Sir Lewis Hamilton is the GOAT

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It’s Prosties birthday today.

Factoring in the 1990 Mexican GP I think Prost is the GOAT today.

Bravo!! Let's raise a glass to Le Prof!

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It’s Prosties birthday today.

Factoring in the 1990 Mexican GP I think Prost is the GOAT today.

Fun fact: if the current points system (25 for a win, 18 for second etc.) had always been used in Formula 1, and the dropped scores didn't exist, Alain Prost would be a seven-time champion, more than any other driver (Schumacher would only have six).

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Fun fact: if the current points system (25 for a win, 18 for second etc.) had always been used in Formula 1, and the dropped scores didn't exist, Alain Prost would be a seven-time champion, more than any other driver (Schumacher would only have six).

Actually he would be joint first with Hamilton. I did this before Hamilton won his seventh championship. I also didn't factor in the fastest lap point because I did this before that was introduced.

[crmalcolm]

I like the two sentences from racefans.net:

'It’s been pointed out that awarding 25 points for a win from 2010 will render comparisons with previous championships impossible. But as we’ve seen here trying to compare drivers’ performance based on points scores is already meaningless.'

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Bravo!! Let's raise a glass to Le Prof!

I had the privilege of meeting him on more than one occasion.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I like the two sentences from racefans.net:

'It’s been pointed out that awarding 25 points for a win from 2010 will render comparisons with previous championships impossible. But as we’ve seen here trying to compare drivers’ performance based on points scores is already meaningless.'

I believe you can compare drivers from different eras based on points scores, by finding the points scored by every driver if one particular points system had always been in place. Here is the top twenty for the current points system (25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1), as of the end of 2019 (I haven't updated it recently):

Driver Points
1 Michael Schumacher 3890
2 Lewis Hamilton 3775
3 Sebastian Vettel 3169
4 Kimi Raikkonen 2777
5 Fernando Alonso 2740
6 Alain Prost 2470.5
7 Rubens Barrichello 1892
8 Ayrton Senna 1859.5
9 Jenson Button 1836.5
10 Nico Rosberg 1737
11 David Coulthard 1726
12 Felipe Massa 1682
13 Nelson Piquet 1682
14 Nigel Mansell 1500
15 Gerhard Berger 1409.5
16 Mika Hakkinen 1382
17 Mark Webber 1358
18 Niki Lauda 1339
19 Valtteri Bottas 1261
20 Carlos Reutemann 1123.5

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

I believe you can compare drivers from different eras based on points scores, by finding the points scored by every driver if one particular points system had always been in place.

But the comparison is meaningless, due to so many different factors in play.
Otherwise, how does the comparison take into consideration:

'1955 Argentinian Grand Prix Giuseppe Farina and Maurice Trintignant both drove in the cars which finished second and third, each time with a different third driver.'

'Drivers adopting a different strategy due to having to drop scores.'

'Alan Jones' performance in the last race in 1979, when it was not possible for him to improve his points tally.'

'Prior to 2003, points only counting to 6th place.'

How these scenarios affected the way cars were driven is not possible to determine, and the level of assumption needed to account for this makes a comparison meaningless. Yes, you can apply the current points system to a previous result, but the value of doing such an exercise is zero. It is not a comparison that can be made.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But the comparison is meaningless, due to so many different factors in play.
Otherwise, how does the comparison take into consideration:

'1955 Argentinian Grand Prix Giuseppe Farina and Maurice Trintignant both drove in the cars which finished second and third, each time with a different third driver.'

'Drivers adopting a different strategy due to having to drop scores.'

'Alan Jones' performance in the last race in 1979, when it was not possible for him to improve his points tally.'

'Prior to 2003, points only counting to 6th place.'

How these scenarios affected the way cars were driven is not possible to determine, and the level of assumption needed to account for this makes a comparison meaningless. Yes, you can apply the current points system to a previous result, but the value of doing such an exercise is zero. It is not a comparison that can be made.

For your first example, I gave Farina and Trintignant 11 points each, because it was a third of 18 for 2nd and a third of 15 for 3rd. This was a very strange race and it's difficult to know exactly how to score it, but I think this is the best option (I did allow shared points for shared drives).

For your final example, I just gave 6 points for 7th, 4 points for 8th etc. I know the issue with this is that some drivers would be less likely to try if they were out of the points (Fernando Alonso - USA 2015), but I think this rarely happens in history, so it won't make a huge difference.

The second and third examples are difficult as well. For the second one, I think it would usually the dropped points would not make much difference to a driver's tactics, with the Alan Jones example an obvious exception, but we are only talking about a few points. In terms of deciding each individual championship, doing this is not very useful. I just thought it was interesting that Alain Prost wins seven titles. But I think these exceptions are unusual enough for it to not make much difference in the overall standings. Similarly, shared wins and team-order wins could be thought of as reasons that you cannot compare drivers by number of wins, but it happens rarely enough to not make a big difference.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Fun fact: if the current points system (25 for a win, 18 for second etc.) had always been used in Formula 1, and the dropped scores didn't exist, Alain Prost would be a seven-time champion, more than any other driver (Schumacher would only have six).

That is a fun fact. I like it.

Of course, Prost was trying to win under the old points system so the end result ultimately has to be judged under that. But interesting nonetheless. Taken with that context it has some validity.

It does show that Prost was very close on numerous occasions. 0.5pt in 1984. 2pt in 1983. 1982 everyone was kind of close, but the less thought about the better. 1988 3pt and more overall without dropped scores.

So could have been 7 or at a push 8! Obviously coulda, shoulda, etc...

He was damn good.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Obviously coulda, shoulda, etc...

Yep. I'm sure I'd have been the GOAT if the F1 teams had realised my potential.....

[S griffin]

How close did you get to F1 Ayse?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Of course, Prost was trying to win under the old points system so the end result ultimately has to be judged under that. But interesting nonetheless. Taken with that context it has some validity.

And that is why I feel the comparison is not worth making.

If we had 20 points for a win in the '60s, Clark would have taken the title in 64 and 67.
In 77, Andretti would have taken the title.
Load the points towards race wins in 86/87 and Mansell takes two more titles, one of which was Prost's.
89 - Senna (again instead of Prost).


It would not be hard to amend the scoring profile of F1 history to make any driver more or less successful. Too many variables for it to be meaningful - although yes it may be interesting to some.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

How close did you get to F1 Ayse?

Ah, one foot in the cockpit mate........

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

And that is why I feel the comparison is not worth making.

If we had 20 points for a win in the '60s, Clark would have taken the title in 64 and 67.
In 77, Andretti would have taken the title.
Load the points towards race wins in 86/87 and Mansell takes two more titles, one of which was Prost's.
89 - Senna (again instead of Prost).


It would not be hard to amend the scoring profile of F1 history to make any driver more or less successful. Too many variables for it to be meaningful - although yes it may be interesting to some.

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I know Prost and his rivals were trying to win under the old scoring system, so the seven titles stat means nothing. I just find it interesting. When I say you can compare drivers by points scored, I mean that if someone said, 'you can't compare Hamilton and Schumacher by points scored over their careers because they used different points systems,' I would disagree and say that you can convert the points into a certain points system. It means nothing for individual championships, and I'm not arguing that that makes Alain Prost a better driver than previously thought. That's why it was a 'fun fact,' rather than an important statistic.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

That's why it was a 'fun fact,' rather than an important statistic.

Yes, it was understood from the off.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

And that is why I feel the comparison is not worth making.

Cool.

- although yes it may be interesting to some.

Yes it is.

[steve_r]

Interesting to read about Prost's record on here. I changed my signature the other day from a Mario Andretti quote to a Alain Prost quote. It seems strange to say that a 4 time WDC and a driver who in his day won a record number of F1 races is actually underrated, but I do think that the professor gets forgotten about rather too easily as people instead talk about Senna and Schumacher etc. F1 is about speed but it is also delivering race wins - something that Prost could do season after season. Perhaps it was the fact that he had a smooth driving style that people don't appreciate just how fast he really was?

No matter who you put at the very top of your list, Prost should be in the mix, and it is interesting to think not only of the 4 titles he won, but also the many other occasions when he came close to the title.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by steve_r

F1 is about speed but it is also delivering race wins - something that Prost could do season after season. Perhaps it was the fact that he had a smooth driving style that people don't appreciate just how fast he really was?

Or is he glossed over/ignored/looked past because he didn't do anything _but_ drive fast? His personal life remained largely unknown while he was racing, he didn't pretend to be channeling any spirits, didn't punch anyone or threaten to shove people in the wall (excepting the one time he actually did take his teammate off, but nobody really saw that coming!).

Sure he was a little enigmatic but that seems to be because he had a job to do. Drive fast, win races.

Some might call that boring; I wouldn't, I think he was brilliant. The old Graypaul Ferrari garage in my home town (that Steve Matchett started out his mechanic's life in, coincidentally) used to have one of Prost's Ferrari cars in the showroom. I used to go and stare at it from time to time

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Greem

Or is he glossed over/ignored/looked past because he didn't do anything _but_ drive fast? His personal life remained largely unknown while he was racing, he didn't pretend to be channeling any spirits, didn't punch anyone or threaten to shove people in the wall (excepting the one time he actually did take his teammate off, but nobody really saw that coming!).

Sure he was a little enigmatic but that seems to be because he had a job to do. Drive fast, win races.

Some might call that boring; I wouldn't, I think he was brilliant. The old Graypaul Ferrari garage in my home town (that Steve Matchett started out his mechanic's life in, coincidentally) used to have one of Prost's Ferrari cars in the showroom. I used to go and stare at it from time to time

I think it boils down to this...he was called the professor, not only was that nickname appropriate on track because of his clinical driving, it was appropriate off track because he was utterly boring.

Incredible driver but no personality and played F1 politics too much for my liking....probably because I prefer flair and emotion with the drivers I support and not a robot

I’d still rank him amongst the top 5 of all time though.

[chunterer]

Ooh bit harsh on the personality front? I always found Prost good listening. He did seem a bit awkward at times but quite amusing when he got annoyed.

I would venture that far more drivers are on the dull side than those who might be a bit of a card? This has increased over time as I suspect PR, sponsorship duties and endless data discussions drum the spark out of most drivers 😆

[Aysedasi]

As a Senna fan, Prost was undoubtedly the Anti-Christ. I laughed like a drain when he had problems, defended Senna when it wasn't justified and castigated Prost when he did the dirty on Senna in 1989. But my respect for him has grown over the years. It was recognised by Senna that Prost was the only driver that he feared. They were chalk and cheese, of course, Senna wanted to be fastest on every lap in practice, qualifiying and race, while Prost was the more calculating, doing what he needed to do with a stylish economy of effort. Boring? No, I wouldn't say he was boring. I think the Senna comparison draws you into that way of thinking.

[chunterer]

I used to root for Senna, or Mansell over Prost in the early 90s.
Before that I used to want anyone else to win other than Ayrton or Alain for a few years just because those 2 were making everyone look silly by winning everything!! 😄
Mansell was a great draw but could be infuriatingly difficult to listen to if he was moody.
Piquet was always a bit of a loose cannon in interviews! Berger and Irvine continued in this vein.
Remember Berger taking the mick out of Nige a few times in interviews and the infamous press conference drinks throwing between Irvine and Hakkinen?
Tsss what a couple of baffoons 🤣🤣

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by chunterer

I used to root for Senna, or Mansell over Prost in the early 90s.
Before that I used to want anyone else to win other than Ayrton or Alain for a few years just because those 2 were making everyone look silly by winning everything!! 😄
Mansell was a great draw but could be infuriatingly difficult to listen to if he was moody.
Piquet was always a bit of a loose cannon in interviews! Berger and Irvine continued in this vein

If Prost was 'utterly boring', I'm not sure how I would categorise Mansell?

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

If Prost was 'utterly boring', I'm not sure how I would categorise Mansell?

I just alluded to that a little bit. Perhaps i've been too kind on Nige though 😅

[Born Racer]

I think using one points system (particularly the present one because it scores more places) is useful as a barometer of driver achievement, but can’t be a great championship comparison, as drivers competed under the system in force, as mentioned.

[Aysedasi]

As has been said, it's all academic, but interesting all the same....