Greatest Racing Legend

[Heebeegeetee]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Maybe it depends how old you are. A lot of youngster's haven't known anything other than videogame style F1, and have been brought up believeing that strategy is an important and exciting part of F1.

The very idea that modern drivers need traction control and can't afford to take their hands off the wheel to change gear simply makes you wonder how they would have got on with more power (coming in far more agressively), and less grip that they had to contend with 20 years ago.

And if that wasn't enough, some of them had team-mates who were competing on equal terms.

It was a completely different playing field before gizmo F1, they even had to overtake on the circuit rather than wait for their 'competition' to stop.

Plus cars weren't as reliable, mechanical sympathy played an important part in the success (or lack thereof) of many drivers, nowadays there is a computer replacing the sensitive right foot (an example Fangio could use less fuel (+ brakes etc) than his rivals in similar cars while beating them).

But if you want to believe figures just look at Tom Kristensen, and believe that he is a much greater endurance driver than Jacky Ickx.

I think we're seeing this, this season. The moaning thats going on just because drivers are suddenly required to race and look after their tyres. The GP in which Kimi went flying off - I think almost every driver went off at some point. Kimi's drive, whereupon he drove absolutely flat out all race, rooted his tyres, and then proceeded to drive so fast until well, untill his car exploded really, was ridiculous in my view. That has never been the way to win a championship.

Todays drivers are still able to refuel. They've not been asked to set-up and qualify a car that has to then race all the way on a tank of fuel, with the change of load and handling that would entail. As peter says, they've still got their paddle shifts, and telemetry, and radios, and communications with team headquarters if need be, and speed limiters and a car with tremendous adjustability by turning knobs etc. All they've been asked to do is look after their tyres. And the moaning!

Re Schumi. I think his achievements are tremendous. He has been the very best driver for 10 whole years. I love his spirit and competitiveness. He never ever gives in. He will always take the fight to the other driver. He has always been hard to overtake and to keep behind. Has he ever cruised for points, other than to 'gift' some to a team-mate?

To stay at his peak and remain the best for 10 years or more is a tremendous achievement for any sportsman, and is reason why he could win this sporting legends contest. He's not the best driver, but is he the best sportsman of all time? I think he might be.

However, his competetition has not been great. Think of it this way: In years to come we will all read those 'who is the best driver of all time' articles. Hopefully, maybe in 40 years I will still be reading those ridiculous "We Name the Best 100 Drivers of all Time" pieces. How would you rate Schumis opposition? Hakkinnen was alright, but Damon was not that great, and Jacques Villeneuve certainly wasn't. Who else is there? Would any of Schumis oppos get into the top 20? I don't think so.

[Eric Falce]

Of course Jimmy Clark never drove 23s or Astons,Nuvo did'nt drive the most undrivable and powerfull GP cars,the Auto Union that would strip the tread off the rear tyres if not driven correctly,Fangio with the BRM,would also strip the rear tyres as the supercharger came in at 1200rpm,Ascari who we lost very early on but would beat Fangio.Moss who should not have won the first GP for Cooper at Monoco because he had to drive off line as his tyres where down to the canvas,the list and stories go on.Compare those drivers with any of the poffters at a recent GP who had state of the art machinery,can we dismiss Senna,Moss,Brabham,Hill(Graham,maybe the most unnatural world champion ever)but in my book a true great and even our own Nige who outdrove Senna on more than one occasion,hit the wall at Indy,'seems all ok,going to stay out' and wonthe F1 and Indy car championship back to back,I think they where all true greats in ther own era,cannot chose one over the other,wouldnt even try.

[Russfeld]

Competition is relative though, you could say Schumacher's opponents look rubbish because he makes them look that way.

[davemorganfan]

Originally Posted by D-Type

To be a legend is different from being the greatest. In boxing, Jack Dempsey is a legend but Gene Tunney beat him. HiRich has mentioned football's Pele, Best, Finney and matthews but forgot Beckenbauer and Puzkas(sp?)

To be a legend takes more than sheer skill and success. It's hard to put into words: a certain charisma, a feeling of 'here's someone special', a racer, call it a 'wow! factor'. And a legendary driver must have done at least one legendary thing. Although not essential, to have died at the wheel adds to the legendary status.

This sums up what we are looking for here - someone who may not be the best driver or the most succesful, but one who was special for some other reason - possibly a reason that you can't really define, but you can certainly feel.

All of those reasons specified by D-Type are valid, but you also need to add in the kind of driver who achieved remarkable results in the face of adversity. And who is better in that case than Archie Scott Brown?

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Maybe it depends how old you are. A lot of youngster's haven't known anything other than videogame style F1, and have been brought up believeing that strategy is an important and exciting part of F1.

The very idea that modern drivers need traction control and can't afford to take their hands off the wheel to change gear simply makes you wonder how they would have got on with more power (coming in far more agressively), and less grip that they had to contend with 20 years ago.

And if that wasn't enough, some of them had team-mates who were competing on equal terms.

It was a completely different playing field before gizmo F1, they even had to overtake on the circuit rather than wait for their 'competition' to stop.

Plus cars weren't as reliable, mechanical sympathy played an important part in the success (or lack thereof) of many drivers, nowadays there is a computer replacing the sensitive right foot (an example Fangio could use less fuel (+ brakes etc) than his rivals in similar cars while beating them).

But if you want to believe figures just look at Tom Kristensen, and believe that he is a much greater endurance driver than Jacky Ickx.

Well, Peter, I'm 55, and you will note that in an earlier post, I put Moss as my all time motor racing legend. Strategy was definitely part of his game plan, despite the fact that he was an out and out racer, too.

I'm not a great fan of driver aids but that really is not the fault of the drivers, most of who have come through various formulae where such aids are not so prevalent. I think most drivers that arrive in F1 still have substantial degrees of natural skill, otherwise they would not have got there in the first place. We cannot deny them their right to greatness if they achieve it by having to develop a different skill set.

Michael Schumacher, like every driver before him has his flaws but I am certain that his skills as a driver would have made him great in any era. I actually feel that he has had fairly strong opposition, but has seen each one of them off, in turn. They may not consistently, have been at the same level of intensity as the Prost, Senna, Mansell era, but then that wasn't so long ago either, when the nature and course (strategy, driver aids, tyre technology etc) on which F1 has now arrived was already well and truly set.

I cannot begrudge MS his WDCs; they are a fact, so how can they be a distortion of history? Records are there to be broken and it may well be that circumstances, like rules and regulations changes, technological evolution, development of new strategies plus the steady increase in the number of races in a season, have combined to create a situation that has made it, arguably, easier to break them. In no way does it reduce the particular skills that Michael has had in exploiting them. If he wins more, it is down to the failure of others to extract the same levels of performance out of those circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily say more about his rivals. You could just as easily come to the conclusion that it has merely served to emphasise his own abilities.

Scumacher's achievements whether they will be added to or not, will not have diminished those of his predecessors. It is not that long ago when we thought that Prost's number of GP victories would never be beaten. Now that they have, do we think his status as one of the greatest drivers has lessened? Did his own record overshadow the legendary status of Stewart, Clark, Moss, Fangio or Nuvolari? I fervently hope not, and certainly not in my eyes.

Gilles Villeneuve achieved very few GP victories and, like Moss, not one WDC, yet, as some posters have already implied, his legendary status is almost universally unchallenged. So, no, statistics do not tell the whole story and it is as much some of Michael's great individual drives as the number of WDCs he records which will ensure that he joins the list of legendary drivers.

Finally, no, not even Tom Kristensen himself, considers that he is as great an endurance driver as Jacky Ickx (or, in my view, Derek Bell and one or two others!) but any man who achieves 7 Le Mans victories has, nevertheless, to be regarded as a great endurance driver.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by D-Type

To be a legend is different from being the greatest. In boxing, Jack Dempsey is a legend but Gene Tunney beat him. HiRich has mentioned football's Pele, Best, Finney and matthews but forgot Beckenbauer and Puzkas(sp?)

To be a legend takes more than sheer skill and success. It's hard to put into words: a certain charisma, a feeling of 'here's someone special', a racer, call it a 'wow! factor'. And a legendary driver must have done at least one legendary thing. Although not essential, to have died at the wheel adds to the legendary status.

Camille Jetnazy
Barney Oldfield
Tazio Nuvolari (but not Achille Varzi who was possibly the better driver but doesn't qualify as a legend)
Berndt Rosemeyer
Juan Manuel Fangio
Stirling Moss (if you're British)
Mario Andretti
A J Foyt (if you're an American)
Gilles Villeneuve
Ayrton Senna da Silva
several NASCAR drivers

A few examples of top drivers but not legends
Henry Segrave
Tony Brooks
Jim Clark
Jackie Stewart
Nelson Piquet

Whilst I generally agree that there is a theoretical difference between great and legendary, I think that history, in practice, very often erodes that difference, since a 'great' to one generation becomes a 'legend' to the next.

I'm also struggling a little with these lists. I think you will find that Moss has legendary status well beyond British shores and why would NASCAR throw up a significantly greater proportion of legends than other forms of motorsport as implied by the word 'several'.

As for the list of top drivers who are not legends, I wonder how many would agree that Jim Clark is not already a legend, and that Stewart, if not now, will become one.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by jjordan

Hope you don't mind a Yank throwing one in.. Why does everyone overlook Graham Hill? Certainly not a better ambassa dor of the sport. Car owner/team owner when his years were on the wane, willing to give it back (or just couldn't walk away. There's a fine line there.)

Yes, Graham Hill's achievements both as a driver, without the blinding natural talent of Jim Clark, and outside the car, are certainly worthy of consideration. However, and sadly for Graham, we would usually be very far into the debate before his name cropped up, which probably tells us that ultimately, he would not be regarded as a legend, ...... but then again ....!!!

[D-Type]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Whilst I generally agree that there is a theoretical difference between great and legendary, I think that history, in practice, very often erodes that difference, since a 'great' to one generation becomes a 'legend' to the next.

I'm also struggling a little with these lists. I think you will find that Moss has legendary status well beyond British shores and why would NASCAR throw up a significantly greater proportion of legends than other forms of motorsport as implied by the word 'several'.

As for the list of top drivers who are not legends, I wonder how many would agree that Jim Clark is not already a legend, and that Stewart, if not now, will become one.

I said 'Several' NASCAR drivers simply because I don't follow the series and don't know enough to about them to differentiate between 'great' and 'legendary'. Also the NASCAR publicity machine focuses on drivers and creates 'instant legends'.

I put Jim Clark in the non-legends to emphasise the difference I was trying to draw between 'great' and 'legendary'. He, Stewart and Piquet appear on anybody's list of 'greats' but I feel none has that special extra 'something' to be a legend.

Curiously, from an Indianapolis perspective Jim Clark is a legend because he stands out. His quiet unassuming manner was a contrast with the brash American driver stereotype; he came in a 'funny' foreign car - and won; he spun the car, caught the spin and carried on, which was something you just couldn't do in a traditional Indianapolis roadster - if you spun you either went into the wall or spun down into the infield- so they talked about it and effectively said 'wow!'

You don't have to be a 'great' to qualify as a legend. Pierre Levegh qualifies for his 1952 Le Mans drive coupled with his tragic death.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by D-Type

he spun the car, caught the spin and carried on, which was something you just couldn't do in a traditional Indianapolis roadster - if you spun you either went into the wall or spun down into the infield- so they talked about it and effectively said 'wow!'

I don't think many people could have caught (or even deliberately spun to avoid a rabbit) any car at Indy, which is one of the reasons I think you have to consider Jim Clark to have been one of the best racing drivers ever (he clearly had exceptional reactions/control - things like switching off the electrical switches in mid-accident is not something that many people would think to do - certainly far more on top of his situation than someone like Raikkonen who didn't even lift off the brake pedal to avoid flat spotting a tyre).

Calling these people legends is always going to be controversial - most legends are mythical, I think it should really be a question about outstanding talents in any period (e.g. the dominant sports people of their times - Fangio, Clark, Senna etc all tended to stand out because of their consistant good results, as Schumacher does now (but I still feel his situation is far more condusive to that than it has been for other people) and as did people like Mohammed Ali in other fields).

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by D-Type

I said 'Several' NASCAR drivers simply because I don't follow the series and don't know enough to about them to differentiate between 'great' and 'legendary'. Also the NASCAR publicity machine focuses on drivers and creates 'instant legends'.

I put Jim Clark in the non-legends to emphasise the difference I was trying to draw between 'great' and 'legendary'. He, Stewart and Piquet appear on anybody's list of 'greats' but I feel none has that special extra 'something' to be a legend.

Curiously, from an Indianapolis perspective Jim Clark is a legend because he stands out. His quiet unassuming manner was a contrast with the brash American driver stereotype; he came in a 'funny' foreign car - and won; he spun the car, caught the spin and carried on, which was something you just couldn't do in a traditional Indianapolis roadster - if you spun you either went into the wall or spun down into the infield- so they talked about it and effectively said 'wow!'

You don't have to be a 'great' to qualify as a legend. Pierre Levegh qualifies for his 1952 Le Mans drive coupled with his tragic death.

O.K. I understand; I was hoping to tease a few NASCAR names out of you!

From my dictionary, I learn that one of the defintions of 'legend' is ' person, act, or thing that inspires legends'! And 'legendary' is 'celebrated as if in a legend, very famous'. On that basis, I would have thought Clark fills that criteria. I take your point about Levegh though; makes me wonder whether legend is the right word to be using, since it seems that even in the context of motor racing we have different understandings of its meaning.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Calling these people legends is always going to be controversial - most legends are mythical, I think it should really be a question about outstanding talents in any period (e.g. the dominant sports people of their times - Fangio, Clark, Senna etc all tended to stand out because of their consistant good results, as Schumacher does now (but I still feel his situation is far more condusive to that than it has been for other people) and as did people like Mohammed Ali in other fields).

Yes, would tend to agree with that. As we have said before on similar threads, it's an impossible task to compare drivers from different periods but we always generate a lot of discussion and fun trying!

[jjordan]

OK, I can understand the distinction bewteen Jimmy Clark and Graham Hill, legend-wise. But all that has been talked about here are "circuit" drivers. Where does that leave a guy like Sir Malcolm Campbell? Certainly his "persona" was as big as any ones during his time.
I don't know how I feel about Michael, If, as some have said, the time was right for him, certainly the same could have been said about Mario when he jumped in Chapman's flyer.

[gfm]

Yes, Ali was a legend indeed.
Two personal legends for me were Graham Hill who was absolutely one of the funniest of men, just ask Eric Morcombe, and Jochen Rindt, an earlier version of Senna.
I think we've said this before here, but what Mansell did the year after his WC in America was for me, legendary. Going out there and taking the US crown first time was so very special.

[Alibell]

My Top 10 are:[B]
Tazio Nuvolari
Jim Clark
Michael Schumacher
Ayrton Senna
Fangio
Gilles Villeneuve
Jackie Stewart
Alain Prost
Nelson Piquet
Mario Andretti

I notticed that neither Stewart or Clark, Colin McRae even got a mention on the Sporting Legends Program.
Then Mansell,Hill, Moss are English no bias there ...perish the thought.

[Dutch chap]

A list that doesn't include Jimmy is not worth discussing.

[Mackmot]

Legend - An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.


Therefore Andy Barton is the greatest legend.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Alibell

My Top 10 are:[B]
Tazio Nuvolari
Jim Clark
Michael Schumacher
Ayrton Senna
Fangio
Gilles Villeneuve
Jackie Stewart
Alain Prost
Nelson Piquet
Mario Andretti

I notticed that neither Stewart or Clark, Colin McRae even got a mention on the Sporting Legends Program.
Then Mansell,Hill, Moss are English no bias there ...perish the thought.

I agree that it is extremely odd that those three Englishman should be mentioned but not Clark or Stewart. On the other hand, I see not a single Englishman in your list, so no bias there either, then? Any list of motor racing legends without Moss in, is just as flawed as one without Clark in (and possibly Stewart) and as for Nelson Piquet, he would barely be a blip on my radar. Opinions you see ..... they'll always bring out the best and the worst in us.

[gttouring]

legends seem to have done something, or been riding in their cars with the gods.
Moss, Zanardi, (in the same sentence who would have thought) Senna sadly perished, Schumacher is a legend living and driving- his past and even present drives really show him as someone who will show up on highlight films forever-
Braun says "michael, we need to shave a couple of tenths form the next laps to catchup (or keep space for the pit stop)."
and michael replies by setting the fastest laps of the race and making up a couple of tenths on each lap out. A mere great driver couldn't do that, but Michael does.
Prost- Kristensen will be a legend if he isn't already... so many of the drivers we see do so well will be so. but many we know will not. Damon Hill- bless him, will not be considered a legend, or have legend about him, but Carlos Sainz will and is!
Tommi Makinnen- another.
we have experienced a many great ones in the 90's and today huh?

[Dutch chap]

Originally Posted by gttouring

legends seem to have done something, or been riding in their cars with the gods.
Moss, Zanardi, (in the same sentence who would have thought) Senna sadly perished, Schumacher is a legend living and driving- his past and even present drives really show him as someone who will show up on highlight films forever-
Braun says "michael, we need to shave a couple of tenths form the next laps to catchup (or keep space for the pit stop)."
and michael replies by setting the fastest laps of the race and making up a couple of tenths on each lap out. A mere great driver couldn't do that, but Michael does.
Prost- Kristensen will be a legend if he isn't already... so many of the drivers we see do so well will be so. but many we know will not. Damon Hill- bless him, will not be considered a legend, or have legend about him, but Carlos Sainz will and is!
Tommi Makinnen- another.
we have experienced a many great ones in the 90's and today huh?

Sorry, I don't follow you. Zanardi is an extreme remarkable man, a great sportsman too, but not a legendary DRIVER. Sainz and Makinnen, very good rally drivers, but legends?

[lj79]

My humble opinion and vote goes for Bob Wollek. Nuff said really

[Dutch chap]

Originally Posted by lj79

My humble opinion and vote goes for Bob Wollek. Nuff said really

I quite understand your feelings about this great driver, especially when we look how it all ended for Bob, but again I say, a legend, meaning people will not only remember him when asked about him, but mention his name spontaniously as a legend, sorry, no.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by gttouring

Schumacher is a legend living and driving- his past and even present drives really show him as someone who will show up on highlight films forever-
Braun says "michael, we need to shave a couple of tenths form the next laps to catchup (or keep space for the pit stop)."
and michael replies by setting the fastest laps of the race and making up a couple of tenths on each lap out. A mere great driver couldn't do that, but Michael does.

It is very unlikely that he suddenly finds a way of making the car go quicker than it was previously capable.
It is more likely that he was not driving the car as fast as it could possibly go.
When you are in the lead that is fine, since there is no benefit from winning by a bigger margin, but when you aren't in the lead it would be reasonable to expect a highly paid superstar to drive as fast as possible.
That is probably not a reflection on Schumacher, more one on the poor state of F1 these days.

A better case was when he lost a gear and adapted his driving to accomodate that while only losing a tiny amount of time each lap.

[Alibell]

Re: John Turner.
Hi John,
No English Drivers...Reason, not because they were English, but the following.

Jimmy Clark (F1 title wins at South Africa:Spa:Clermont Ferrand:Silverstone:Nurbergring: & Indy 500 in the same year 1965). Polls & ratio of race wins were incredible. Only beaten by Senna & later Schumacher.

Jackie Stewart - 25 wins in 100GP Career + 3 World Titles.

My "England" remark was at the usual bias in the media.
It's still there DC & C McR have had it too.

Cheers...Pity there wasn't still a Driver like GV..his passion & style is what's missing.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Alibell

Re: John Turner.
Hi John,
No English Drivers...Reason, not because they were English, but the following.

Jimmy Clark (F1 title wins at South Africa:Spa:Clermont Ferrand:Silverstone:Nurbergring: & Indy 500 in the same year 1965). Polls & ratio of race wins were incredible. Only beaten by Senna & later Schumacher.

Jackie Stewart - 25 wins in 100GP Career + 3 World Titles.

My "England" remark was at the usual bias in the media.
It's still there DC & C McR have had it too.

Cheers...Pity there wasn't still a Driver like GV..his passion & style is what's missing.

Hi, Alibell, I think my post agreed with your choice of Clark and I didn't argue much about Stewart either. However, Moss 16 GP wins including 3 legendary drives that immediately come to mind - 1958 Argentina, 1961 Monaco, 1961 Germany. Then there are 4 Nurburgring 1000kms wins, 7 TT wins, the fastest Mille Miglia ever (1955) and Targa Florio win (1955) and those are just those that I can recall. If that doesn't provide the credentials to make a driver both great and legendary, then I actually don't think anyone fits the bill! I agree about Gilles, just 6 Gp wins (I think!), yet, as I said in an earlier post on this thread, truly a legend!

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Dutch chap

Sorry, I don't follow you. Zanardi is an extreme remarkable man, a great sportsman too, but not a legendary DRIVER.

Possibly true but I'm not sure followers of CART would agree. I'm not an expert on American series but did he not win the CART championship twice in the face of strong opposition? One particular overtaking move on the last lap out of the corkscrew at Laguna Seca is regarded as one of the greatest overtakes ever in any formulae, and has on its own, acquired legendary status. However, I guess the jury is still out on whether Zanardi is, or will be regarded as a legendary driver. On the other hand all his exploits in life, including those as a driver certainly make him a legend. As you can see from this post, I'm in two minds here!!

[Alibell]

Hi John,
I take your point.
I've had the same questioning on my other sporting interest.
Namely cycling.
This past while the cycling press in going on about Lance Armstrong being the Greatest.
I personally think Eddy Merckx was miles ahead as he competed in all the Classics & Tours & won most of them. (More times than anyone else).
But I digress, I think my point is each has there own merit, in the case of Clark,Stewart & Moss. And comparing different eras is very subjective.

The Legend part is the unique talent or ability to come up with memorable races when it counts. Possibly Clark at Indy 500, Jackie Stewart winning in the German GP in the rain.
I think we are covering the same ground.
Ali.