What makes a driver great?

[Victor Broccoli]

Ahh...the pantheon of drivers. Here's how I see it...there's a few important things:

A) Success. A driver has to be successful, but that success can be in different totals. For some, it was championships (Lauda, Fangio). For others, it's race wins (Prost, Gilles). It can also be poles (Senna), or it can be a combination of these (Senna would fit in them all, but I didn't feel like repeating drivers).

B) Degree of difficulty. In order to be a great, there HAS to be some degree of difficulty. Gilles Villeneuve never won a championship, but he came close in a car that did not deserve to be in the running (it was that slow). Alesi, while not in the pantheon, is still considered a greater driver than his one win shows because he was also driving a slow car. Likewise, Damon Hill isn't given full credit because he drove dominant cars.

C) Competition. In order for a driver to be great, there needs to be another driver just as good to play to. Senna and Prost would not be considered as great as they were if they hadn't been around at the same time. Their reputation for ability would not have been tested as much, and likewise so would their pantheon status. Likewise, Michael Schumacher isn't given full credit because there isn't a pantheon driver for him to compete with (Hakkinen is great, but not pantheon great).

D) Intangible. This is the most important, in my opinion. It's just something special about the driver that makes the common guy go nuts. It's what makes you buy merchandise, and consider him highly. This is not to be confused with being a fan, mind you. Just think about Gilles Villeneuve. I don't think we'd look so fondly upon him if he didn't throw his car sideways and generally ignore the laws of physics. Also in this are guys like Michael Schumacher, Johnny Herbert (watching him come back from massive setback after setback), Alesi, Senna, etc.

In my opinion, a great driver has two of these going. To be in the pantheon, in my opinion, a driver needs three or four. Here's how I see it (note, I'm going in chronological order and I'm not going to sort through pre-war):

Ascari: the first postwar dominant driver. The only guy faster than Fangio.
Fangio: 5 championships, and considered one of the best ever. Definite pantheon.
Moss: He didn't win championships, but he won races and the difficulty factor was huge on him.
Clark: Another absolutely dominant driver.
Brahbam: Three championships and one in his own car.
Stewart: Three championships again. Can't mess w/ success.
Lauda: Three championships, and a great degree of difficulty (back from the dead, basically)
Andretti: A man who's done it all (F1, Le Mans, Indy, Daytona). In my opinion, the only person that can rival Moss as far as versatility and success at it.
Nelson Piquet: Three championships during the 80's stands for a LOT.
Gilles Villeneuve: Got 11/10ths from a car that shouldn't have been able to go that fast.
Prost & Senna: Alone, both were merely great drivers. Their rivalry propelled them both to the Pantheon (I personally believe, that without the other, that either one would be as revered as they are today).

Debatable:
Schumacher & Hakkinen: Both of these drivers are great. Yet, there seems to be a stigma surrounding both of them by some that they aren't great. In my Pantheon, both are flying members, but I'll leave them up for debate.

Mansell: He came close, but could only seem to get the job done when he had the best car. Once again, up for debate.

Rindt: Would've been one of the dominant drivers of his decade if it weren't for his demise. Was one posthumous championship enough?

McLaren: A very talented driver whom created the most successful team.

Damon Hill: He won a championship, came close to another, and spent the rest of his career toddling in backmarkers. He almost won in an Arrows, which is something the rest of the grid probably could not do.

Fittipaldi: Won two championships, spent the rest of his career toddling at the back, and then went to Indy and won.


I think I've exhausted my mind. Add to it whatever you wish.

[mac]

I think the question should be rephrased.

"What makes a great F1 driver?"

All of the discussion here has been about f1 drivers (fair enough, it is an f1 forum). but drivers in other series may be great. David Brabham may well be seen as a great GT driver, but could never be considered a "great" f1 driver (does anyone even know he drove for Simtek?). Alex Zanardi was (and will be again in the not too distant future) a great champ car driver, but never really got the hang of the modern f1 car. Craig Lowndes is the best Australian V8Supercar driver but never took to f3000 well.

Different driving styles suit different types of car. And different driving styles suit different drivers. Great is a word that is used too much and is completely subjective to what one wants to watch or support.

A truly "great" driver will drive the wheels off a Daewoo.

[mac]

I know I just put a message up, but I just thought I'd throw a few names up in the air (they'll probably get shot down in flames anyway).

Being an Aussie - what about Alan Jones (sheer aggression & talent) and Jack Brabham (the only man to win the World Championship in a car he built.)?

[Damon]

Originally posted by Victor Broccoli
Competition. In order for a driver to be great, there needs to be another driver just as good to play to. Senna and Prost would not be considered as great as they were if they hadn't been around at the same time. Their reputation for ability would not have been tested as much, and likewise so would their pantheon status. Likewise, Michael Schumacher isn't given full credit because there isn't a pantheon driver for him to compete with (Hakkinen is great, but not pantheon great).

I often feel that the almost God like status given to Schumcher Snr, by his fans is result off a lack of opposition. His undoubtable race craft and talent have been somewhat exaggerated by a lack of strong opposition throughout his career. The other recognised greats, senna, prost, fangio, Clark, all had someone of similar ability that they had to beat race in race out. Schumacher, I feel, has not had this so much. It was such a shame that the world was robbed of what would have been a fantastic fight between Senna and Schumacher had the great Brazilian not died tragically in 1994.

[Liz]

I agree with Damon - and Victor too. A Great pilot needs opposition to make him shine. Someone who can merely drive past backmarkers are not "great".

But it's all subjective - the more people who subjectively believe someone is great, the more likely he is to be perceived generally as great.