[Driver] The GOAT - A bracket to determine (just for fun)

[crmalcolm]

I'm not sure - maybe front page may have seen more votes?

I'll continue with the summary of proceedings over the next few days before looking at what contest to run next. Maybe best Car Of All Time (COAT)?

[chunterer]

Here's some ideas:

Best overtaker
Best qualifier
Best car
Best team
Biggest loon...

Maybe not the last one 😄

[S griffin]

Best overtaker: Mansell
Best qualifier: Seanna
Best car: 1992 Williams FW14B
Best team: Lotus, at least under Mr Chapman
Biggest loon: hmm....

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Best qualifier: Seanna

Given your position on 'foul play', im surprised by your choice.

I guess it is all a matter of degrees after all?

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Anyways, a very worthy winner imo and a good bit of fun! Thank you crmalcolm for doing this and I look forward to more polls in the future!

Please allow me to second this. I could say "what a relief its Senna" or "I wanted him to win" or "could be no other" but in fact the result is far less important compare to the fun I had IMO.

Thanks again crmalcolm, the idea and the texts are just pure gems. Keep the fun and open minded spirit of your "productions" the success is not in the front page but more likely in the smiles you brought to some faces. Quality rather than quantity.

What about "He could/should have been WC"? Anyway, if you still allow me to, I'll go on participating with the same pleasure.

[crmalcolm]

The summary continues:

With the final 64 confirmed, the bracket commenced. There are many cases that could be made for drivers who are not in the 64 to deserve a place over some who were. However, I feel it is highly unlikely that any driver who was not in the 64 can seriously be considered as a potential GOAT.

Having taken the last place, the unfortunate challenge for 64th seed is to be matched up with the 1st seed – Schumacher. And the result was as expected – a comfortable 13-1 win. Looking through the rest of the bracket, Round-1 upsets based on the seeding were as follows:

Surtees (33) 10-3 Farina (32)

Scheckter (25) 2-8 Hawthorn (40)

Reutemann (29) 5-6 Berger (36)

Gurney (43) 9-3 Jones (22)

A close battle was seen between J and G Villeneuve – with the higher seeded Jacques taking the match 8-7.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

but in fact the result is far less important compare to the fun I had IMO.

Exactly this - a lot of the results are ones that I personally may feel should have gone the other way - but that's not the point.

Heck - someone's free to vote for a driver as being the greatest because they think they were the sharpest dressed on the grid if they wish. There are so many ways to judge who was/is the greatest, and even selecting the same criteria you may get different opinions. Ultimately, I think what makes someone the GOAT - given the history, complexity and context of the sport we call F1 - is impossible to achieve. We all will judge one driver differently to how many other people see the same driver - and long may that continue.

Many people say F1 is boring when one team/driver dominates - at least the GOAT is not a foregone conclusion.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Given your position on 'foul play', im surprised by your choice.

I guess it is all a matter of degrees after all?

I agree with S Griffin over the 'foul play,' discussion, but I would also say that Senna is undoubtedly the best qualifier of all time. Senna's deliberate crashing excludes him (in my view) from being the Greatest of All Time, but the incident didn't happen in a qualifying session, so he can still be the best qualifier despite that obvious flaw. I would even say that Senna is potentially the fastest of all time, because this also is not affected by the deliberate crash. The GOAT discussion includes all factors, so 'foul play' can exclude a driver from being the GOAT (again, in my opinion). All these other categories are not taking all factors into account, so Senna and Schumacher are not excluded from them based because of their 'foul play.'

[Adam43]

Yes, it was fun. Thanks.

I’m happy Senna won, and pleased to see how well many others did. Some interesting results too (i am still smarting over Gilles Jacques )

It was a cup type competition so maybe Senna winning is appropriate. It’s probably not a theory that needs too much thought, but if you were choosing one driver for one race to drive for your life I think Senna is that driver.

[crmalcolm]

Continuing the summary.

The second round saw some interesting matches, although most results were conclusive. The only Round-2 upset based on seeding was:

Moss (23) 12-2 Piquet (10)


The third round continued to intensify the intrigue with matches, and voting numbers also saw an upturn. Upsets in this round were:

Clark (9) 14-7 Alonso (8)

Vettel (7) 4-17 Moss (23)

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It’s probably not a theory that needs too much thought, but if you were choosing one driver for one race to drive for your life I think Senna is that driver.

You wouldn't choose Mr S. Vettel atm???

[crmalcolm]

With the third round complete, the biggest surprise so far had been the performance of Moss (IMO). Whether that is how great people feel he was, compared to his actual results – or how poorly he was seeded compared to his actual greatness is open for debate. At this point, it was interesting to note why he was seeded so low.


So going back to the original seeding, what saw him so low? Clearly, it was not from Autosport’s rating; in this he placed at #8.

Autosport had this to say:

If this list was for the greatest all-round racing driver, there'd be a strong case for putting Stirling Moss right at the top. Success in sportscars, touring cars and rallying underlined the breadth of his talent. And he was great enough in F1 to be high up here too. Having learned his craft alongside Juan Manuel Fangio at Mercedes-Benz in 1955, Moss increasingly became the great Argentinian's main rival. After Fangio retired, Moss took over the mantle of the best driver in the world until his Goodwood crash in 1962.


New Atlas modelled him at 29 – a big contribution to his low seed. There is no direct description of why their model placed him so low, but a comment reads:

Apart from his years racing for the Silver Arrows, he mostly driving inferior cars in his desire to win with a British car - very often with private entrants rather than works cars.


F1metrics, which focuses on the best two-year performance of a driver (when they were at their ‘peak’) rated Moss as 10th of all time. They explain that his performances against Fangio are the main reason for not being higher than 10th. Added to the lack of a title, and on paper his seeding can be understood best. Not in the best car for a significant part of his career, being bettered by Fangio, and having his career shortened by accident all count against him when trying to model his ranking. The fact he did so well in the bracket suggests that there is always a question of ‘what if’ surrounding some drivers. What if he was in a better car, what if his career had continued, what if he’d been a bit luckier in terms of reliability? Clearly he is rated as greater than P.Hill, Piquet and Vettel by the Ten-Tenths community. Ultimately losing to Prost - the deciding factor for many seems to be the comparative records in terms of titles, something which models and opinions seem to align on. It was certainly close though – and the number 23 seed only lost to the number 2 seed by 3 votes.

In other quarter finals – there were interesting results across the board. On paper, the closest match should have been between Fangio (5) and Senna (4). The battle between Argentina and Brazil turned out to be not as close though – with Senna taking the win by 11 votes.

Across the rest of the field, titles and race wins seemed to be clear defining factors, as the two drivers from history who seem to have amassed statistical tallies like no others also made it to the Semi Finals; Schumacher defeating Clark 13-8 and Hamilton defeating Stewart 16-5.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

With the third round complete, the biggest surprise so far had been the performance of Moss (IMO). Whether that is how great people feel he was, compared to his actual results – or how poorly he was seeded compared to his actual greatness is open for debate. At this point, it was interesting to note why he was seeded so low.


So going back to the original seeding, what saw him so low? Clearly, it was not from Autosport’s rating; in this he placed at #8.

Autosport had this to say:

If this list was for the greatest all-round racing driver, there'd be a strong case for putting Stirling Moss right at the top. Success in sportscars, touring cars and rallying underlined the breadth of his talent. And he was great enough in F1 to be high up here too. Having learned his craft alongside Juan Manuel Fangio at Mercedes-Benz in 1955, Moss increasingly became the great Argentinian's main rival. After Fangio retired, Moss took over the mantle of the best driver in the world until his Goodwood crash in 1962.


New Atlas modelled him at 29 – a big contribution to his low seed. There is no direct description of why their model placed him so low, but a comment reads:

Apart from his years racing for the Silver Arrows, he mostly driving inferior cars in his desire to win with a British car - very often with private entrants rather than works cars.


F1metrics, which focuses on the best two-year performance of a driver (when they were at their ‘peak’) rated Moss as 10th of all time. They explain that his performances against Fangio are the main reason for not being higher than 10th. Added to the lack of a title, and on paper his seeding can be understood best. Not in the best car for a significant part of his career, being bettered by Fangio, and having his career shortened by accident all count against him when trying to model his ranking. The fact he did so well in the bracket suggests that there is always a question of ‘what if’ surrounding some drivers. What if he was in a better car, what if his career had continued, what if he’d been a bit luckier in terms of reliability? Clearly he is rated as greater than P.Hill, Piquet and Vettel by the Ten-Tenths community. Ultimately losing to Prost - the deciding factor for many seems to be the comparative records in terms of titles, something which models and opinions seem to align on. It was certainly close though – and the number 23 seed only lost to the number 2 seed by 3 votes.

In other quarter finals – there were interesting results across the board. On paper, the closest match should have been between Fangio (5) and Senna (4). The battle between Argentina and Brazil turned out to be not as close though – with Senna taking the win by 11 votes.

Across the rest of the field, titles and race wins seemed to be clear defining factors, as the two drivers from history who seem to have amassed statistical tallies like no others also made it to the Semi Finals; Schumacher defeating Clark 13-8 and Hamilton defeating Stewart 16-5.

Personally, I think F1metrics is by far the best model for comparing drivers (by the way, it is the 3 year peak). I'm not sure why, exactly, but it all seems a lot more reasonable than any other models I have seen, and it seems that more factors are investigated in it as well. Maybe this is wrong.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

Personally, I think F1metrics is by far the best model for comparing drivers (by the way, it is the 3 year peak).

You're right - thanks for the correction.

I had taken the 2 year comment from the analysis of best driver per decade - rather than the overall ranking list: 'For these rankings, I used each driver’s strongest consecutive 2-year performance interval from each decade. I used 2 years here (rather than 3 years, which is the primary measure for the all-time top 100 list below) to better handle cases where a driver’s best years happened to overlap the beginning/end of a decade.'

My mistake.

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It was a cup type competition so maybe Senna winning is appropriate. It’s probably not a theory that needs too much thought, but if you were choosing one driver for one race to drive for your life I think Senna is that driver.

Suits me too.

[FIRE]

It's fun but I take this sort of competitions not very serious.
Main problem is to compare different era's, and to be honest I don't really want to do that.

[crmalcolm]

Continuing the summary:

And onto the Semi Finals we went. The decisions were extremely tough at this stage, with representatives from Germany, France, Brazil and England completing the line-up. The closeness is to be expected, for two main reasons:

• If there was a clear GOAT, there would be no discussion to have.
• F1metrics’ model of the top 100 drivers of all time (as of Nov 19) described ratings of the top drivers as being so close they are statistically uncertain.

The Semi Finals concluded, and the winners were Senna & Hamilton.
Schumacher lost to Senna 16-8 and went into the 3rd/4th playoff, against Prost who lost 17-7 to Hamilton.

This vote for the 3rd/4th play-off ran alongside the main final, and ultimately Schumacher was the victor by 14 points to 6.

[crmalcolm]

Before we get onto the final summary, it is worth recognising that racefans.net carried out a similar bracket in January 2011, albeit a slightly smaller field of 32.
Alain Prost, Alan Jones, Alberto Ascari, Ayrton Senna, Damon Hill, Denny Hulme, Emerson Fittipaldi, Fernando Alonso, Giuseppe Farina, Graham Hill, Jack Brabham, Jackie Stewart, Jacques Villeneuve, James Hunt, Jenson Button, Jim Clark, Jochen Rindt, Jody Scheckter, John Surtees, Juan Manuel Fangio, Keke Rosberg, Kimi Raikkonen, Lewis Hamilton, Mario Andretti, Michael Schumacher, Mika Hakkinen, Mike Hawthorn, Nelson Piquet, Nigel Mansell, Niki Lauda, Phil Hill and Sebastian Vettel.

The results of this were (winners listed first):

Round 1:
Clark vs Surtees
Mansell vs Piquet
Alonso vs Scheckter
Schumacher vs Farina
Hakkinen vs Villeneuve
Prost vs K.Rosberg
Ascari vs Hunt
Lauda vs Jones
E.Fittipaldi vs Hulme
Fangio vs Hawthorn
Raikkonen vs Vettel
Stewart vs M.Andretti
G.Hill vs Rindt
Senna vs D.Hill
Hamilton vs Button
Brabham vs P.Hill

Round 2:
Schumacher vs Alonso
Clark vs Mansell
Prost vs Hakkinen
Lauda vs Ascari
Fangio vs E.Fittipaldi
Stewart vs Raikkonen
Senna vs G.Hill
Brabham vs Hamilton

Quarter-Finals:
Schumacher vs Clark
Prost vs Lauda
Fangio vs Stewart
Senna vs Brabham

Semi-Finals:
Schumacher vs Prost
Senna vs Fangio

Final:
Senna vs Schumacher

There are interesting comparisons here – particularly in the late stages. Schumacher again beat Prost, and so we can conclude he is consistently rated as the greater of the two in direct comparison. It is also interesting that Senna reached the final on both occasions – each time against the driver with the best record at that point in time (in terms of wins/championships). So again, we can conclude that winning races and titles makes you a great driver. And, just as in 2011, Senna is victorious over his challenger. Will it be the same if/when Senna is ever compared to an 8, 9 or 10-time WDC?

[crmalcolm]

And so, to the Ten-Tenths Final Round - Senna, vs Hamilton

As we saw at the start, these two were seeded #4 and #3 respectively going into the bracket. Their routes to the final were as follows:

Senna was paired up with the #61 seed Richie Ginther in the first round and recorded a comfortable 11-0 victory. Linking these two drivers is the fact that they both won races with Honda power – Ginther recording Honda’s first ever win in F1.
In round two, the match up saw #36 seed Gerhard Berger as Senna’s opponent. Again, a comfortable victory was seen 13-0. Berger is someone who said the following about Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton "I've seen all three very close, some of them wheel-to-wheel. [Ayrton]'s the best racing driver I've seen."
Into the third round, and next up for Senna was the #13 seed Graham Hill. These two never competed, however Graham’s son Damon will always be linked to Ayrton’s career in the saddest of circumstances. Their respective careers also share some similarity: ‘Ayrton Senna and Graham Hill not only won the world championship on more than one occasion; they were also runner-up several times too. Senna won the title three times and was runner-up twice, whereas Hill won the championship twice and placed second in three consecutive years, from 1963 to 1965. Both Senna and Hill also shared a team with another of the great drivers of their day; Senna was partnered with Alain Prost at McLaren in 1988 and 1989, winning a title apiece. Hill joined Jim Clark at Lotus in 1967. That partnership was ended by Clark’s untimely death in 1968. In 1969 Hill won the Monaco Grand Prix for the fifth time – a record, until Senna scored his sixth Monaco victory in 1993.’
An upturn in voting numbers saw that match go 20-1 in favour of the Brazilian, seeing him through to take on the #5 seed Fangio in the quarter-finals. This was a closer match, although still a clear victory for Senna, taking the votes 17-6. Fangio is argualby the first competitor faced by Senna in this competition who is routinely considered amongst the GOAT’s a fact borne out by his #5 seed. Racefans.net said: ‘Juan Manuel Fangio handed Ayrton Senna the winners’ trophy at the 1993 Brazilian Grand Prix. Senna climbed down from the top spot and embraced the Argentinian champion. A touching moment between two of the sport’s legendary figures. For decades, Fangio’s achievement of winning five world championship titles was the ultimate benchmark in Formula 1. Arguably, Senna and Alain Prost might have equalled him if they hadn’t had to race against each other. Fangio’s rivals were in awe of him, to the extent of not wanting to stand in the way of the success they felt ‘the maestro’ deserved. Compare that with the intense, bitter rivalry between Senna and Prost and you can appreciate the enormous changes in Formula 1 between the eras of Senna and Fangio. The two were once interviewed together and the interviewer remarked that between them they had eight world championships. Fangio remarked: “Ayrton is still very good and still very young. He has still many years to keep racing.” Sadly, he did not. We’ll never know if Senna might have matched Fangio’s five world championships. Some who knew him felt his respect for Fangio would have kept him from trying to win more.’

Into the semi-final, and Senna’s first opponent seeded higher came in the form of Schumacher (#1 seed). If Senna was the obvious GOAT to many at the time of his passing, Schumacher is the first driver since who may claim that title. The result here was a 16-8 victory for Senna, so it is clear where ten-tenth’s opinion lies. In Hollywood terms, the rivalry that we sadly never got to see play out has been described as Rocky Balboa vs Ivan Drago. Whether this is fair, a reasonable summary was provided in Quora in response to the question of why Senna is seen as better than Schumacher: Schumacher is highly methodical, he’s driven more by the head. A supreme tactician and had a very scientific approach to racing. The first driver that brought the ultra professionalism of a racing driver - discipline, fitness, team development. His level of fitness and great team leadership skills allowed him to make his team do anything for him. So much so that even his team prevented his teammate to pass him and win. On the driving, due to his level of fitness he could put in qualifying laps in the races, flat-out, without fading. That’s why he had 77 fastest laps and Senna 19.

He was the best test- and development driver. Ross Brawn said it was difficult to find a fault when Michael tested a new car, because he could mask the car’s weaknesses. But on the downside he also could break under pressure and made mistakes in crucial moments - ’94 Adelaide, crashed in qualifying and the race before running into Hill. ’97 Jerez, ’98 Suzuka title-decider when he stalled the car twice at the start, ’05 China when he crashed in the formation lap. Schumacher didn’t have much competition to prove himself after Senna’s death. Hill and Villeneuve were not as experienced as he was. Hakkinen was blindingly quick but not as committed as Schumacher was, and McLaren went downhill post-2000. Raikkonen and Alonso were also young-starters who by then drove for lesser teams until the regulation changed to challenge Ferrari.

As ruthless as Senna was, his tactics seemed much more routine, more desperate and as a last resort to avoid defeat. His comeback in 2010 also had people question his abilities, though. But he will never be forgotten for bringing two under-performing teams into multiple world championship titles. He always wanted to go to a team and build it from within, getting personally close to his team members and dominated the sport. He won with Ford, with Renault, and Ferrari engines. Also with Goodyear and Bridgestone. From the outside, he could be viewed as a machine; distant, cold, and corporate. Those who worked with him might disagree.

Senna is more driven by heart and passion. He had the God-given talent and a sixth-sense of where the grip is on the track, be it dry or on the wet. He had the ability to identify a car’s problem and what the tires, the engine, the suspension, and chassis were doing with precision before the data telemetry and computer technology arrived. He could very much perform a fast lap without having to think much about it, a natural. He also had a complex and captivating personality that captured the hearts of millions of fans. Translating his emotion and feelings of driving a racing car into words eloquently, that normal people could identify and connect to his passion. Senna’s career was filled with rivalries with the drivers as legendary as he was - Mansell, Prost, Piquet, even Rosberg. Senna’s career had black marks too. His ruthlessness made him go over the limit, and crash into his rival Prost at 190 km/h.

But the difference with Schumacher was his motive. It was unethical, but Senna needed to prove his point and lashed his anger at Balestre. And he later apologized for it, whereas Schumacher had no remorse for all the controversies he caused (which is probably Schumacher’s strength for not showing remorse and emotion). However Senna is more of a self-interest kind of driver, he would always wanted to go to the best team with the best car, much like Fangio. Doesn’t matter how many WDCs he won with a team, he would jump ship if they’re no longer competitive. He would even change to a better team without being paid, if that's necessary. His death made him immortalized and romanticized by fans around the world, but that doesn’t mean he’s overrated.

So there you go - Senna, a romantic, passionate hero and Schumacher, the methodical dominator with a guile of an assassin. Who’s better depends on what your preference and definition of a great driver.

[crmalcolm]

Meeting Senna in the final was Hamilton. So what was his route?

Round One saw him lined up against the #62 seed François Cevert. This match went in Hamilton’s favour 13-1, which means someone feels Cevert is a greater driver. It’s difficult to find any comparison between the two, aside from Cevert driving for the team that became AMG Mercedes. Although Jackie Stewart did manage to squeeze them both into the same conversation (whilst sounding bitter about Hamilton):
“The pressure today is much more relaxed. Of course they go to the factory and do the simulator, but that's not quite the same. It's a different world.[…] Lewis drives extremely well, make no mistake. I'm not in any way diminishing his skills. But it's not the same […] Lewis made a very good decision when he left McLaren at that time and went to Mercedes-Benz. I take my hat off to him for making that decision. But frankly, the car and the engine are now so superior that it's almost unfair on the rest of the field. […] We had Jim Clark and Graham Hill and Jochen Rindt, my team-mate Francois Cevert and a few others that were really top racing drivers. Chris Amon, Jack Brabham. These were top, top racing drivers. We don't have that today, that you could identify these people at the very top of their profession.”

Hamilton then was matched up with #30 seed Denny Hulme, who he was victorious 14-1. Again, we saw a vote going against Hamilton that could be seen as unexpected. Another driver who drove for a team that Hamilton went on to represent, the similarities also seem to end there. Little has been written in comparing the two – aside from one passing comment from Lorenzo Liegi – ‘Lewis is a phenomenal race driver, the best of his generation. But despite being the most successful driver in history, his impact on the sport feels as relevant as Denny Hulme’s.’

Onto the third round, and Hamilton’s opponent was #14 seed Nigel Mansell. This match saw a 16-5 victory for Hamilton. These two have seen many comments made comparing them – in part down to their nationality. One such example coming after the British GP (naturally) at which Hamilton hunted down Rosberg in what he described as ‘full attack mode’. This was rated alongside Mansell’s 1987 performance at the same venue, where Mansell hunted down Piquet setting 11 lap records in the last 15 of the race.

Quarter final time and Hamilton was up against another Brit, namely #6 seed Jackie Stewart. The same 16-5 result was recorded. As mentioned earlier, Stewart has spoken in fairly negative terms about Hamilton on many occasions – but actually finding comparison between them as drivers is trickier. One feature that does stand out for me though is that they are both knighted – but Hamilton’s came whilst still an active driver – a sign that his success is greater?

In the Semi Finals, Hamilton was matched up against the #2 seed Alain Prost. An interesting statistical comparison can be made using https://www.formula1points.com/head-to-head/ which when you compare side-by-side performance you can see the ‘dip’ in Hamilton’s career. At around the 130-race mark, Prost appears to have a record that is marginally better than Hamilton’s, but since that point Hamilton has gone on to be far ahead.
Ultimately taking 17 votes to 7, Hamilton moved into the final.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Little has been written in comparing the two – aside from one passing comment from Lorenzo Liegi – ‘Lewis is a phenomenal race driver, the best of his generation. But despite being the most successful driver in history, his impact on the sport feels as relevant as Denny Hulme’s.’

thats harsh!

[Adam43]

It is, but at least partially, a result of the passage of time. You can only do somethings once.

As time goes on the impact a driver (or team) can have diminishes.

The opportunity to be the first to do something goes away. The potential to make the sport more professional reduces. Or to push for a fundamental change in, say, safety is removed one by one.

[chillibowl]

Time is the true enemy of us all.

[crmalcolm]

The final between Senna and Hamilton went the way of Senna by a narrow 12-10 margin - and the comparison between the drivers was made in that thread - https://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156077

As has been repeated throughout this bracket, everyone is entitled to vote for whoever they feel was the greatest in each pairing, and use any criteria to make that decision. It does throw up some interesting questions though - and I wonder what the answers are?

Firstly, in Hamilton's first two matches we saw a vote going against him - namely, Cevert and Hulme.
Secondly, in the final Hamilton is not (yet) considered greater than Senna by the majority. Presumably if Senna was paired up against Fangio in a version of the bracket being held at the end of 1984, then Fangio would be seen as greater.

So the questions I would like to throw out there are:

For those who voted Cevert / Hulme as being greater drivers in F1 than Hamilton - what lead you to that decision?

For those who voted Senna as being greater than Hamilton - what would Hamilton have to do to move ahead of Senna in your opinion?

[morninggents]

I voted Senna. He achieved his position in a multitude of teams which were not necessarily dominant.
Hamilton is a great driver but for the last 7 years or more has been in F1's dominant car and generally has only had his teammate to beat.