F1 Racing's Top 100 Drivers of all Time (merged)

[Sirio]

What about the most forgotten F1 world champ in history? Denny Hulme?
I would suspect that he struggled to make the top 50 as he is hardly mentioned in any articles.
For example in all the adverts for Grandprix Legends they mention about five drivers from the 67 session but they don’t even mention the world champ from that year.
I wonder if the next Kiwi world drivers champ Scott Dixon will be forgotten 30 years after he was WDC?

[Andrew2001]

Í would say that listing is pretty realistic actually.

[Adam43]

Yes, nothing conreversial there. Fair enough. I'd always put Prosty higher, but there we go.

[RWC]

I wonder if a 'plus & minus' system would help sort them out in these lists?
For instance senna may not have been the most naturally tallented but he was certainly the most dedicated ever

or G.vilenueve being outrageously tallented but not having a clue about car development or testing

That would help place alot of drivers in the list-but of course it would be a 'best overall' list .Prob why they've done other types of polls mentioned a few posts back

[Adam43]

Originally posted by RWC
For instance senna may not have been the most naturally tallented but he was certainly the most dedicated ever

I always thought Senna was top draw in ability terms. Schumacher perhaps more dedicated. Senna was dedicated, true -he had to be - but his fittness was poor at first. I'd rate Senna's natural talent above his dedication. Although his desire was perhaps the thing that pushes even higher.

[krt917]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
This one seems quite biased towards the TV age.

You're not kidding!!!

Originally posted by Damon
32. Raikkonen
34. Alonso
36. J. Villeneuve
38. Montoya
48. Barrichello
53. Coulthard
59. Irvine
64. Fisichella
67. Trulli
70. Webber
71. Frentzen
75. Panis
80. Herbert
84. R. Schumacher
93=. Button
93=. Brundle

Apart from the fact that I'd change the order of the top guys - as you do depending on your own views and experiences, the above names are the ones most unbelievable. Kimi at 32! Maybe in a few years time, but not now. I haven't seen the rest of the list, but I'm sure that I can come up with more than 31 names who should be ahead of him. Definitely too much emphasis on recent years, which may be indicative of who they asked.

Personally, I wouldn't have Eddie ahead of Brundle either, despite his GP wins.

As others have said though, it's all good in sparking debate.

[krt917]

Originally posted by JGM
I always get annoyed when these lists are made as they invariably underestimate/forget Emerson Fittipaldi. He won the UK Formula Ford championship in 1969. A year later he was winning his first F1 GP in a works Lotus. In 1972 he became the youngest WDC ever. He went on to win another WDC in 1974 and but for his crazy decision to join his brother's hopeless outfit in 1976 he would certainly have won a third title with what turned out to be James Hunt's car. He could probably have carried on and matched Fangio's record. Nevertheless he made a second, brilliant career for himself in Champ Cars and won his last Champ Car race in 1995 - 25 years after his first GP win. Why is it that people forget this guy?

Don't know why people forget him as Fittipaldi was an undoubted great (I don't know where he was on the list). However, I don't beleive he would have been as quick as Hunt in the M23. In the right mood, Hunt's pace was unbelievable - look at some of his qualifying efforts in '77. I'd also have been surprised if he'd gone on to match Fangio's record - I don't think he stood out form the mid-70s grid to that degree.

Dont' get me wrong though, a great driver and, if we look outside F1, he would certainly score 'versatility' points for his success in the States.

[N I Tram]

Originally posted by JGM
I always get annoyed when these lists are made as they invariably underestimate/forget Emerson Fittipaldi. He won the UK Formula Ford championship in 1969. A year later he was winning his first F1 GP in a works Lotus. In 1972 he became the youngest WDC ever. He went on to win another WDC in 1974 and but for his crazy decision to join his brother's hopeless outfit in 1976 he would certainly have won a third title with what turned out to be James Hunt's car. He could probably have carried on and matched Fangio's record. Nevertheless he made a second, brilliant career for himself in Champ Cars and won his last Champ Car race in 1995 - 25 years after his first GP win. Why is it that people forget this guy?

This is very true. He is very similar to Jacques in these ways, and definately would make my top 10.

Piquet seems very excessively placed. At Brabham he had superior hardware on performance, and it wasn't exactly all above board either. When paired with Schumacher or Mansell he was somewhat showed up, and he has to take some of the blame for Lotus' demise.

[Adam43]

TV age?
50-80 non TV age: ~30 years
80-85 transition: ~5 years
85-04 TV age: ~20 years.
Well we are approaching the time when the TV is nearly as long as the non TV age.
Also this has also coincided with an age when drivers started to take it more seriously - professionally.

Look at some of the greats - Moss, Stewart, Lauda... These all achieved success because they were more like modern drivers than their contemporaries. If that is a measure of success then perhaps it isn't suprising that some of the lesser lot in the top 100 contain a lot (although no where near all) of those that are more professional.

However I do agree. The votes are effected because of the age of people voting. Younger people haven't seen the older drivers.

[santori]

Originally posted by N I Tram
This is very true. He is very similar to Jacques in these ways, and definately would make my top 10.

Piquet seems very excessively placed. At Brabham he had superior hardware on performance, and it wasn't exactly all above board either. When paired with Schumacher or Mansell he was somewhat showed up, and he has to take some of the blame for Lotus' demise.

See my previous post.
Also, regarding the legality of his Brabham, remember that at that time all the teams sailed pretty close to illegality. I think Brabham only started using the 'rocket fuel' in '83 after the governing body refused to censure Renault for some of its erm... inovations. And Rosberg said at the time that while he liked Prost very much (and didn't much like Piquet) he hoped the Brabham won because he was tired of Renault's games.

Nelson was outpaced more often than not by Michael but that was at the end of his career - and he still outscored Michael. That is often forgotten - you read that Michael beat all his team-mates. No - he beat all but Piquet.

I find the different reactions to Piquet and Lauda puzzling. Perhaps people are reluctant to criticise Niki because of what he went through after the Nurburgring?
Much of the criticism of Nelson could be applied to Niki: both didn't always perform at their best and both could be a right *****. But both were also brilliant and amusing and intelligent.

[santori]

And on another point - H2F is rated far too low. Only 11th of those racing in recent years. Have they forgotten '95 and '99? He almost won the championship in a car which shouldn't have been near it. Whereas Mika (no.11!) nearly lost it despite having by far the best car.

p.s. though I like Mika and think he was superb at times (esp. '98).

[Damon]

Ok, so by notable I meant recent, plus their dads where neccesary. Here's the placings of the few others asked for:

Fittipaldi - 15th
Brabham - 12th
Hulme - 39th

Any more?

[santori]

Rindt.

[Damon]

A surprisingly low 16th.

[santori]

Humph.

(thanks).

[Teretonga]

I dont agree with the idea that the drivers from the sixties/seventies were less professional than their later 90's/millenium drivers. Thats like saying Roger bannister, peter Snell and John walker were less dedicated/professional than present day runners and triathletes. What is physically required to be competitive (often becuase of modern nutitional/physiology knowledge) may be different to what was the regime of older traing methods but it simply doesn't hold water. How is Button more dedicated/professional than G. Hill, Gurney, Brabham, McLaren or Clark?
Making up a list of 100 greatest drivers is not too hard. You'll get agreement on 70-80 of them anyway. 20-30 of them will be contestable. But ranking them? A top ten with four or five on the cusp maybe. A top twenty with 5-6 on the cusp perhaps. atop 50 with 10-15 on the cusp is possible. A top 100 in order-no way.

[Rennen]

I agree with Damon. Manell should be in the top 10 instead of Piquet...and I agree with baclightning...my personal list had Brabham in 17th.

F1 Racings ranking was based on the "Greatest F1 Drivers since 1950" and they asked a very large number people involved in and around F1. I assume they added up the names as votes?

I've been following F1 since 1957 (when Mike Hawthorn won the last title for a front engined car)

My greatest 10 of 25 reads...
CLARK (He came down from heaven to race mere mortals and was snatched back, sublime natural talent)
SCHUMACHER (The ultimate focused driver)
SENNA (The most passionate, blind faith and most commited)
FANGIO (A Legend passed into folklaw)
STEWART (Thinking professional)
PROST (The Prof' won with the minimum effort)
MANSELL (True Grit! Bravest driver ever)
MOSS (The first professional and for that race at the old Nurburgring in the early 60's where he left the all the more powerful Ferraris behind on lap one in his punny little Lotus)
LAUDA (Enzo "Lauda is Lauda")
GURNEY (Any driver who was the most feared by Clark is only separated by 8 places because of the passage of new talent)

I wrote down every F1 driver I could think off...cut them out then shifted them about whilst referring to their races and CVs. A process of elimination if you will, I left out a few one-off titlists and the barmy exhibitionists!

[Rennen]

I rated Rindt 13th.

[Rennen]

I ranked Fittipaldi 11th, Hunt didn't feature in my top 25.

[Dixie Flatline]

Surely, Sir Jack Brabham should be top ten, if not top five. I mean, he built his own car to win the world championship! Who else will ever be able to say they did that?

IMHO, Raikkonen and Alonso, while clearly talented, haven't done enough yet to merit inside the top forty. Bottom of the top fifty at best for them.

Hakkinen at 11? Just wrong (IMHO!).

[Ryo28]

Originally posted by Dixie Flatline
IMHO, Raikkonen and Alonso, while clearly talented, haven't done enough yet to merit inside the top forty. Bottom of the top fifty at best for them.

Perhaps they shouldn't put current drivers on the list at all unless they've driven 100 GPs or so? Who can say at this stage with any certainty who is the best between Raikkonen, Alonso and Montoya, let alone where they rank in terms of the top 100 since 1950?

[krt917]

Yes, I think that might be a good idea, though mags might baulk at that as it might put some, how shall I say, less 'historically interested' readers off!

Dixie, as Teretonga says, putting the drivers in order really is very difficult and subjective. I guess the main thing is that the right drivers are there in roughly the right regions of the top hundred (which isn't necessarily the case here). I think 12th is pretty good for Jack. Definitely a great and had the technical ability to build up his own team, but he wasn't quite on a Moss (I'm sure I've read somewhere that even he though Stirling was the top man when Jack was winning his first two titles) or Clark level.

Looks around for Deeks, waiting for his arrival

[BootsOntheSide]

100 Grand Prixs is too long a time to wait really - remember that Clark only did 51 races and Stewart 99. You can usually get an idea of how good someone is after 50 races, although it took Mika and Nigel much longer to win.

I think the original list is pretty good, but I'd agree that Piquet doesn't belong in the top 10. In Lauda's defence, I'd say that it was only his withdrawal in Fuji 76 that stopped him beinf the first driver since Fangio to win 3 titles on the trot, and his 1984 championship included a succession of gret fighting drives.

[Ryo28]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
100 Grand Prixs is too long a time to wait really - remember that Clark only did 51 races and Stewart 99. You can usually get an idea of how good someone is after 50 races, although it took Mika and Nigel much longer to win.

I originally thought about 50 races would be right, but then thought about drivers like Button/Montoya/Raikkonen... also by the end of this season Alonso/Webber will have done 50 ish starts as well...and as you said it took Mansell and Hakinen longer than 50 starts to show their full potential - its a tricky one...

[Bleu]

Few drivers still with my interest to their positions?

Keke Rosberg?
Ronnie Peterson?
Btw, who was placed #100.