The view from the top.

[Mattracer]

How do you really separate these four drivers, the winningest drivers in the history of F1?

Schumacher- has all the records now bar one

Senna- the X factor, the melding of sublime talent, intelligence and an iron will

Prost- the thinking, calculating, subtle and effective driver

Fangio- definitive artisan of a bygone age whose legend casts a spectre over the sport as much for his personage as his driving

[Mark Webber]

IN the end Stats is the only way . It may not give a full picture by it gives the closest thing to offer

Its hard to argue against the figures

[Wrex]

Different drivers, different era's and should never be compared.

Stats are'nt everything (and I say this a Schumacher fan), if you need proof look at the great man Gilles.

Of course, they dont mean nothing either. You don't luck your way to 3,4,5 or 6 WDC. I think there are many drivers that were 'forunate' to win a WDC while some greater talents missed out. But when you look at the 3+ club, all are legends.

[climb]

Spot on Wrex

[John Turner]

Agree generally with Wrex. Stats aren't everything, particularly, when points scoring systems are so heavily weighted towards consistent race finishers rather than race winners. It distorts history; just three examples - in 1958, Moss wins 4 races, Brooks 3 and Hawthorn 1 - Hawthorn wins WDC. 1986, if memory serves me, Mansell won 6, Piquet 3 - Piquet wins WDC. This year Schumacher nearly lost WDC to Kimi despite winning twice as many races as any other contender.

[dangeradam]

i think senna remains the most truly committed single minded driver ever to grace f1.

He was prepared to do anything to win and sometimes did and as a man i think he is 10 times bigger than MS.

Senna ran prost off the road at Suzuka and admited it.

Senna was able to win in a Slower car but MS didn't start winning until Ferrari bought all the right people.

MS has never admited to his underhanded tactics aginst Hill or Villenuve.

MS is a great driver but i have no respect for him.

[ASCII Man]

Well, to be fair he won 3 races in a car that sometimes couldn't even get to the starting grid...

[MrBluesman1]

and MS did say he made a mistake in Jerez in 97 (some say his mistake was hitting the wrong part of the Williams but hey) as for 94 I have read nothing on that except from DH. MS has showed that like Senna he is perpared to do anything to win. I still think Senna is way better but I admire what MS has gone on to do with his career

[Wrex]

Originally posted by dangeradam
... MS didn't start winning until Ferrari bought all the right people.

Thats strange, all the history books have Michael chalking up wins as far back as Spa in 92 and a couple of championships back in 94 & 95. I guess the WDC started after that. [/sarasm].

For the record, there has'nt been a WDC I can recall that has'nt done it with one of the best cars.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Mattracer
How do you really separate these four drivers, the winningest drivers in the history of F1?

Well, why not keep them all together and put them below Clark!

[Gt_R]

Quote:"How do you really separate these four drivers, the winningest drivers in the history of F1?"

It's easy...just put them in the same room labelled "Greats inside - do not disturb"

As Wrex say, its difficult to compare the greatness of different drivers from various era, so instead of trying to rank who's better, the most we could do is how each are different in their style and approach.

Senna is a very one-minded man who expects success like a exclusive right. He'd go to all distances just to ensure that every race possible is won- the extreme. Prost is a total contrast. Cool calculated and thinking approach.

To put it is scale factor,

Extreme |---------------|----------------|Cool
Scale 10Senna---------Michael-----------Prost0
Michael seems like the combined of the compromises of Senna and Prost.

And i also agree that Stats, though tell a chapter, doesnt tell the whole story. Yes, it's meaningful when after a driver's career is over, we look at the impressive stats. But also, stats prove meaningless when a driver, due to fatality, doesn't have the chance to complete his racing chapter (ie Senna, Gilles)

[ralf fan]

very difficult....
as Wrex said.. not all about stats.. Gilles acclaimed as the best 'racer' ever didnt even win a WDC!
its all about the era aswell they drove in... Senna and Prost had each other to compete with not to mention Mansell, Prost, Piquet....

Id say its a matter of opinion... you cant really say one driver was the 'Best ever'. the 4 mentioned above are all GREAT GREAT drivers and surely will be remembered in the history of F1!

[Mattracer]

MS ia more like Prost in his characteristic drone-like precision and when provoked can unleash a surprise on his opponents. Senna forced things to happen in a way that the others did and could not, both mechanically and willfully. This is where he differences lie, in the temperaments. I will agree that stats say a lot but it's like a still photo, a snapshot in time, that usually gets elipsed because time doesn't stand still. Eventually, I think Senna's pole record will go, unfortunately, but you can't stop time and MS has time on his side.

Another thing, the team mates issue has been given a good run but it is true, the intensity intra-team from McLaren/Williams circa 1986-89 hasn't been duplicated in any team since.

[jetsetter]

I'm a believer in never comparing drivers from different eras. I think motorsport & F1 in general has been very fortunate to have had each of those drivers display their skill in the sport & rather than compare & say that one's better than the other motorsport fans should appreciate each of the drivers skill.