Just how do you rate the greatest driver of all time?
- Thread starter cider_and_toast
- Start date
Yeah but does that make him the greatest?
I can definitely say, with utmost certainty, that it categorically makes him the greatest Schumacher in F1 of all time!*
* Well, at least up till the present, anyway. After all, who knows what will happen in the future? Michael Schumacher the 8th could well make a mockery of those stats...
I can definitely say, with utmost certainty, that it categorically makes him the greatest Schumacher in F1 of all time!*
* Well, at least up till the present, anyway. After all, who knows what will happen in the future? Michael Schumacher the 8th could well make a mockery of those stats...
Lets find some statistics to back up Ralf...
Predictable!
I've given a fair bit of thought to this and I believe that which ever way you look at it, if you try and create a statistical method (including trying to give variables such as car performance, a quantative value) the answer that would come up would always be Schumacher M.
There of course is the rub, because the instinct you then would have would be to produce a set of modifiers that somehow cancel out Schumachers lead in almost every table which would add not only a personal bias to the end result but skew the figures for the express purpose of cancelling out Schumachers advantage.
I need to speek to the guy who wrote the computer programme as seen in Rocky 6
There of course is the rub, because the instinct you then would have would be to produce a set of modifiers that somehow cancel out Schumachers lead in almost every table which would add not only a personal bias to the end result but skew the figures for the express purpose of cancelling out Schumachers advantage.
I need to speek to the guy who wrote the computer programme as seen in Rocky 6
Doesn't stop people from trying though, does it?
J
johnnoble1990
Guest
You could do it for the current grid by getting all drivers to drive an understeering car, a neutral handling car and an oversteering car on a power circuit and a technical circuit in the dry and rain.
Not going to happen though
That would spoil the fun.
I've given a fair bit of thought to this and I believe that which ever way you look at it, if you try and create a statistical method (including trying to give variables such as car performance, a quantative value) the answer that would come up would always be Schumacher M.
There of course is the rub, because the instinct you then would have would be to produce a set of modifiers that somehow cancel out Schumachers lead in almost every table which would add not only a personal bias to the end result but skew the figures for the express purpose of cancelling out Schumachers advantage.
I need to speek to the guy who wrote the computer programme as seen in Rocky 6
And, of course, 48 of his wins came in an era where his team had a technical veto and he was undisputed #1 at the team...
Statistics don't always tell the whole story.
There is no G.O.A.T.
TBY
Being the #1 on a team now has far less importance than it did in Fangio's day. He won at least two of his championships by taking over a teammates car in the middle of a race after his own had broken. That arrangement probably cost Peter Collins a WDC at (yes) Ferrari.
Being the #1 on a team now has far less importance than it did in Fangio's day. He won at least two of his championships by taking over a teammates car in the middle of a race after his own had broken. That arrangement probably cost Peter Collins a WDC at (yes) Ferrari.
Ahh, I agree, Collins had no guarantees that day but he couldn't win the title outside the car!
But we're comparing all time. Just who was #1 at McLaren in 1988?
Take McLaren in 2007, for example, where both drivers have reasonable claims to being the #2!It is very difficult to analyse because its never even a remotely fair comparison.
Michael Schumacher has got all those statistics - but he's had 269 races to get them. Jim Clark died after 72 races. Schumi's 72nd race was the 1996 Argentinian GP, Prost's was the 1984 European GP, Alonso's was the 2006 Australian GP.
How is it fair to compare 72 with 269? Schumacher's won more races than Clark competed in!
ATL11
Pole Sitter
Okay adding my bit about Schumacher, statistically yes he is the greatest, but....
& it's big BUT when he was pushed by other drivers who had an better/equal/inferior car he typically lost in more ways than just outright winning:
Hill - Australia 94 - We all know what he did to win.
Villeneuve - Jerez 97 - His trick of turning right @ the right time just didn't work this time, did it?
Hakkinen - 1998 - He huffed & he puffed
Alonso - 2006 - Again he just didn't have it in him.
Just if he was the greatest driver ever, then he'd have 11 if not more Driver's Championships.
See & here lies another part of the argument, how much of the negative parts of a driver can detract from him being the greatest?
Oh as for Caddyshack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg8lSyGavc4
& it's big BUT when he was pushed by other drivers who had an better/equal/inferior car he typically lost in more ways than just outright winning:
Hill - Australia 94 - We all know what he did to win.
Villeneuve - Jerez 97 - His trick of turning right @ the right time just didn't work this time, did it?
Hakkinen - 1998 - He huffed & he puffed
Alonso - 2006 - Again he just didn't have it in him.
Just if he was the greatest driver ever, then he'd have 11 if not more Driver's Championships.
See & here lies another part of the argument, how much of the negative parts of a driver can detract from him being the greatest?
Oh as for Caddyshack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg8lSyGavc4
TBY
Exactly! Caomparisons are impossible, from era to era or even team to team. There are too many intangibles. For instance, would the great Sir Stirling have been as great had he not had the super lead mechanic Alf Francis helping him, or how great would JIm Clark have been with Chapman?
How can anyone compare levels of competition? Personally I think the grids were the strongest in the mid 60s to late 70s, but I have no way of proving it!!
Rather than worrying about who is the G.O.A.T., the smart thing to do is admire the courage and skill displayed by all racers, of all eras, in all branches of motorsport. They all possess skills we can only DREAM of having.
Exactly! Caomparisons are impossible, from era to era or even team to team. There are too many intangibles. For instance, would the great Sir Stirling have been as great had he not had the super lead mechanic Alf Francis helping him, or how great would JIm Clark have been with Chapman?
How can anyone compare levels of competition? Personally I think the grids were the strongest in the mid 60s to late 70s, but I have no way of proving it!!
Rather than worrying about who is the G.O.A.T., the smart thing to do is admire the courage and skill displayed by all racers, of all eras, in all branches of motorsport. They all possess skills we can only DREAM of having.
That's one of my favourite things to mull over sometimes.
If you look at some of the very best drivers in F1, they have always been at the centre of a "perfect storm" of team owner/driver/car. For example, Chapman / Clark / Lotus 25,33,49 or Tyrell / Stewart / Matra, Tyrell or more recently Todt / Schumacher / Ferrari etc.
I can see that the issue of "the greatest" is a very emotive one for a lot of people. It looks like you can say who were among the greatest but as has been posted it would be far too difficult to produce an accurate enough method of calculating the absolute greatest other than pure subjectivity.
There is a Greatest Of A Time - and as previously mentioned you take the best from their specific era and that's your best, depending on which era you come from - no names from here mentioned
Oddly enough, I heard a statistic on Sunday, and I could be wrong due to the time, but one of the pundits mentioned that Reubens has competed in 36% of all F1 races ever held........
Apologies for dragging up an old thread but the Beeb have done a feature on their website comparing top F1 drivers past and present using statistics. Of course, they can't tell us everything.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26464195
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26464195
The reality is that subjectivity is going to have to come into it. For example, if you have a car that is a class above the rest and cruise to a victory,beating someone driving a complete pig that they've managed to incomprehensibly wrestle to third, does that make the winning driver greater than the guy in third?
I think it was? The Artist..... who pointed out that F1's most successful driver is objectively Bernie Ecclestone. And even Roberto Moreno qualified for Andrea Moda at Monaco, thus not being incomprehensibly 5 minutes down.
Similar threads
- Article
