Angelis destroyed Andretti in his second season). Prost was faster than Watson in his first season and destroyed Cheever, who was on a par with Lafitte, who nearly won the 1981 title; Prost was well faster than Lauda in 1984 and only lost the title thanks to accountancy. Prost also destroyed Johansson, Rosberg, Mansell...and Mansell destroyed Patrese, who was on a par with Boutsen. Who in turn was generally similar to Berger when they were at Arrows. There's a lot of stuff you can extrapolate. It all points to Senna and Prost being very, very special.

Yeah, I was perhaps wrong to bracket Senna and Prost in there as being overrated in basic terms. But what I mean is I don't really see an enormous gap between them and the rest. The field spread was greater but mainly because the guys at the bottom were worse - we've got a lot less properly rubbish drivers on the grid now; even the pay drivers have decent junior records

Plus obviously you've got a varying of factors - reliability is less prevalent today but for that reason more significant; there's more emphasis on consistency (someone like de Angelis or Albo would've done very well in F1 today); you don't get away with crashing as much today and everyone's less forgiving because we live in the multimedia internet age; and the differences in car performance are minimal

It'll be interesting to go through the figures. I've discovered some great season performances by converting to various points systems - de Angelis in 84 and 85, Alboreto in 92 in the Footwork, Fittipaldi in 94, Panis in 95. The old points system doesn't show how good some drivers actually were. Had they been using a more consistency-based system, while we can largely ignore the title battles due to the fact that they would've been different, the midfield may have been a very different place, and history might have turned out quite different

Does say a lot about how much F1's changed lately, though, that more drivers scored points in 1997 with the top 6 scoring, than this year with the top 10 scoring

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Wims

You are correct, it puts him way, way ahead of them.

You have to put those drivers in the context of when they were racing and this makes it hard to compare like for like.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by davyboy

True the racing has been very processional these past few years, but I remember the same kind of thing back in the 1980s too. In fact 'field spread' back then was far greater than today.

When I first followed F1 back in the '70s it was very processional. The highlight of a race would be one of the favourites, unexpectedly going out, with some thing like a broken gear linkage, or a broken wishbone; processional and attritional would some it up.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by jab

Yeah, I was perhaps wrong to bracket Senna and Prost in there as being overrated in basic terms. But what I mean is I don't really see an enormous gap between them and the rest. The field spread was greater but mainly because the guys at the bottom were worse - we've got a lot less properly rubbish drivers on the grid now; even the pay drivers have decent junior records

And they did then. If you took the top 24 drivers of 1983, say, who is the 24th? Ghinzani (a former Euro F3 champion)? Cecotto (F2 runner-up)? Johansson? Corrado Fabi? All excellent drivers. Even in the mad years like 1989 when there was pre-qualifying you had drivers like Foitek and Weidler who had won in F3000 or sportscars.

Originally Posted by jab

you don't get away with crashing as much today and everyone's less forgiving because we live in the multimedia internet age; and the differences in car performance are minimal

You get away with crashing MORE. Imagine Webber's with Kova under 1983 rules, let alone 1963...

Originally Posted by jab

It'll be interesting to go through the figures. I've discovered some great season performances by converting to various points systems - de Angelis in 84 and 85, Alboreto in 92 in the Footwork, Fittipaldi in 94, Panis in 95. The old points system doesn't show how good some drivers actually were. Had they been using a more consistency-based system, while we can largely ignore the title battles due to the fact that they would've been different, the midfield may have been a very different place, and history might have turned out quite different

Would it? Where would it have made a significant difference? Maybe an Alliot would have been higher up in the odd point battle - he had an amazing run of 6ths - but he was hardly the most consistent driver...

[jab]

Well I've gone through every season with the 10-8-6... system and yeah, it does have an impact

I'll post some stuff over the winter when I've not got much work to do