Who is the Greatest F1 driver of all time?

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by coppice

What on earth is Carlos Reutemann doing on the list? And our Nige was heroic on the day but come on , he was no Senna or Prost ,some days he wasn't even really a Mansell really... And heavens , juts how much of a besotted fan does one have to be to even consider Max Verstappen as a candidate. Isn't it a bit, y'know ... early to start thinking about accolades like that ?

As Grand Prix racing started in 1906 I will chuck Tazio Nuvolari's name into the ring . Along with that wonderful buccaneer , Clay Reggazoni , he looks just like an Italian racing driver should . And yes , Clay was technically Swiss , I know .

This is the post I was looking for.

I'd put it to you that everyone is judged on their best, therefore Mansell is absolutely equal to Senna and Prost.

Alright, he didn't win either 86/87 titles. But he won the most races by double the next best. That has to count for something when chronic unreliability was actually reliable in those days?

He's like the Dutch team of the 70s. Didn't win the World Cup, but were still the best team

For whatever weaknesses you see in Mansell, I'd put it to you that despite being statistically better since, his 1992 season is the biggest clobbering any champ has won his title in F1 history?

There isn't a driver in motorsport history that, accounting for relative strengths/weaknesses, could beat him in a FW14B/15C.

FW14b/15C is the zenith of F, and he's a contributor to it. Unlike Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton, who've cashed in with relatively less impressive cars.

Best Pom on ovals. So good that if he was a yank, he'd be the best yank on ovals as well!

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Having said that, Prost is the best driver. Because overall, that's how you're supposed to drive racing car.

Not as good in the rain? Well, that's 1 in 6 races he misses out.

Not as fast in qualifying? Well, one lap requires a lower standard of driving and brings lesser drivers to the pack.

It doesn't matter as much.

[S griffin]

It's hard to argue against Prost. He knew when to push, he knew when to take it easy and his style was always smooth and flowing

He wasn't that bad in the rain, he actually drove some very good races in the rain. He just hated it when conditions were impossible you couldn't see anything and you struggled to keep it on the road at 50mph, like anybody else was

He could also put in a really good lap in qualifying without looking like he was trying. When he needed to put on that bit extra he would and would not get involved in any shenanigans. For me Prost was the best and certainly more than deserves his place amongst the greats, like Moss or Clark

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

There isn't a driver in motorsport history that, accounting for relative strengths/weaknesses, could beat him in a FW14B/15C.

How can you possibly substantiate this?

[S griffin]

Mansell would have had a tough time against Prost that year, but Mansell was a great driver too and I don’t think anything was going to stop winning that title that year. Rarely have I seen someone so determined to win the title. He may have not had much competition that year, but for me having the best car only accelerated winning the title

[Adam43]

That year’s Williams played to Nige’s strengths of commitment. He pummeled Patrese once they had everything sorted from mid 1991 onwards, so I can see how it looks like that.

But stick Prost or Senna in it and I’d fancy their chances.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

That year’s Williams played to Nige’s strengths of commitment. He pummeled Patrese once they had everything sorted from mid 1991 onwards, so I can see how it looks like that.

But stick Prost or Senna in it and I’d fancy their chances.

Er yes.....

[coppice]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

This is the post I was looking for.

I'd put it to you that everyone is judged on their best, therefore Mansell is absolutely equal to Senna and Prost.

What an extraordinary argument. Let's muse about it a little- suppose I play golf , and fluke a hole in one . Does that make me a Tiger Woods? Or consider the curious case of Giancarlo Baghetti - he won his first three Grands Prix, the latter counting for the WDC . Judged at his best , it is hard to argue against anyone being better (and let's conveniently ignore his subsequent slide into anonymity ) . Mansell and Reutemann were mighty on their day - but they just had fewer days than their betters .

[crmalcolm]

In defence of 'judging someone at their best' - it has been done in the past. However - when doing this it has to be done over a period that gives enough indication of consistency.

When this was taken as a factor by F1metrics - the period given for 'at their best' was defined as their strongest consecutive 2-year performance interval.

For this - Mansell's best period (using the model) equated to 1989-1991. This may seem strange at first glance, given that his title came in 1992. However, his performance in 1992 does not rate as highly as those of 89-91, due to the comparative performance of the car, teammate and rivals on the grid.

Which tells us that Mansell's best performances of his career were in the 1989 and 1990 seasons. So to use 2lTCS's assertion that that 'everyone is judged on their best' - Mansell's best was better than Berger's and Patrese's, but not at the level of Prost's (using an objective statistical model).

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

How can you possibly substantiate this?

I have to justify everything to you?

Here it's easy with some knowledge of the time.

Alain Prost is the best driver of all time. If he isn't, then who ever it is is only insignificantly better than him. That includes your superhero Hamilton and Jim Clark. Prost is the best barometer when comparing generations. Whatever he does, if it could be bettered, could not be much better.

In 93, with the benefit of 2 years development of the 15C (The car Mansell was supposed to drive in 92, but didn't bring it out because they did so well with the 14B), not having Mansell as team mate, but a green Damon Hill, he couldn't match Mansell stats or performance. In actual fact, the stats flatter Prost that year.

When Prost was beaten in 93, almost all the time he was genuinely beaten. In 92, with the possible exception of Canada, if it weren't for mechanical, non driving errors, Mansell would've won every race.

There's nothing Prost did in 93 that Mansell couldn't have done, and a number of things Mansell would've done that Prost didn't.

South Africa - Mansell would've beaten Prost off the line and been a munite up the road before Prost finally got past Senna.

Brazil - Mansell would not have ended up on the beach like Prost did and would've won.

Donington - Mansell would not have been flapping about with the tyres in changing conditions, he'd have been far more assertive and confident in the car. Senna would've put in one of the best drives of his career and been 30secs behind Mansell.

Monaco -Idk what happened at the start line for Prost, but it would not have happened with Mansell. Mansell wins.

The problem every driver in the history of motorsport has with the 14b/15C, is that they're driving a car intrinsically suited to Mansell. Its not a "neutral car". It's a similar problem Bottas has at MB, it's car for Hamilton to drive. At that level, it's a wild difference.

What on earth is any other driver going to do that's better than Prost in the 15C? Senna beat him to a championship scoring fewer points, so you can objectively scratch him off.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by coppice

What an extraordinary argument. Let's muse about it a little- suppose I play golf , and fluke a hole in one . Does that make me a Tiger Woods?

Maybe not fluke a hole in one. But from my limited knowledge of golf, Carnoustie seems to have the reputation of being the single hardest gold course. So if you won the British Open there a few time and set the course record, you'd be disappointed that you're not in the conversation?

Originally Posted by coppice

Or consider the curious case of Giancarlo Baghetti - he won his first three Grands Prix, the latter counting for the WDC .

Not really a sufficient body of work?

Originally Posted by coppice

Judged at his best , it is hard to argue against anyone being better (and let's conveniently ignore his subsequent slide into anonymity ) . Mansell and Reutemann were mighty on their day - but they just had fewer days than their betters .

Not everyone has the benefit of being in a driver development program since they were 12. The process of becoming a top line driver was ad hoc and more to do with the personality of the driver rather than skill. At a time where cars weren't so set in their relative competitiveness like it is now.

Driving for Lotus could be the equivalent of driving in GP2 nowadays. Idk what happened to him at the end of 85, but Nigel Mansell, end of 85 -92 (even 93), is in the conversation.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

There isn't a driver in motorsport history that, accounting for relative strengths/weaknesses, could beat him in a FW14B/15C.

FW14b/15C is the zenith of F, and he's a contributor to it. Unlike Schumacher, Vettel and Hamilton, who've cashed in with relatively less impressive cars.

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

Having said that, Prost is the best driver.

Reading your posts here - it comes across that you rate Mansell as being no higher than 5th best of all time (which is fine if that is where you rate him)?

You have said more than once that Prost is the best - so I take it you would place him #1 on any list?

You also refer to Vettel, Schumacher and Hamilton as cashing in with cars that were less impressive (and from that I take it as being less dominant compared to their competition). Which ultimately means that Mansell's greatness can be attributed to Patrick Head, Paddy Lowe, Adrian Newey and Damon Hill.

As Patrick Head himself describes the time:
'Nigel showed little interest in active ride in 1986 and ’87, when we ran the Honda engines with him and Nelson Piquet, and when he came back from Ferrari in ’91 he still wasn’t that interested until he heard about the lap times Damon Hill had been achieving in testing.'

Which - whilst does not detract from how good a driver/car pairing the FW14B/Mansell combination was - a lot of credit for Mansell's results in that one season must go to the designers and test driver.

[S griffin]

I think this has been a good debate. I wouldn’t put Mansell as high as 5th, although history has underrated him. But I too voted for Prost, although there were other candidates too

The problem with deciding who’s the best is that the picture can be skewed by certain things. Like the fact some drivers didn’t often get the best car, while others did more often than not, so their results look better.

For me there were plenty of drivers in each era who were a step or two ahead of the others. Going back to the early 90s, the standout drivers of that era were Senna, Prost and Mansell, not forgetting others like Alesi and Berger, plus not yet established stars like Hill and Hakkinen. For me that was a great era. The only regret was Mansell didn’t have much competition for his title he otherwise deserved. He probably would have won it anyway.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I have to justify everything to you?

Of course not, only when you state something as a fact that half the forum is likely to disagree with.....

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

I have to justify everything to you?

Here it's easy with some knowledge of the time.

Alain Prost is the best driver of all time. If he isn't, then who ever it is is only insignificantly better than him. That includes your superhero Hamilton and Jim Clark. Prost is the best barometer when comparing generations. Whatever he does, if it could be bettered, could not be much better.

In 93, with the benefit of 2 years development of the 15C (The car Mansell was supposed to drive in 92, but didn't bring it out because they did so well with the 14B), not having Mansell as team mate, but a green Damon Hill, he couldn't match Mansell stats or performance. In actual fact, the stats flatter Prost that year.

When Prost was beaten in 93, almost all the time he was genuinely beaten. In 92, with the possible exception of Canada, if it weren't for mechanical, non driving errors, Mansell would've won every race.

There's nothing Prost did in 93 that Mansell couldn't have done, and a number of things Mansell would've done that Prost didn't.

South Africa - Mansell would've beaten Prost off the line and been a munite up the road before Prost finally got past Senna.

Brazil - Mansell would not have ended up on the beach like Prost did and would've won.

Donington - Mansell would not have been flapping about with the tyres in changing conditions, he'd have been far more assertive and confident in the car. Senna would've put in one of the best drives of his career and been 30secs behind Mansell.

Monaco -Idk what happened at the start line for Prost, but it would not have happened with Mansell. Mansell wins.

The problem every driver in the history of motorsport has with the 14b/15C, is that they're driving a car intrinsically suited to Mansell. Its not a "neutral car". It's a similar problem Bottas has at MB, it's car for Hamilton to drive. At that level, it's a wild difference.

What on earth is any other driver going to do that's better than Prost in the 15C? Senna beat him to a championship scoring fewer points, so you can objectively scratch him off.

A post full of 'would have' 'could have' and 'should haves'..... This would have been done by Mansell. That wouldn't have been done by Mansell. Just supposition - because it didn't happen. It can only be your opinion, and fair enough. I fully appreciate and applaud the support that individuals give to their favourite, there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes at all but then justifying it with supposition just doesn't work.... It doesn't really matter (and by the way, neither Hamilton nor Clark are my 'superhero').

[crmalcolm]

An observation (not a criticism):

Of the 25 drivers provided to select from in this poll, when their performance in the bracket is considered -

All of the quarter-finalists appear.
7 were knocked out in the 3rd round.
7 were knocked out in the 2nd round.

1 driver made the 3rd round and didn't appear on the list (Fittipaldi) .
9 drivers made the 2nd round and didn't appear on the list (Surtees, Button, M.Andretti, Hawthorn, Berger, Hulme, Gurney, J.Villeneuve, D.Hill).

3 were knocked out in the 1st round - and so arguably should never have made a top-25:
Giles Villeneuve
Max Verstappen
Carlos Reutemann



The top votes here match up with the quarter-finalists - so there is definitely some commonality. Although I expect the two routes to determine GOAT will diverge soon.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

A post full of 'would have' 'could have' and 'should haves'.....

Two statements:
Alain Prost is the best driver of all time.
Prost is the best barometer when comparing generations.

Many suppositions.

[S griffin]

FWIW, not only do I think Prost was the best of his generation and ever, but he’s also someone that deserves a bit more recognition than he has had. He’s one who should be looked up to. For me, there’s no need for any what ifs with him, he did enough to prove he was the greatest

[chillibowl]

the notion of just judging /comparing drivers by only their best season is an interesting proposition though.

puts a new spin on the usual GOAT conversation. perhaps worthy of its on poll/bracket style tournament.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the notion of just judging /comparing drivers by only their best season is an interesting proposition though.

puts a new spin on the usual GOAT conversation. perhaps worthy of its on poll/bracket style tournament.

I can hear crm groaning at that suggestion from here!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

FWIW, not only do I think Prost was the best of his generation and ever, but he’s also someone that deserves a bit more recognition than he has had. He’s one who should be looked up to. For me, there’s no need for any what ifs with him, he did enough to prove he was the greatest

You started with FWIW but forgot to end with 'IMO'......

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

the notion of just judging /comparing drivers by only their best season is an interesting proposition though.

puts a new spin on the usual GOAT conversation. perhaps worthy of its on poll/bracket style tournament.

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I can hear crm groaning at that suggestion from here!

It's something that can be held for future consideration - the GSOAT (Greatest Season of All Time)?

Would drivers get more than one entry though - Hamilton for instance:

2007
Talk about laying down a marker. Make no mistake about it, rookie years in F1 are difficult, but someone forgot to tell Hamilton that. Kicking off an F1 career with 9 straight podiums isn't too shabby and he claimed a total of 4 wins throughout the year. In all honesty, he should have won the championship too, but he had a nightmare finish to the season and was pipped by Kimi Raikkonen.

2008
Whilst this record has since been taken away from him, Hamilton became the youngest ever world champion in 2008 and he did so in dramatic fashion. The season itself was a little patchier from Hamilton, but he claimed the title on the final lap of the final race.

2014
After watching Sebastian Vettel's Red Bull dominate for years, Hamilton ended his championship drought in 2014. He took 11 wins in the season (which is the most he's got in one season) and beat his teammate Nico Rosberg by 67 points.

2015
Hamilton claimed title number 3 in 2015 and did so with time to spare, victory in the US gave him the title with three races to go. Perhaps the most impressive thing about this season was his consistency as he finished on the podium in all but two races.

2017
Mercedes' dominance in the sport was seriously tested in 2017 with Ferrari much improved, but a good run of form (and an unreliable Ferrari team) after the summer break meant that the 4th world championship became inevitable.

It's a huge bracket - start with each driver's list of best seasons and run a poll to determine which season goes into the main poll!!!!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I can hear crm groaning at that suggestion from here!

lol right...i should stop suggesting things!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It's a huge bracket - start with each driver's list of best seasons and run a poll to determine which season goes into the main poll!!!!

now thats a great idea!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

now thats a great idea!