Greatest Racing Driver
Discussion
Nicholas Blair said:
Pesonally, had a soft spot for Berger. He was a match for Senna in the McLaren but suffered with duff machinery when he returned to Ferrari.
Overall, Senna for me.
Overall, Senna for me.
I've a soft spot for Berger too, seems like a nice, fun guy, however.......
Match for Senna? He'd laugh if he heard you say that!
Nuvolari
Varzi
Ascari
Moss
Fangio
Clark
Stewart
Senna
Prost
Schumacher
These are the best of the best in Grand Prix racing imho.
Interesting excerpt taken from an old C&SC:
Talking with Stirling Moss recently about his all-time grading of the drivers he raced against,he was emphatic as ever in putting Fangio on top of the pile. "There's a pyramid in these things," he said "and there's only one peak to a pyramid and it's only got room for one person to stand on,and that's Fangio. Then just below him there are several people all on a level, I think Ascari,and Clark, and Stewart,and possibly me...and on natural ability I would put Clark up there with Fangio"
"On the other hand, I think that if I were asked to select just two great drivers for my all-time great team,I think I would probably select Stewart ahead of Clark because he was always more likely to find some way,any way, of actually winning a race for you-I think he had more of a race winning compulsion than maybe Jimmy ever had..."
Jim Clark's 1967 Italian Grand Prix drive in Monza is regarded one of the greatest drives ever in F1. After starting from pole, he was leading in his Lotus 49 (chassis R2), when a tyre punctured. He lost an entire lap while having the wheel changed in the pits.
After rejoining 16th, Clark then showed his genius by driving at his own limit, something which is not required when leading. He ripped back through the field, progessively lowered the lap record, eventually equalling his pole time of 1m 28.5s (233.9 km/h), to regain the lost lap and the lead.
He was narrowly ahead of Brabham and Surtees starting the last lap, but his car had not been filled with enough fuel for such a performance - it faltered, and finally coasted across the finish line in third place. This performance is generally considered unmatched in the long history of F1.
Varzi
Ascari
Moss
Fangio
Clark
Stewart
Senna
Prost
Schumacher
These are the best of the best in Grand Prix racing imho.
Interesting excerpt taken from an old C&SC:
Talking with Stirling Moss recently about his all-time grading of the drivers he raced against,he was emphatic as ever in putting Fangio on top of the pile. "There's a pyramid in these things," he said "and there's only one peak to a pyramid and it's only got room for one person to stand on,and that's Fangio. Then just below him there are several people all on a level, I think Ascari,and Clark, and Stewart,and possibly me...and on natural ability I would put Clark up there with Fangio"
"On the other hand, I think that if I were asked to select just two great drivers for my all-time great team,I think I would probably select Stewart ahead of Clark because he was always more likely to find some way,any way, of actually winning a race for you-I think he had more of a race winning compulsion than maybe Jimmy ever had..."
Jim Clark's 1967 Italian Grand Prix drive in Monza is regarded one of the greatest drives ever in F1. After starting from pole, he was leading in his Lotus 49 (chassis R2), when a tyre punctured. He lost an entire lap while having the wheel changed in the pits.
After rejoining 16th, Clark then showed his genius by driving at his own limit, something which is not required when leading. He ripped back through the field, progessively lowered the lap record, eventually equalling his pole time of 1m 28.5s (233.9 km/h), to regain the lost lap and the lead.
He was narrowly ahead of Brabham and Surtees starting the last lap, but his car had not been filled with enough fuel for such a performance - it faltered, and finally coasted across the finish line in third place. This performance is generally considered unmatched in the long history of F1.
Edited by HAB on Wednesday 13th September 23:12
In the latest Autosport, Jackie Stewart has this to say about Schumacher's ranking amongst drivers:
I personally don't rate Michael with some of the great drivers of the past because I think he makes far too many mistakes and because he has this flaw we all know about - the Monaco thing in May, the Villeneuve thing at Jerez, the Hill thing at Adelaide...
For all that, though, he's had an absolutely magnificent career and his successes are statistically unmatched.
I personally don't rate Michael with some of the great drivers of the past because I think he makes far too many mistakes and because he has this flaw we all know about - the Monaco thing in May, the Villeneuve thing at Jerez, the Hill thing at Adelaide...
For all that, though, he's had an absolutely magnificent career and his successes are statistically unmatched.
flemke said:
In the latest Autosport, Jackie Stewart has this to say about Schumacher's ranking amongst drivers:
I personally don't rate Michael with some of the great drivers of the past because I think he makes far too many mistakes and because he has this flaw we all know about - the Monaco thing in May, the Villeneuve thing at Jerez, the Hill thing at Adelaide...
For all that, though, he's had an absolutely magnificent career and his successes are statistically unmatched.
I personally don't rate Michael with some of the great drivers of the past because I think he makes far too many mistakes and because he has this flaw we all know about - the Monaco thing in May, the Villeneuve thing at Jerez, the Hill thing at Adelaide...
For all that, though, he's had an absolutely magnificent career and his successes are statistically unmatched.
i've read a similiar comment from Stirling Moss (iirc), saying that he doesn't rate Schumacher that highly because he could watch him make 4 or 5 mistakes over the course of almost every race weekend that would have quite likely killed him in the old F1 cars. To me there were often times when Schumacher wasn't really there for the driving or the racing, often he's just been there for the winning - hence the lack of sportsmanship, he cares more about winning than about the sport itself.
The truly great drivers on the other hand would drive just as hard at the back of the pack with no apparent chance of winning, because they loved the drive and the race, not just the standing on the podium at the end.
GravelBen said:
The truly great drivers on the other hand would drive just as hard at the back of the pack with no apparent chance of winning, because they loved the drive and the race, not just the standing on the podium at the end.
In this same issue of the magazine Mark Hughes recalls when Moss went to the hearing to defend Hawthorn's actions during the '58 Portuguese GP. Moss's testimony kept Hawthorn from being disqualified, and in fact he was awarded the race victory.
It was the points that he got from that win that enabled Hawthorn to win the World Championship that year - by one point, from Stirling Moss.
Times seem to have moved on...
GravelBen said:
To me there were often times when Schumacher wasn't really there for the driving or the racing, often he's just been there for the winning - hence the lack of sportsmanship, he cares more about winning than about the sport itself.
That makes him sound something like Senna. Wasn't it Prost who accused Senna of caring more about winning than living? Schumacher and Senna are both racers. As Senna told Jackie Stewart in an interview, "if you don't go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver". Both Schumacher and Senna were keen in getting into gaps that existed, or in some cases, didn't exist. But in the latter scenarios, Senna had the spine to admit to his actions, whereas Schumacher was unrepentent. For that, Senna will rate one rung above Schumacher in my book.
But in terms of statistics and records, Schumacher would easily be on top of the ladder or at least share it with one or two others.
Statistics are funny things.......
The number of races, superiority of machinery / teams, reliability, quality of opposition etc. etc., all have a bearing on what the statistics can say.
For those reasons I don't think that Schueys 'records' speak for themselves.
I much prefer to consider Senna's pole records and number of podiums in relation to races finished. When you consider these statistics include for his time at Toleman and Lotus, (as well as Mclaren in the early nineties when it was a bit of a dog), that he was up against the unbeatable Williams of the early ninties and that his sparring partners included the likes of Prost and Mansell, these stats speak for themselves.
Number of Grand Prix 162 100% 1984 1994
Number of finishes 105 64.81% 1984 1993
Number of finishes on podium 80 49.38% 1984 1993
Number of finishes in points 96 59.26% 1984 1993
Number of retirements 56 34.57% 1984 1994
Number of wins 41 25.31% 1985 1993
Number of pole positions 65 40.12% 1985 1994
The number of races, superiority of machinery / teams, reliability, quality of opposition etc. etc., all have a bearing on what the statistics can say.
For those reasons I don't think that Schueys 'records' speak for themselves.
I much prefer to consider Senna's pole records and number of podiums in relation to races finished. When you consider these statistics include for his time at Toleman and Lotus, (as well as Mclaren in the early nineties when it was a bit of a dog), that he was up against the unbeatable Williams of the early ninties and that his sparring partners included the likes of Prost and Mansell, these stats speak for themselves.
Number of Grand Prix 162 100% 1984 1994
Number of finishes 105 64.81% 1984 1993
Number of finishes on podium 80 49.38% 1984 1993
Number of finishes in points 96 59.26% 1984 1993
Number of retirements 56 34.57% 1984 1994
Number of wins 41 25.31% 1985 1993
Number of pole positions 65 40.12% 1985 1994
Jungles said:
But in terms of statistics and records, Schumacher would easily be on top of the ladder or at least share it with one or two others.
This is no doubt correct. What we need to bear in mind is that during Schumacher's era there were many more races in a season, and many more points dished out.
Cars of the last few years have been vastly more reliable than were the cars even of the '80s, reducing the possiblity of "random" outcomes that enabled less-quick drivers in less-quick cars to win races when the stars DNF'd.
Then we have mortality and major injuries. Obviously we cannot know what the Mosses, Clarks, and Sennas might have achieved in their careers if they had driven until the age of 37, as Schumacher has done.
micky g said:
Nicholas Blair said:
Pesonally, had a soft spot for Berger. He was a match for Senna in the McLaren but suffered with duff machinery when he returned to Ferrari.
Overall, Senna for me.
Overall, Senna for me.
I've a soft spot for Berger too, seems like a nice, fun guy, however.......
Match for Senna? He'd laugh if he heard you say that!
Mostly in qualifying - always 1-2's, alas Senna had the works thrown at the him for the race.
Good choice though
GravelBen said:
i've read a similiar comment from Stirling Moss (iirc), saying that he doesn't rate Schumacher that highly because he could watch him make 4 or 5 mistakes over the course of almost every race weekend that would have quite likely killed him in the old F1 cars. I don't buy that. It's quite possible that Schumacher simply pushes much harder than drivers of Moss's era did because he knows that he can get away with making mistakes. If he was racing in Moss's era he probably wouldn't have pushed as hard and therefore wouldn't have made such mistakes.
GravelBen said:
The truly great drivers on the other hand would drive just as hard at the back of the pack with no apparent chance of winning, because they loved the drive and the race, not just the standing on the podium at the end.
If there's one thing you can't accuse Schumacher of it's giving up when he's in a bad situation.
micky g said:
Number of Grand Prix 162 100% 1984 1994
Number of finishes 105 64.81% 1984 1993
Number of finishes on podium 80 49.38% 1984 1993
Number of finishes in points 96 59.26% 1984 1993
Number of retirements 56 34.57% 1984 1994
Number of wins 41 25.31% 1985 1993
Number of pole positions 65 40.12% 1985 1994
Prost:
Number of Grand Prix 202 100%
Number of finishes 143 70.79%
Number of finishes on podium 106 52.47%
Number of finishes in points 128 63.36%
Number of retirements 57 28.22%
Number of wins 51 25.24%
Number of pole positions 33 16.33%
SamHH said:
GravelBen said:
i've read a similiar comment from Stirling Moss (iirc), saying that he doesn't rate Schumacher that highly because he could watch him make 4 or 5 mistakes over the course of almost every race weekend that would have quite likely killed him in the old F1 cars. I don't buy that. It's quite possible that Schumacher simply pushes much harder than drivers of Moss's era did because he knows that he can get away with making mistakes. If he was racing in Moss's era he probably wouldn't have pushed as hard and therefore wouldn't have made such mistakes.
- Why didn't or haven't the other top contemporary drivers err as frequently as Schumacher does? Prost, Senna, Hakkinen, Raikkonen and Alonso have all been cleaner and tidier.
- Don't you think that experts such as Moss and Stewart - who, one must admit, have an incomparably better understanding of the game than any of us on PH do - would have taken that supposed greater-modern-margin-for-error into account when they said what they did?
-
A little picture intermission.
3 of the greatest from the 1960's.
Damon shouts at his father to make sure he beats Jim in the race this time.
Jochen Rindt tries a nifty new line in racing helmets
My all time favourite "Grand Prix" person, Francoise Hardy relaxing in Nino Barlini's Ferrari at Clermont Ferrand during shooting of John Frankenheimer's epic 1966 movie Grand Prix.
3 of the greatest from the 1960's.
Damon shouts at his father to make sure he beats Jim in the race this time.
Jochen Rindt tries a nifty new line in racing helmets
My all time favourite "Grand Prix" person, Francoise Hardy relaxing in Nino Barlini's Ferrari at Clermont Ferrand during shooting of John Frankenheimer's epic 1966 movie Grand Prix.
SamHH said:
micky g said:
Number of Grand Prix 162 100% 1984 1994
Number of finishes 105 64.81% 1984 1993
Number of finishes on podium 80 49.38% 1984 1993
Number of finishes in points 96 59.26% 1984 1993
Number of retirements 56 34.57% 1984 1994
Number of wins 41 25.31% 1985 1993
Number of pole positions 65 40.12% 1985 1994
Prost:
Number of Grand Prix 202 100%
Number of finishes 143 70.79%
Number of finishes on podium 106 52.47%
Number of finishes in points 128 63.36%
Number of retirements 57 28.22%
Number of wins 51 25.24%
Number of pole positions 33 16.33%
If you work it out as a percentage of races completed:-
Finishes on podium: Senna 76% Prost 74 %
Finishes in the points: Senna 91 % Prost 90 %
Number of wins: Senna 39 % Prost 36 %
Number of poles - let's not even go there!
Considering the equipment Senna achieved the above stats in......
Nicholas Blair said:
Pesonally, had a soft spot for Berger. He was a match for Senna in the McLaren but suffered with duff machinery when he returned to Ferrari.
Overall, Senna for me.
Overall, Senna for me.
Jeez, but thats an outlandish thing to say. I don't think you'll find one single person from the world of motorsport who'll back that up. I remember when mechanic turned journalist Steve Matchett wrote an article on what Berger was like when he went to Benetton after Schumacher. I've never read such a hatchet job, Matchett slaughtered bergers personality, and skill as a driver, in print. Don't forget that Brawn and Byrne didn't follow Schumacher to Ferrari initially, but when they saw how bad Berger and Alesi were, and possibly then realised how absolutely brilliant Schumacher was.
Of course the famous Senna/Berger story is when Berger tested the McLaren all winter long, whilst Senna sunned himself in Brazil. Berger was determined to have the car (and team hopefully) exactly how he wanted it, and was determined to place himself above Senna in the team.
Senna returns from Brazil, does 10 laps in the car, goes quicker than Berger had managed all winter and said the car is shit and the team hasn't a hope in hell of winning the championship with it as it is. And then went on to win the championship.
GravelBen said:
The truly great drivers on the other hand would drive just as hard at the back of the pack with no apparent chance of winning, because they loved the drive and the race, not just the standing on the podium at the end.
Right. Then how come none of them did it for 16 years, if they loved the sport that much? When you have the backing of family, friends, sponsors and team behind you, you have a duty yo try to win. If you want to do it for fun you should do so with your own money and time. Which I guess Schumi does when he races karts during the winter.
Shumacher drove for two teams, neither of which had a record of success at the time he went to them. For a top driver to willingly leave a winning team, and go to one who hadn't won for some 21 years, is pretty unprecedented. I can't think of a parallel, right now.
When that Benetton was stuck in fifth gear that time, Schumi couldn't win but he stuck at it for points. In Hungary this year, Schumi shouldn't have defended like he did against Heidfeld and DLR, he should have let them past, but he raced hard against them 'cos he is a racer and a fighter and doesn't give in. This might cost him the championship this year, which shows he doesn't always race to win. But to be honest, you shouldn't be there unless you are trying your best.
micky g said:
Finishes on podium: Senna 76% Prost 74 %
Finishes in the points: Senna 91 % Prost 90 %
Number of wins: Senna 39 % Prost 36 %
Number of poles - let's not even go there!
In 88 and 89, when together at McLaren - don't have the figures to hand, but Prost out pointed Senna both years. At the time there was a points dropping system, and Prost had scored so many that he had to drop too many and lost a championship. Under todays rules, and under the points systems of most years since F1 started I believe, Prost would have been champion twice.
heebeegeetee said:
In 88 and 89, when together at McLaren - don't have the figures to hand, but Prost out pointed Senna both years. At the time there was a points dropping system, and Prost had scored so many that he had to drop too many and lost a championship. Under todays rules, and under the points systems of most years since F1 started I believe, Prost would have been champion twice.
All true I concur, but it was Prosts team that Senna went to.
Imagine the raising of eyebrows if say Massa had done the same to Schumacher this season.
I am certainly not taking anything away from Prosts achivements, he was one of the sports greats imo, but that reinforces my point regarding Senna's stats and the competition that was around at the time to 'spoil them.'
Edited by micky g on Friday 15th September 08:57
flemke said:
- Why didn't or haven't the other top contemporary drivers err as frequently as Schumacher does? Prost, Senna, Hakkinen, Raikkonen and Alonso have all been cleaner and tidier.
That's a good point, something I hadn't considered. Of the drivers you mention Prost and Senna could be accounted for by the fact that for the majority of their careers the cars and circuits were more dangerous than during Schumacher careers and therefore they the might have been more cautious. Raikkonen appears to me to be somewhat error prone (e.g. losing second after going wide at the end of the GP at Canada this year), although like Schumacher he usually either gets away with it or more than makes up for it.
flemke said:
- Don't you think that experts such as Moss and Stewart - who, one must admit, have an incomparably better understanding of the game than any of us on PH do - would have taken that supposed greater-modern-margin-for-error into account when they said what they did?
It's difficult for me to answer without knowing exactly which "experts" have said exactly what. My comment was a response to GravelBen's paraphrase of someone, possibly Stirling Moss. If Moss or someone of similar experience did say that they didn't rate Schumacher highly because of the mistakes he makes then yes, that theory would hold more weight with me. However, I wouldn't unquestioningly agree with them, at least not without understanding their reasoning in greater detail.
SamHH said:
It's difficult for me to answer without knowing exactly which "experts" have said exactly what. My comment was a response to GravelBen's paraphrase of someone, possibly Stirling Moss. If Moss or someone of similar experience did say that they didn't rate Schumacher highly because of the mistakes he makes then yes, that theory would hold more weight with me. However, I wouldn't unquestioningly agree with them, at least not without understanding their reasoning in greater detail.
Sam, From previous page:
In the latest Autosport, Jackie Stewart has this to say about Schumacher's ranking amongst drivers:
I personally don't rate Michael with some of the great drivers of the past because I think he makes far too many mistakes and because he has this flaw we all know about - the Monaco thing in May, the Villeneuve thing at Jerez, the Hill thing at Adelaide...
For all that, though, he's had an absolutely magnificent career and his successes are statistically unmatched.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff