For Red (and whoever else wants to join in) The best 'Drivers' of all time (again!)

[Damon]

I'll start by saying that I don't want this to be a bashing thread, but a debate to weigh up the attributes of the various greats vying for the title of greatest. And by the greatest drivers, I'm talking of the pure, in the cockpit, fighting for position, phenomenal car control type driving. Not the "ability to build a good team/motivate/work ethic" skills. Actual driving ability.

My definition of a great driver has to be someone with the ability to put a car were it shouldn't be through their talents alone. The driver must also be consistently blindingly quick, constantly on the limit but not over it, relish the fight and have the ability to find that something extra when the pressure is really on.

Red you gave me the following list of drivers to consider: Ascari, Clark, Fangio, Hakkinen, (I interpret this as Graham ) Hill, Prost, Schumacher, Senna, and Varzi. That's a great starting point but I would also add Gilles Vileneuve to that list. I'll have to give Varzi a miss though as I've never actually heard of him (any info you have Red would be great)!

Ascari: 13 wins, 14 poles and 11 fastest laps from just 32 starts certainly makes for impressive reading. Like so many greats his life was cut tragically short when he died in a testing crash in 1955. As with many drivers from this era any true opinion on talent and race craft are difficult to muster when you have never seen the driver race with your own eyes. None the less, his name is as synonymous with the early years of the Official World Championship as Fangio and that has to speak volumes. Any driver with the ability to control the cars of the 50's is a great in my eyes but those that were able to consistently win in them really are legends. However, lack of any extended footage of his talents at work means that it is impossible to confirm his true abilities beyond the statistics. But hey, he beat Fangio in '53!

Fangio: We all know he achieved a record number of Championship wins that stood on it's own for 45 years. This paints a rather distorted picture however. His 5 title came from competing in very few races and he had the best machinery for the job for the majority of him career. This doesn't discount to much from what he achieved particularly considering the era in which he achieved it.

Clark: What is there to say really, certainly in my top 3. His performances are legendary; again in an era that really set the men apart from the boys, with cars notoriously difficult to keep on the road, with the knowledge that a single mistake could mean death. Enough footage exists for a genuine comparison with more recent drivers as far as talent is concerned. Watching Clark and Hill power sliding through the Curve Grande is the stuff dreams are made of and really does set them apart from the mechanical, gizmo ridden styles we see today. Again, 25 wins from 72 starts is extremely impressive but his car control and race craft are close to unsurpassed.

G. Hill: See above, although he was outshone by Clark it is clear that Hill was phenomenal.

G. Villeneuve: Now that's what I call a racing driver. Once again another possible legend cut off in his prime. His defining drive was probably the French Grand Prix when perhaps the most exciting battle for second place in F1 History resulted in Gilles dragging his much slower Ferrari home, ahead of the Renault of Rene Arnoux. A genius for sure and another contended for the top 3.

Hakkinen: This may upset a few but I think he's over rated. His two titles came as a result of Newey's genius rather than Hakkinens during a time when the only driver of truly great ability was languishing in a less than impressive Ferrari. Lack of race craft and a tendency to lose interest when he's not winning would put him well behind the likes of Mansell, Stewart and Lauda as well as Red's list.

Prost: The master tactician that he was earned him the title 'the proffessor' but was he truly a great driver. I'd have to say yes, although not in the accepted sense. His real skill came from being able to win with the minimum possible effort. He lacked in the car control department however and rain was not exactly his friend. Even in far superior machinery he was made to look ordinary by Senna at Monaco '84 and of course Donnington where he was lapped. One of the greats for sure but not in my top 3.

Schumacher: The most successful driver in F1 history but not the best racing driver. He is undoubtedly very quick and almost superhumanly consistent. As a pilot few can equal him but as a race car driver many have surpassed him. He has a tendency of cracking under pressure and seems all to willing to shy away from competition if he possibly can, he certainly seems to value wins higher than the fight to get them. His race craft is doubtful as he rarely puts it to the test, yet when he does he rarely comes out on top. His success is down to his application and professionalism which, when allied to his natural talents, make for a potent package. One of the greats for sure, but as a driver alone he can't compete with the legends.

Senna: Finally then Ayrton Senna. The greatest driver of the last 40 years at least. His career and ability can be summed up by so many performances. Be it Monaco '84, Portugal '85, his transcendent drive to pole at Monaco '88, the win in Brazil '91 whilst driving with only 6th gear and of course Donnington '93, arguably the greatest drive of the lot, when he made the likes of Prost and Schumacher look like mire mortals. It's this that puts Senna above the rest, as a driver.

So my top 3 are as follows:
3. G. Villeneuve
2. J. Clark
1. A. Senna

Sorry for the essay but there you are Red .

[ASCII Man]

My top 3:

1. G. Villeneuve
2. A. Senna
3. A. Prost

[Adam43]

Go on then...
[list=1][*]Senna[*]Prost[*]Clark[/list=1]

I reserve the right to change my mind, but at five to six on the thirteenth of February 2002 AD that's what I reckon.

Surely Stewart should be in the list of contenders?

[Damon]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Surely Stewart should be in the list of contenders?

I do mention that in my 'essay', I don't blame you for not reading all of it!

[Adam43]

He is mentioned, but more than a mention is needed I reckon.

Damon, I always read everything you write.

[NiceGuyEddie]

I don't know. Never saw him race or anything, but shouldn't Tazio Nuvolari be added to that list? Thank you!

[Red]

Hmm, not exactly what I asked you Damon. (by the way, I added Nuvolari and Caracciola on the list. And Varzi was, at first, a friend and teammate to Nuvolari. Then they split the partnership and became 'enemies' ) What I wanted to know from you was a set of precise, indubitable, criteria that allows us to order the list by value. Applicable to ANY list of drivers.

You said (and I quote): "ability to put a car were it shouldn't be through their talents alone. The driver must also be consistently blindingly quick, constantly on the limit but not over it, relish the fight and have the ability to find that something extra when the pressure is really on". Excellent definition, and I might add some more but that does NOT allow us to compare drivers. Not even from the current crop, let alone drivers that raced in last 70 years!

Something like:

• Races contested (counts 20 points)
• Number of victories (counts 50 points)
• Podiums (xx points)
• years present in competitions
• pitbabes
• etc

Each of the criteria should be very clear and should apply to each era, and altered (according to other criteria we may find necessary) to give us an objective idea of their true and quantifiable value.

The essay that you wrote is indeed nice and you have done an excellent work. But it is your opinion and, in a large part I'm afraid, your opinion is based on other's opinions. Since you were born in 1983 I can suspect that you haven't watched most of the these drivers at work...

[Red]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
I reserve the right to change my mind, but at five to six on the thirteenth of February 2002 AD that's what I reckon.

Brilliant!!


See Damon, that's what I mean! Since we all use, with so much easiness, words such as best and ever!

[Damon]

Originally posted by Red
But it is your opinion and, in a large part I'm afraid, your opinion is based on other's opinions. Since you were born in 1983 I can suspect that you haven't watched most of the these drivers at work...

The only drivers I haven't really seen any footage of are Varzi, Ascari and Fangio so yes my opinions on them have to be based on what I have read. However there is a fair bit of footage available for the rest and having watched almost everything I can find on Clark, Villeneuve and to some extent Hill I feel i'm able to form my own opinions on them. The last 4 I can obviously judge for myself .

I'll try this scoring thing when I get home this evening...

[Red]

The footages have the annoying effect to actually show you what is really great and interesting. They're not representative.

Ok, I'll give you a hint about the problems you're about to encounter. Points per driver according to the last year's 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system:

			Races	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Avg
Fangio, Juan Manuel	51	24	10	1	6	0	0	322	6.3
Serafini, Dorino	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	6	6
Fagioli, Luigi		7	1	4	1	0	0	0	38	5.5
Ascari, Alberto		31	13	3	0	2	1	1	157	5.1

Those are the first 4 best drivers of all times, according the points per start criteria. I have NOT taken into account that some of the points where shared when the drivers shared cars, something that usually happened in that era. (Fangio got less points than 322, as some of his finishes points were split) Something wrong in that list?

[Valve Bounce]

And why was Nuvolari's great friend Bernd Rosemeyer, whom I consider to be the greatest driver ever, left out of your list? PLease explain.

You can ask your dumb question an infinite number of times, and I will reply an infinite number of times that Bernd Rosemeyer was the greatest driver ever.

[Red]

Sheese, VB!!!!!!!! I just wanted to give an example so I enumerated a couple of them. What I asked Damon, and you and anyone else, is not to order that list, is to work together to find who was the best of all and of all times. If possible. If not, to publicly admit that Rosemayer cannot be compared with Damon Hill. Not higher, not lower, not equals. Simply different.

[Chris Stockdale]

My top three are
Nigell Mansell
Jaun Manual Fangio
(I hate to say it) Micheal Schumacher

[Red]

Fair enough. Now, please do explain why did you rate Mansell above Fangio when the numebr of championships won, for example, would point otherwise. (I noted that you used "my top"; just curious why did you chose those 3 names and what lead you to that classification)

[Champ69]

Schumacher
Brabham
Lauda

[Champ69]

or maybe,

Lauda
Schumacher
Brabham

[f1manoz]

Clark.

Nuff said.

[Valve Bounce]

Rosemeyer
Rosemeyer
Rosemeyer.

Just have a look at the tape The Auto Union Years

Trust me!! He was the greatest.

[Aysedasi]

A pointless thread (sorry Damon, but......), but just for the sake of it:-

1. Senna
2. Fangio
3. Clark

[DNQ]

Originally posted by Champ69
Lauda

I personally wouldn't put Lauda in a top ten list myself, although he was very good, and would have won the 1976 title if he hadnt crashed, he was a pretty sluggish qualifier, often starting many rows down the grid. That said, his Nurburgring accident and recovery mean he is a sentimental favourite to put in the top 10.

[Glen]

Damon

Starnge how you are so comprehensive in listing Schumacher's failings (as you see them) and yet fail to mention any of Senna's corresponding traits! Funny that. Your elaborations can thus be seen to be nothing but excessive dressing to a list of who are your favourite drivers, rather than the best ones! That you maintain Schumacher's race craft to be "doubtful" loses you more credibility than anything - I find it very difficult to imagine how this dimension of his driving could be improved... certainly Senna never showed us anything superior.

[JohnSSC]

I was just about to post my list, but I am getting this strange feeling that this will turn into a Senna vs Schumacher thread. Wrexie, get your bat ready!

My top 3? I'll have to think on it. Can we have Pre-war, Post-war and post turbo maybe? It is so difficult to compare drivers through various era's. I mean, how do you compare Rosemeyer to say, Jim Clark? Actually you could compare Rosemeyer to Schumacher because both are driving the dominant car of their respective era - so are they great or is the car great? Why is there air? Will this be another 8 page thread dissecting Jerez '97 (groan).

[Red]

Ok-ok boys, time-out! Please.

I believe that its is a misunderstanding here, and I feel guilty for it. When I asked Damon how would he order that list of drivers names, I really was interested in HOW! Like in the method that he used! I didn't care the final ordered list, I just wanted to know why does he rate driver X above driver Y, other than 'sheer determination', 'driving to the edge' or something else. I wanted to give me his method. And by the way, I really am serious. Let us all try to imagine something to quantify the value and achievements of ANY driver, competing in any era and/or in any series. If possible. Something that can be measured. Accurately and objectively. How can you measure 'it was a pleasure to watch him driving to the edge'? In meters? In pounds per square inch? Artistic points? VB, "just look at the tape" really doesn't hold any value. I have also watched tapes featuring Tarso Marques, does that make him great?

If it is not possible to say, beyond any doubt, that's it - it is not possible.

Threads like 'The best driver ever' we do have every month, why would we need yet another one? We even had a 'Vote the greatest driver' thread for chrissake!

Cheers,
Red

[NiceGuyEddie]

You want the impossible.
There are simple too many variables. What criterium would one use?
Number of victories? That would lead to the conclusion that Jean Alesi is far overrated. In my book, that conclusion is false.

Number of points? That would lead to the conclusion that Jos Verstappen has overstayed is welcome by almost a decade. True, I´m not a fan and think he is generally overrated, but he is better than his pointtotal give him credit for.

The quality of a team that sign a certain driver? How would we than explain why Ralf Schumacher and David Coulthard both seem pretty safe at McLaren and Williams, whereas Fisichella doesn´t seem able to catch a break with one of those teams.

If there was a way to objectivily measure something like speed or talent (which is pretty much the same thing) than we would´ve find it by now and that would end all driver-discussion. Past, present and future.

Now, who would want that to happen?

[Red]

I KNOW that it is impossible. That's my point. Actually that's the point of the entire Formula 1 World Championship thing. We CAN compare drivers from 2002 season for example, by looking at the final point standings. I do admit that is not the best method, but actually it has the advantage that is the only one that works! Unfortunately (or perhaps luckily) that does not apply for the 'ever' timeframe, so the World Drivers Championship has to be repeated every year.