A World Champ ALWAYS rates over a non World Champ - Discuss

[krt917]

Originally Posted by deeks6

I was going to bow out but I guess I have to quickly reply to my other old (respected) sparring partner (welcome to the thread krt917).

Thank you

Originally Posted by deeks6

I'll answer your question 1st - No. I would probably name about 200 drivers (seriously) - I would also name the 20-something that have won the WDC and explain that it is the pinnacle of the sport. Thats my point - it's not "one statistical way" of rating drivers ... it is a series of statistics, events, emotions, control, luck, teamwork and a million other things all rolled into one ... that's why it's my line in the sand. .

I agree with the observation, and point about the many variables, but that is the argument that I would use to say that you shouldn't draw a line in the sand (though see my post below)! Especially one based on a single statistic that fails to highlight many of the factors of which you speak.

Originally Posted by deeks6

And for your last question (s) - I have no idea ... I'd suggest they could all get a race car around a track fairly swiftly ... but what I can tell you is that the difference between the lot of them would be something in the order of 0.1 or 0.2% at the most. Those are the increments we are dealing with so (in a way) I'm saying that one man's Moss is another man's Gurney or, in our case, one man's Brabham is another man's Stewart and one man's AJ is another man's Nige.

Now that, I do agree with. Having studied History at Uni, I always try to be as objective as possible, but some calls are so close I'm sure it does come down to personal preference or experience much of the time.

[krt917]

Talking of lines in the sand, how about wins-to-start ratios?

Here are the top 27 (because that's the number of World Champions). In bold are the drivers who make this list, but did not win the WDC:
1. Fangio (24/51 = 47.1%)
2. Ascari (41.9)
3. Clark (34.7)
4. Stewart (27.3)
5. Prost (25.6)
6. Senna (25.5)
7. Moss (24.2)
8. Hill, D (19.1)
9. Mansell (16.6)
10. Brooks (15.8)
11. Farina (15.2)
12. Lauda (14.6)
13. Hakkinen (12.4)
14. Piquet (11.3)
15. Brabham (11.1)
16. Hunt (10.9)
17. Jones (10.3)
18. Rindt (10.0)
19. Fittipaldi (9.7)
20. Andretti (9.4)
21. Villeneuve, G (9.0)
22. Schekter (8.9)
23. Reutemann (8.2)
24. Peterson (8.1)
25. Hill, G (8.0)
26. von Trips (7.4)
27. Hulme (7.1)

I've left off current drivers, though several of them would make it onto the list (Schuey would be around Clark).

World Champs now not on the list:
Hawthorn (6.7)
Hill, P (6.3)
Surtees (5.4)
Rosberg (4.4)

Other notables
Ickx (6.9)
Gurney (4.7)
Pironi (4.3)

A few changes there. Do we think the list is any better? Personally, I think it gains in some areas but is still far from perfect. As Menelaos has said, there are simply too many factors that the stats can't show. However, as someone who favours a wins approach, I find this list quite interesting...

[BSchneiderFan]

But, like any other list, it hides a huge number of variables. Ickx, for example, spent a lot of the 1970s driving for terrible or indifferent teams for whom a win would have been a miracle. Does it make him a lesser driver? I would say no.

[BootsOntheSide]

Leaving off current drivers strikes me as somethng of a folly in that list, especially as guys like Raikkonen and Alonso have now been around long enough to have built up a consistant total. Alonso's record is (I think) 7 wins from 63 races - 11.1%, well up the list, although as far as I can think only he, JV and Michael would infiltrate the list. The list is quite leant towards the early years, perhaps because there was less strength in depth on te girds in those days, and far more cases of a driver being the only top-line driver in a championship-capable car (much like a couple of Michael's title years)

The thing often overlooked with Fangio's record is that he had been racing for a long time when the world championship started, so his formative experience-gaining years are essentially missing from the calculation. Similarly, Keke's statistic is falsely low as he spent so long in poor teams before getting his chance with Williams. I think the changes to this list do create a more accurate impression of who the best drivers were (althoguh taht could jsut be because there are 6 Brits in the top 10.....)

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

The thing often overlooked with Fangio's record is that he had been racing for a long time when the world championship started, so his formative experience-gaining years are essentially missing from the calculation.

'Ode up, his first top-line single-seater formula races weren't until 1948, IIRC. He had barely 2 years before the World Champinship started - and even before then most of his racing was in rallies. A bit like Sebastian Loeb coming to F1 in 2006 and being Champ by 2009.

And the top driver, with a 50% record, is missed off. Ladies & gentlemen, I give you Lee Wallard...

[krt917]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

But, like any other list, it hides a huge number of variables. Ickx, for example, spent a lot of the 1970s driving for terrible or indifferent teams for whom a win would have been a miracle. Does it make him a lesser driver? I would say no.

Oh, of course. I wasn't even trying to imply that this would be the list to rate drivers. As I've already said, there are too many other variables that aren't accounted for. Quality of the cars a driver drove, the depth of opposition, the number of races in a season (and hence, how many wins you could get in a dominant car) are just some of the factors that the list doesn't consider.

That's my point really - you can't use stats to 'draw a line in the sand', whether it be with World Drivers titles or not. It just goes to show that title winners do not always rate above those that didn't win it, which is where we came in...

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Leaving off current drivers strikes me as somethng of a folly in that list, especially as guys like Raikkonen and Alonso have now been around long enough to have built up a consistant total. Alonso's record is (I think) 7 wins from 63 races - 11.1%, well up the list, although as far as I can think only he, JV and Michael would infiltrate the list. The list is quite leant towards the early years, perhaps because there was less strength in depth on te girds in those days, and far more cases of a driver being the only top-line driver in a championship-capable car (much like a couple of Michael's title years)

I have to confess at this point that the reason for not including current drivers is that I don't have access to the last couple of seasons results. I didn't want to give half-baked stats, so I left them out. If anyone else has got them, feel free to put them in!

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by ensign14

And the top driver, with a 50% record, is missed off. Ladies & gentlemen, I give you Lee Wallard...

For those, like me, who needed to understand this comment, on checking, I find that he entered the Indy 500 in 1950 and 1951 when that race formed part of the World Championship and he won the 1951 event.

[Jordi]

Originally Posted by krt917

Talking of lines in the sand, how about wins-to-start ratios?

Here are the top 27 (because that's the number of World Champions). In bold are the drivers who make this list, but did not win the WDC:

21. Villeneuve, G (9.0)

Gilles or Jacques?

If it's Jacques, he's still active, and if it's Gilles, he should have been in bold...

[Jordi]

Active drivers (as of Hungary):

1. M. Schumacher (84/224) 37,5 %
2. Alonso (7/63) 11,1 %
3. Räikkönen (6/80) 7,5 %
4. Villeneuve (11/146) 7,5 %
5. Coulthard (13/188) 6,9 %
6. Montoya (5/81) 6,1 %
7. Barrichello (9/208) 4,3 %
8. R. Schumacher (6/139) 4,3 %
9. Fisichella (2/154) 1,3 %
10. Trulli (1/141) 0,7 %

In the earlier list krt917 put up, Schumacher would be 3rd, Alonso 17th. Räikkönen and Villeneuve would be 27th and 28th.

[DKGandBH]

", G" ... My guess that stands for Gilles...

DKGandBH

[Kicking-back]

What would be a very interesting set of figures would be the wins-to-start ratio for drivers, for races after they won their first GP.

Eg, Rubens won on his 97th start - so what's his wins to start ratio from that race till now?

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Jordi

Gilles or Jacques?

If it's Jacques, he's still active, and if it's Gilles, he should have been in bold...

Yes, of course, as DKGandBH says, it must be Gilles, and it should have been in bold, on KRTs list.

It is interesting that of the 6 drivers I nominated alongside the World Champs, 5 appear in KRTs list plus Reutemann but minus Collins. The reason I put Collins in my original list is because he virtually handed the 1956 championship to Fangio because he did not feel that he was ready for WDC status. Sadly, of course, in the short time he had left, he was unable to achieve that goal. I've always found it a little ironic that of the 4 top flight F1 drivers that Britain had in the mid to late 50's, it was Hawthorn that took the title when, arguably, he was the least rounded out of those 4. I accept that is an entirely personal opinion and that others would have a different view.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by John Turner

The reason I put Collins in my original list is because he virtually handed the 1956 championship to Fangio because he did not feel that he was ready for WDC status.

That's a bit of a stretch. He could have been Champ at Monza if he had not handed his car to JMF only if Moss retired from the lead. And JMF was the fastest of all the Ferrari drivers - pole every race, led every race; Monaco apart I don't think any Ferrari driver beat him on merit, or even led him. Appreciate though that he would have had more of a chance if car sharing had been banned, but even then he'd've been relying on Fangio's unreliability.

Re Hawthorn, I wonder how good he would have been had it not been for his kidney disease. Not many people beat Ascari on equal terms, but JMH did.

[John Turner]

Yes, I concede both are good points, Ensign.

[BootsOntheSide]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

What would be a very interesting set of figures would be the wins-to-start ratio for drivers, for races after they won their first GP.

Eg, Rubens won on his 97th start - so what's his wins to start ratio from that race till now?

I was wondering about this myself. Doing the calculation this way would not penalise drivers for taking a long time to reach a top team, and would prevent the list being quite so biased towards the earlier years. On the other hand you could say that it negates the achievements of Damon, Michael and JV winning so quickly. Perhaps only counting half a driver's pre-win races, or a maximum of 50, is the right compromise? Anyway, off the top of my head Rubens has won 9 races, and will have done about 80 races since Hockenheim 2000, so it would be about 11.5%.

[Jordi]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

I was wondering about this myself. Doing the calculation this way would not penalise drivers for taking a long time to reach a top team, and would prevent the list being quite so biased towards the earlier years. On the other hand you could say that it negates the achievements of Damon, Michael and JV winning so quickly. Perhaps only counting half a driver's pre-win races, or a maximum of 50, is the right compromise? Anyway, off the top of my head Rubens has won 9 races, and will have done about 80 races since Hockenheim 2000, so it would be about 11.5%.

We could also count the races that a driver has been in a race winning team. That is, only counting races in years where the driver drove in a race-winning team. For Jacques, for example, the stat would be something like this:

1996-1997 Williams (race-winning car)
1998 Williams (no win)
1999-2003 BAR (no win)
2004 Renault (race-winning car)
2005 Sauber (no win)

Therefore only counting the races where Jacques had a race winning car (16+17+3 = 36), Jacques would have a spectacular 30,5% ratio.

But this system is flawed. Do people consider, for example, the 1996 Ferrari F310 a race-winning car? Or did it win just thanks to Michael Schumacher?

[krt917]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

What would be a very interesting set of figures would be the wins-to-start ratio for drivers, for races after they won their first GP.

Eg, Rubens won on his 97th start - so what's his wins to start ratio from that race till now?

I don't have the time at the moment to create such a list, but I can see what you're getting at.

There are, of course, a few issues with this method too. As Jordi indicates above, it doesn't take into account how long a driver was in a race winning car after their first win. It might also penalise those that managed to score a win in a mediocre car some time before they got into a decent one. Alan Jones, for example, would suffer a bit due to his freak win in the Shadow in strange circumstances in '77, whereas all of the rest of his winning was done in a short space of time; '79-'81.

I would imagine that, of recent drivers, Mansell, Barrichello and Hakkinen would benefit most from calculating their strike rates from their first win.

[N I Tram]

JV chose money over race-winning cars, so that's not the fault of people trying to assess driver performance. The other problem with only counting from teh first win is that it is too generous on drivers who took a long time to get into a winning car, which in some cases is the fault of the driver. The idea of counting half a driver's pre-victory races is a good one. The real problem is that it's only in the modern era that drivers have usually taken more than 20-30 races to become winners, because in the old days they had non-championship races to practice in, there were often more win-capable cars, and each year had less races up to the mid-60s.

[krt917]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Are you sure? I've now checked 3 different sources and the only GP wins I can find are 1960 Italian and 1961 Belgian and Italian GPs.

As far as I can see, Phil Hill did indeed score three World Championship qualifying Formula 1 victories, 5 second places and eight thirds.

For the record, Moss scored 16 Championship GP wins, 5 seconds and 3 thirds.

What do people think of the other guys who appear on the ratios list but who did not win the world title?
Brooks, von Trips, Villeneuve (G), Peterson and Reutemann.

Peterson and Villeneuve have been discussed already and, along with Moss, stand as perhaps the best examples for those of us who believe that World Champions do not always rate above non-champions.

The other three are more difficult. Brooks did not have a long career, but on occasion showed that he had the legs of Collins and Hawthorn. Moss has said that, if he were picking a dream line-up, he'd go for Clark and Brooks, so could Brooks be rated above Hawthorn?

Von Trips had an even shorter career and is, perhaps, the hardest one to assess, but he appears to have been at least a match for Phil Hill in the Sharknose Ferrari of '61. Beyond that, though, it is true that his performances were less impressive than Hills. In this instance, I probably would rate Hill above von Trips.

Reutemann has to have been one of the most enigamtic F1 drivers ever. On his day, he was absolutely sublime and could be considered one of the greats. His four wins in '78 against the landmark Lotus 78 and 79 and a fast (though inexperienced) hotshoe stand out, but his mental weakness surely drop him down the list. The way he lost the '81 title at Caesars Palace perhaps showed that he wasn't tile-winning material.

I know that this kind of debate really only goes to show that there is no such thing as a definitive list of greats, but does anyone have any thoughts on these three, or anyone else, who did not win the title.

[BootsOntheSide]

Personally I wouldn't put Phil Hill or von Trips particularly close to the top of an all-time list, certianly not in the all-important Top 28. They had perhaps the most dominant car of the 60s, but did litttle at any other point in their careers,a lthough we'll neve rknow for sure how good von Trips was becoming.

[krt917]

I have to confess that I'm not really sure I'd put either of them in my top 30, though Hill's achievements outside of F1 would certainly make him a reasonable candidate for me.

You're right about von Trips. Like Bellof, we never really got to see what he could really do.