Greatest Driver of all time statistical analysis

[whatxd]

VladD said:

Wrong again. I didn't mention Schumacher or Suarez and your statement wasn't specific to them.

No, you're wrong again because in my previous post (both of which were replies to you) I said this:

whatxd said:

Well in my opinion, you are pretty great if you smash every Formula 1 record. The controversies along the way (which only count for a fraction of his success anyway) do not change my opinion on that.

In football, I'm pretty sure Luis Suarez will be remembered as one of the greatest strikers ever, despite him missing almost an entire season's worth of football due to biting and racism.

Ultimately, some people can look past a person's mistakes/flaws to see how great they are, others can't.

Seen as how there was only 10 minutes between both posts I made, I didn't see any point in repeating the whole thing. Clearly I should have done or clicked the Quote All button.

It's pretty clear in that statement that I'm talking about Schumacher and Suarez and your comparison with forgiving Savile is first of all disgusting and secondly, abusing children over several decades could never be described as a "mistake" by anyone with a stable mindset. It's an insane argument right from the beginning and I don't know why you're persisting with this.

Edited by whatxd on Tuesday 10th May 16:10

Edited by whatxd on Tuesday 10th May 16:12

[VladD]

I'm persisting because of this.

"Ultimately, some people can look past a person's mistakes/flaws to see how great they are, others can't."

It's not that I can't see past the flaws, it's that I choose not to. I find that level of cheating in sport unforgivable and, in my opinion, so would anyone with a decent moral compass.

Anyway, it was fun chatting, time to go to the pub.

Edited by VladD on Tuesday 10th May 16:31

[whatxd]

VladD said:

I'm persisting because of this.

"Ultimately, some people can look past a person's mistakes/flaws to see how great they are, others can't."

It's not that I can't see past the flaws, it's that I choose not to. I find that level of cheating in sport unforgivable and, in my opinion, so would anyone with a decent moral compass.

That in the first place would've been fine, it's your opinion. Why you needed to bring up a child sex offender to make such a point, I really don't know.

I am not denying for one second that Schumacher cheated; he absolutely did. But he was also fantastic for 15 years and I can acknowledge how great he was despite his flaws.

While it's off topic, I brought up Suarez because he too is a cheat and his indiscretions are, in my opinion, worse than Schumacher's. However, I cannot deny that he is the best striker in world football today and he will rightly be remembered as such and I say this as a Manchester United fan who takes no pleasure in heaping such praise on a former Liverpool player who was banned for eight games for racially abusing one of our players.

[gshughes]

Eric Mc said:

"Greatness" in sport is not ONLY about results but also about character and sportsmanship. In the latter areas, Schumacher falls well short (irrespective of what he is/was like away from the race track).

And , as I mentioned earlier, the survey was nothing to do with defining "greatness".

So on that basis (which I agree with), I think G Hill, Clark and Stewart are definitely three of the greats.

[Eric Mc]

I'd agree - but as I keep saying, the survey was nothing to do with defining "greatness". The "greatness" tag was invented by the University for its press release and was gobbled up by the media (both social and professional), as they hoped.

The survey was actually supposed to be a demonstration of a particular statistical style pioneered by the university's maths department.

[hairyben]

Dr Z said:

OK, I think this discussion is going in circles as we never really made any progress in understanding each other's position...arguing against perceived flaws/strengths. In any case, I don't want to be defending something that I didn't create in the first place.

In my view, the flaws that you point out do not negate the utility of the model in accounting for the influence of car/team performance. Let's face it, it's no better than some subjective lists produced over the years. It's all good.

Yeah I think we're rummaging through a box of imperial nuts trying to find one to fit a metric bolt here aren't we. I would happily contend all those other lists too...?;)

[coppice]

andyps said:

Has anyone else seen this - https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/greatest-formu...



And Lauda doesn't even make the top 100 so, in my view, there are some flaws in the calculation!

Any survey which does not even show Lauda in top 20 , let alone top 100 FFS ,is wrong.We may argue about whether he should be in top ten (yes in my book ) but top 100..words fail me.

[Eric Mc]

I keep saying, the survey was not assessing "greatness" It was only a statistical exercise. the media have interpreted the data incorrectly.

[Clevers]

I know, why don't we create a point system over a number of races each year and then the person who wins that the most is the best?

[anonymous-user]

Clevers said:

I know, why don't we create a point system over a number of races each year and then the person who wins that the most is the best?

Doesn't that system just show the one in the best car or the nearly best car but with a ream mate that is helping him win all the time?