| Author | Message | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1537 Registered: 3-2002 |
Exactly. That balls-to-the-wall style is what got him into F1. Sometimes it just takes a little seasoning to mature beyond that--look at Ralf. Also, I'd be interested in knowing what year he made that quote. Anyone know? | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Intermediate Member Username: Psk Post Number: 1098 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jack, I rate Gilles very highly, though unfortunately I was a little bit too young and disinterested with F1 when he driving. The only thing I do remember was his horrible accident. New Zealand at the time did not show much motorsport on the TV ... so this was one of the few things broadcasted  But this comment means that he did not understand how to win championships only races:
I assume once he bagged his first one though Gilles would have matured and become a complete driver. Pete | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1532 Registered: 3-2002 |
PSk--I'm afraid I must take the blame for bringing driver character into the equation. I tangented. It won't happen again. Anyway, you might meet some resistance with the "Gilles as a hopeless WC competitor" sentiment. To be fair, remember that he didn't always have the best equipment at his disposal, and wrestling it around the track to remain competitive was what made him famous. Granted, he could allow his emotions to rule the day, but in my opinion that merely put him on Senna's side of the street, rather than Schumi's. Another point: Early in their careers, Senna and MS were in uncompetitive cars (Toleman, Jordan). Rather than run bonzai around the tracks, trying to make a scene, they allowed themselves to become noticed for "relative competitiveness" in inferior machinery, after which they leveraged themselves out and into better teams. Gilles, on the other hand, was already at Ferrari almost from the outset. He saw this as the pinnacle of racing, and chose to make the best of it, regardless of the quality of the car. His character basically cost him the WC in '79; his emotions cost him his life. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Intermediate Member Username: Psk Post Number: 1096 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andreas, We should be comparing the racing driver, not the person. Their on track exploits are what we as motorsport fans should be judging. Personally buying the farm for his wife would make 99% of the wives in this world think he is a legend ... and I also think it is a nice thing to do. Regarding charisma, each driver displays a sort of flare in their driving of the race car ... Senna had it big time, and MS when he is really trying has it in big doses too ... so does Alonso. Gilles also rates very highly here, while drivers such as Damien Hill don't. Thus I think we have 2 very distinct comparison areas: the race driver (ability behind the steering wheel), and the WC competitor. They are not the same thing, ie. Gilles was a great race driver but a hopeless WC competitor. Prost, MS, Stewart, Clark and Fangio rate very highly at both, and I guess Senna should be included too ... but I see Senna as more of a racer. Pete | ||
| Frederick Thomas (Fred)
Member Username: Fred Post Number: 860 Registered: 2-2001 |
I think 6 WC is the stuff of legends. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2648 Registered: 10-2002 |
Alright, I'm back. Now we're talking charisma and are probably getting closer to answer Darrell's original question. Charisma wise Gilles wins hands down over MS, no doubt. Ok, let's hear some of the escapades, here a few from my leaking memory: - Berger tosses Senna's briefcase out of the helicopter over Monaco - Senna takes revenge in filling Berger's hotel room with frogs - Gilles and Pironi play chicken with helicopters over Monaco, see who gives up first before autorotating to an emergency landing (really true?) - Gilles parks his 308 sideways at Maranello compare that to Schumi buying a farm in Switzerland for his wife to go horse back riding, not really the stuff of legends, isn't it? | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1518 Registered: 3-2002 |
Well, I vote that we add "Off-track escapades" to the list. Not spins and such, but real off-track stuff. James Hunt territory, if you catch my drift! I guess that opens the window for Eddie Irvine, though... | ||
| A.Tonokaboni (Senna1994)
Junior Member Username: Senna1994 Post Number: 182 Registered: 9-2002 |
Thanks Pete, it is interesting topic one that is fun to debate. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Intermediate Member Username: Psk Post Number: 1089 Registered: 11-2002 |
Maybe the best way to rate all drivers from different times is to have a list of comparison points and rate them each, ie: WC's won. Points achieved out of possible per year. Qualifying performances. Entry speed into corners. Exit speed out of corners. Passing ability. Lapping ability. Number of fastest laps. Ability to bring a car home. Level of his team mate. Quality of his car. etc. Then we could put this all together and come up with some sort of overall rating ... ? Pete | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Intermediate Member Username: Psk Post Number: 1088 Registered: 11-2002 |
All good points Tonokaboni, I guess I have to say yes to your questions, but to be far to Jim Clark he would have won many more ... thus Nelson was more successful at achieving the intended goal, ie. the WC. I also agree that the competition at the time is a big part of it ... of cars too not just drivers, and we also need to remember that Clark's Loti (?) were heads and shoulders above the rest of the homemade specials (Ferraris included  ). All in all it IS an interesting topic. Pete | ||
| A.Tonokaboni (Senna1994)
Junior Member Username: Senna1994 Post Number: 176 Registered: 9-2002 |
Pete does that mean that Nelson Piquet was a better driver than Jim Clark? Was Mika Hakkinen the equal of Jim Clark because they had the same number of championships? How about the competitive seasons between 1985-1992 when Mansell won only one championship, was Graham Hill a better driver? I think the competition you have, the teammate you have, and the car you have in relation to the field are worth something, not just statistics. Just my 2 cents, no flame intended. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1509 Registered: 3-2002 |
And I think we all agree that, especially today, maybe only 5 or so of the F1 drivers on the grid are drivers you would rank among the best current drivers in the world. F1's prominent place in the sun casts a long shadow over series like WRC, ALMS, GT, etc. It also should be said that, across the board, the overall quality of racing drivers today, from Schumi all the way down to Marco Andretti, is leaps and bounds better as a whole than past eras. Perhaps a bit more sanitary, though. | ||
| Tazio Nuvolari (Nuvolari)
Member Username: Nuvolari Post Number: 331 Registered: 9-2002 |
All of these arguments also make the assumption that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport contested by the 20 or so best drivers in the world. Especially with the number of pay drivers in the sport this is surely not the case. The greats in all fields of all eras would therefore need to be considered when establishing the term 'best'. Only then would a true picture emerge. Schumacher's professional carreer effectivly spans only F1. I once met someone who rated Mario Andretti as the best. F1 title, Champ car titles, numerous sprint car titles on dirt and ashphalt, winner of the Daytona 500 and Indy 500, Class wins at LeMans, and the list goes on and on; hard to argue with that. Stirling Moss has a similar resume. The term 'best' is hard to judge but sure is fun to argue | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Intermediate Member Username: Psk Post Number: 1083 Registered: 11-2002 |
Tazio, Formula 1 motorsport has one prize for the driver: The Drivers World Championship. Nobody really cares who had the fastest lap, who won the most races, who was the most sideways (okay we do but we have are fanatics) ... the ONLY goal that really matters is winning the WC. That is what they are playing for. Many drivers take a very, very long time to wake up to this and they keep braking cars looking for the impossible win, or when actually leading driving too hard (ie. Mansell is a very good example). This is why Prost will always be rated by me above Senna, because Prost was simply more successfull at the end result, ie. generating the most championship points. In the end saying that looking at the number of WC's won is not the full picture, is actually missing the point, they race all year long for that WC, that is EXACTLY the point. Thus MS had been the most successful to date at doing this thus he is, so far, the best at playing the game correctly. We can only compare to others (say Senna) by style because automatically MS wins. If MS doesn't then it is like comparing soccer players and saying that player X is better than Y, because he kicks the ball nicely, while player Y has actually scored more goals. That would be rubbish Yes many may be faster ... but that does NOT count, winning WC's is what F1 is all about. Pete ps: Now I am not saying that MS is the FASTEST drive, just the BEST. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2633 Registered: 10-2002 |
F1 is rarely about one individual race unless you're talking about a newcomer (like Alonso in Hungary). It is all about the end result, which is achieving World Championships. Has been like this since they started this in 1950 (I believe). Before that it was different, individual races counted. Today that could only be said for the Indy 500, Le Mans and the Monaco GP as having prestige on their own. Winning a World Championship involves certain luck, no doubt. Gilles could have won 79 if Ferrari had let him (it was undecided up to the end and only team orders tipped the balance in Scheckter's favor). He probably would have won 82, but we can't speculate further than that. So you might give or take a WC here and there (Stirling Moss certainly had deserved one or two), Rosberg was handed it. So yes, WCs are not the measure of all things. However if you have despite all good and bad luck managed to amass more WCs than the rest of any driver in history, it does mean something in my book. As somebody pointed out MS could have easily won 99 without his accident. But again I don't count that. Ignoring WCs as a measure reminds me too much of today's prevalent political correctness where we want to make everybody feel good and everybody is so nice and good and would have won if they had let him or her. How about just looking at the facts? Anyway, I give up. I know where MS has his place in my book. You guys talk amongst yourselves. | ||
| Tazio Nuvolari (Nuvolari)
Member Username: Nuvolari Post Number: 327 Registered: 9-2002 |
To refer to someone as 'the best' because they scored more championships than anyone else, in my view, is very limited and ignores the multitude of other factors that go into creating an opinion of what the word 'best' means. I think I can best liken it to someone who has the most money of anyone in his family and thereby calls himself 'the best' in the circle that his family is concerned. The best answer is that there is no answer; it is a far too complicated riddle to give an accurate answer to. Surely MS is in that handful of greats but in comparing them, the lines surely get blured. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2631 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks Warren. I feel a bit like a lone wolf here. And this is a Ferrari forum after all. Wouldn't have expected that much flak. But before I get another 'bias argument', let me state this: Any driver (whether MS or a Ferrari guy) who wins six titles is IMHO the best. It just happens that it was MS in a Ferrari. Although of course it didn't "just happen". He made it happen. Villeneuve would have won 82 in all likelihood. No question about it. But first you have to finish to finish first. De mortibus nihil nisi bene, I know, but still he took an unnecessary risk that Saturday afternoon in Zandvoort. Mass was at fault, but there was no need to go flat out. But that was Gilles, he just couldn't do it any other way. That statement about better to spun out in first than finish in sixth kinda says it all. But that's not how championships are won. I don't give much for statistics. Neither for the number of wins from MS nor the poles from Senna (which I believe MS has a fair chance at breaking some time anyway). The only measure are WCs. As far as 94 and Benetton are concerned: Yes, there were some issues with their software, but same was true for Mc Laren and others (forgot who, but it might have been Williams and/or Ferrari). Matchet explains it in his book. It was kind of a non issue. The fuel rig thing is still a bit of a mistery, some say Benetton cheated, Matchet says otherwise. Hard to tell from the outside. Eventually it got 'resolved' anyway after the Hockenheim fire with Verstappen. However what everybody seems to be missing is the fact, that the FIA artificially tried to make the championship more interesting by taking MS out for a few races based on too much 'use' of the wooden plank: He spun in Spa over the cerrated kerbs and that created a dent in the plank deeper than allowed. Ridiculous to punish a driver for this, but they did it anyway. If he had been allowed to race all races that year, the decision would have been a lot clearer before the last race. I think the FIA in hind sight concurred that it was a bone headed move: Never since did plank wear due to a spin count against a disqualification. | ||
| Warren Balla (West662)
Junior Member Username: West662 Post Number: 113 Registered: 8-2003 |
Yes, PsK, I agree completely. Andreas; 'Now winning the championships looks easy, but it is based on his work. He is superfast, very smart, knows how to setup a car and also how to develop one. '........couldn't have said it better myself. | ||
| A.Tonokaboni (Senna1994)
Junior Member Username: Senna1994 Post Number: 175 Registered: 9-2002 |
He had a car that won the Constructors Championship that year. That was a true first Ferrari British Chassis (Dr. Harvey Postelwaite) that was the class of the field. He spun in the lead in Brazil due to worn tires, he said "better to spin in the lead than finish 6th." He finished 3rd at Long Beach was disqualified due to the two element rear wing. Based on what Pironi did that season, Villenuve should have become champion. Rosberg won it that year with only 1 win in the FW08. A remarkably sad season, 82. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1488 Registered: 3-2002 |
My memory not being crisp at the moment, what were the standings in '82 when Gilles was lost? Wasn't he on Championship pace? | ||
| A.Tonokaboni (Senna1994)
Junior Member Username: Senna1994 Post Number: 174 Registered: 9-2002 |
One last thing, Jon great post and a very compelling argument. | ||
| A.Tonokaboni (Senna1994)
Junior Member Username: Senna1994 Post Number: 173 Registered: 9-2002 |
6 Championships is a great acheivement, no doubt, and I consider MS as the greatest driver of his generation. But there have been great drivers who never won the title, like Peterson, G. Villenueve, and above all Stirling Moss. My feeling based on what Williams accomplished with the FW16 and later cars was that Senna was at his peak and probably would have won the 94 & 95 Championships. One more thing, Schumacher and Bennetton in 1994 had many problems with the FIA regarding the Launch Control and Traction Control that were on the Bennetton's Software that was never erased from 1993. In addition, there was the Fuel Rig issue. 6 Championships are great, but so are 65 Pole Positions in all different types of Cars and Engines against drivers like Mansell, Prost, Rosberg, Lauda, Piquet. Saying all that I don't rate Senna as a better racer than Schumacher, I think there is a cigarette paper in the difference between their speed. Sorry about the Rant. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2624 Registered: 10-2002 |
Tonokaboni, I'm not German, but American and Swiss. If there is a bias it might be because of Ferrari. Granted. But seeing the red cars winning is more important to me than who pilots them. My favourite drivers are actually JPM, Irvine and Alonso. MS lacks charisma and his press briefings are a total bore. Having said all that, I simply don't get it why you guys are still debating this? Six championships! C'mon, what other proof do you need? He is the Michael Jordan of F1. Simple as that. | ||
| A.Tonokaboni (Senna1994)
Junior Member Username: Senna1994 Post Number: 170 Registered: 9-2002 |
Andreas your Bias towards MS wouldn't be a German thing would it? I also like Schumacher and consider him the best of his era, as far as comparing drivers from different eras I don't believe you can. Even 13 years ago cars were much more fragile and had a lot higher DNF rate than today, especially in Villeneuve's time. As far as the FW16 was concerned the car originally had many problems that were not fixed until Imola where I believe Senna outqualified MS by 1 sec. At Aida in Japan, Senna was also on pole but got crashed into on the first corner by Hakkinen. In Brazil, Benetton was using a filterless refueling rig and Schumacher beat Senna out of the pits not on the track. Senna was catching him but Spun. It is interesting that Damon Hill lost the title in 94 by one point after getting crashed out by MS. Do you think Villeneuve or Fangio would ever knock out there opponent? Mika Hakkinen won 2 championships, do you think he was a better driver than G. Villeneuve? I think you have to consider one thing with MS, he races in a time when the cars are much more reliable and there a lot more races, he has know had the best car for the last 4 years, and the level of competition during the last decade has not been what it has been in the past. As far as Villeneuve he never remotely had the best car. As far as Senna he had the best car in 4 of his 10 years, he won 3 championships and lost one to Prost another great Talent. | ||
| Peter Pless (Aircon)
New member Username: Aircon Post Number: 25 Registered: 6-2003 |
Andy, absolutely!! I often wonder why no one seems to remember that. Obviously, you have to take it as it comes, there are lots of ifs and buts. | ||
| Andy Falsetta (Tuttebenne)
Member Username: Tuttebenne Post Number: 323 Registered: 3-2003 |
How many races did Schumie miss when he broke his leg? Wouldn't he have won seven WCs if he hadn't had that misfortune? | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2620 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jack, your comments abouts Gilles vs Schumi are spot on. That's why I never was much of a Schumi fan, whom the Italian press btw calls "Schuminator" and also the "Man eater". In Indy my heart was really split: I wanted Ferrari to win the Championship, but I wanted JPM to become world champion. Helas! If he'd ever sign on with Ferrari I would feel a lot less schizophrenic... | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1474 Registered: 3-2002 |
Wasn't Williams experiencing some early-season difficulties in '94? Anyhow, we've strayed a bit from Darrell's actual question. As far as who will be more revered, I think Gilles is the type of driver (along with Senna, Nuvolari, Fangio) who is revered by fans. Schumacher is the type who is respected. The former pilots were the passionate types with whom the public identified. Schumacher is so methodical and letter-perfect that he has developed that automaton image. All great drivers, obviously. While Villeneuve has always been my favorite, I've never been a fan of driver rankings. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2611 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jon, a few comments: The 1994 Williams was considered to be the best of the best, definitely superior to the Benetton. MS beat Senna square and fair in the races leading up to Imola. MS was the underdog, just read the newspapers from that time or Matchet's book (Matchet's girlfriend at the time worked for Williams and he comments on the superiority of the Williams). MS put an immense pressure on Senna and Senna folded: He made blunders by spinning out etc. So Senna cracked under pressure just as much. This is pure speculation, but I think MS would have beaten Senna that year, had Senna lived. Not by much though. I believe Senna in 94 was already past his zenith. As far as Mika goes: I think he completely deserved his first title, he was at the top of his game. He would however never have won the second if it hadn't been for Silverstone. That one was a gift to Mika by fate. Oh well. BTW: I'm used to the discussions Senna vs Schumacher: My nephew who is a big F1 fan, completely adores Senna and doesn't like MS at all. We have lively discussions as you can imagine. I admire both for their talents, although my fav drivers they are not. Just for the record: I have paid tribute to Senna at his grave site. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Intermediate Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 1132 Registered: 8-2001 |
A bit short on time but here goes.... Senna was my idol. It took years for me to warm to Schumacher. I am a Ferrari fan first, the driver is secondary to me. I won't comment on drivers I didn't see race (Nuvolari, Ascari, Fangio, Clark, etc...). Up until this past year I put Senna ahead of Schumacher. After his sixth title Schumacher is the equal of Senna. I would call it a close tie. For two reasons: 1) Schumacher gets merit for his ability to pull together two mid field teams that were not winners as Andreas pointed out. In this regard Senna can't hold a candle to MS. 2) Senna had a multiple World Champion as team mate and beat him in equal cars and on equal terms for the 88 title. Schumcher has never had nor wanted a competitive teammate. So to me it's a tie based on those two factors. To those of you who like to point out MS wins against Senna in 94 before he was killed, Senna was in an uncompetitive car. Much like Hakkinen beating MS to two titles. If MS was in a better car (or equal car) Mika wouldn't have won one title let alone two. One thing I will point out is that in my opinion MS mkes too many mistakes under pressure which is where Senna beats him. Senna's mistakes were either intentional (punting Prost off) or because of lack of pressure (remember Monoco when he nearly lapped the field then crashed into the wall). The teammate issue is to me one that MS will never get past. Senna beat the best, in the best car, and did so sometimes resoundingly. I will never forget his qualifying laps at Monoco when he destroyed the lap record lap after lap and the utter look of dsistraught on Prosts face when Senna beat him by nearly a second. Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 www.flatoutracing.net | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2608 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks Mark. I agree completely, only MS can ever break his own title. PSK, you're right. Had a bad day yesterday, so that Ratzenberger comment was too harsh and in hindsight I got Tazio's point. It is true, that we're comparing different times and different levels of danger. However the fear/risk of dying is still very real. MS had his fair shares of luck, he could have been killed in a practice accident in Maranello last year, he could have died in the roll over in Melbourne last year or this year by flying into the bull dozer at Interlagos. OTOH the competition IMHO is a lot harder than it was in Fangio's time: Just look at the age of Fangio when he nailed his titles, tells you something about the physical fitness levels. Aside from that it was the time where you had a field of gentlemen drivers and only a handful really fast guys. I think today the competition is a lot harder with only a tiny handful of $$$ drivers. Again, just in case somebody gets the wrong impression: I'm really not much of a MS fan, but just can't see how anybody can argue with six titles. | ||
| Mark Moon (Enzomoon)
Member Username: Enzomoon Post Number: 304 Registered: 4-2002 |
I agree with Andreas completely. Of course this is somewhat subjective and opinions naturally vary but if it is possible to defend one's assertion that a given driver is/was the Best Of All Time MS has provided the most compelling evidence to make such an assertion. I doubt that anyone will come close to his accomplishments in our lifetime or possibly forever. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Intermediate Member Username: Psk Post Number: 1067 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andreas, Tazio was just saying that 2 racers died during MS's period, i.e times have changed, no longer is it so dangerous and courageous. Also Ratzenberger was a great driver in a slack team... arguably better than Hill. I know somebody who worked as a race machanic with him in F3 or F3000 and he could drive. Pete | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2602 Registered: 10-2002 |
Schumacher lost two of his competitors??? Don't tell me Ratzenberger was a competitor. Please. Or are you talking about Stefan Bellof? Vincent, we saw the outcome of Schumi vs Senna. Even not counting Imola Schumi put Senna back into his corner. | ||
| Tazio Nuvolari (Nuvolari)
Member Username: Nuvolari Post Number: 323 Registered: 9-2002 |
On the subject of big balls consider this chilling statistic. Schumacher's 198 (or close) F1 starts had him loose 2 of his competitors. Fangio lost 16 in 51 starts. Both men are fanstastically courageous but this number bears consideration. | ||
| vincent decroix (Vince308)
Junior Member Username: Vince308 Post Number: 101 Registered: 5-2003 |
why compare legends ? Fangio was one, in his area.... Gilles was,of course....... Senna against shumi ? who knows ......... Schumi is great, he has all records ok..... This 4 people are history, and great.... Schumi is alive, but who will beat him ? It took him almost 40 years to beat everything. Will we be there over 40 years when they will have F1 "planes" with 2000 BHP ? By the way, every driver is a great guy, I drove an F1 in test session, and can tell you they have balls my friends, really. greetings, vincent, Belgium | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2601 Registered: 10-2002 |
Interestingly enough F1 drivers normally trickle down to other racing series. The stress is on down, never up. F1 is the pinnacle of motor racing. Winning the World Championship is the pinnacle of F1. Doing it six times only MS has achieved. I rest my case. PS: There are countless races MS won in though conditions, including stuck in 4th gear or having the car 'on fire' as in Zeltweg last year. Every great driver has these events and overcomes them. | ||
| Tazio Nuvolari (Nuvolari)
Member Username: Nuvolari Post Number: 321 Registered: 9-2002 |
There is no doubt that Schumacher is in that tiny handful of drivers who are considered the best ever but to label one as 'best' is far too subjective. If you look at World Championships as the only measure then MS is on top. We are, however, much smarter than that. Let us also consider that there are many racing disciplines out there and that Grand Prix racing is not the be all and end all. Rallying, NASCAR, Champ Car racing all have their stars and it is the basic qualities of these people that I believe to all be the same. There is little point arguing who is the best. I prefer to marvel at their virtuosity and aspire to learn from them as a means of improving myself. Darrell, All the drivers you mentionned were remarkable at pulling off the impossible in their own right. Please do your homework on this as there are limitless examples. I will present the following: Villeneuve: winning at Jarama and Monaco in 1981; both 'impossible' victories and a product of a lot of smarts. Senna: Brazil 91. Stuck in sixth gear in the wet on slicks and still managed the victory. Also, many of his pole positions were 'impossible' Prost: Spa 1987 where a badly derranged and loose steering bearly affected him as he won the race not using the boost button ONCE Stewart: Winning Monaco in 71 and setting a fastest lap 1 second faster than the pole time with front brakes ONLY. Or winning at the Nurburgring in 68 by 4 minutes. Fangio: Winning at the old Spa (I forget the year) with totally collapsed front springs. Or Nurburgring 1957 at 47 years of age smashing the lap record and winning the race and the title. Nuvolari: Nurburgring 1935...enough said | ||
| Darrell Pardy (Dpardyferrari)
New member Username: Dpardyferrari Post Number: 50 Registered: 8-2002 |
Some interesting points here guys. Andreas your points on Michael underscores his aility to bring the car home to a finish. I have not seen another driver, be it Villeneuve, Senna, Prost or Stewart with the cool-headedness of being able to get a damaged or underperforming car home the way Schumacher does. And despite what many of Michaels detractors claim as this being part of his good fortune, in racing you make your own good fortune. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2600 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hubert, why compare race drivers? Hmm, maybe because racing is competitive and all about winning? Your comparison to science doesn't really work as their fields of expertise are too diverse and they're not primarily in it to win it (although I can see some competitiveness, especially when it comes to the Nobel prize etc). PSK, I fully agree with all your statements. Including the best overall package vs driver. But once again just to drive this point home: All verbal comparisons and all statistics are pointless. The measure of ALL things are WC accomplished. And so we have six to none. Granted 79 could have been Gilles' just as easy and 82 if he hadn't had the accident. But winning WCs means you also know when to step off the gas and calculate your risks. Something Gilles couldn't, which ultimately cost him his life. | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Member Username: Wax Post Number: 654 Registered: 7-2003 |
Kitt vs. Herbie If you like what you see on the above link, maybe you should suggest a Gilles vs. Schumacher or Senna vs. Prost WWWF Grudge-Match to these guys. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Intermediate Member Username: Psk Post Number: 1064 Registered: 11-2002 |
I bet scientist somewhere have Come on it is normal while fruitless ... same as comparing anything! Pete | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1578 Registered: 1-2002 |
Why do we need ultimates? Why does anyone need to be "all time best," huh? This v. that, ad nauseum? I guess we all need some mid-workday mental masturbation, but c'mon, really. Why can't we simply bask in the sucess of a man that brought a new generation of f1 fans some lifetime memories? Why the need to comapre, contrast and detract from his accomplishments (and his predeccesors) by creating this innane comparisons? A man's worth should be weighed against the legacy HE leaves within his lifetime; there's no need for absoloutes. Fangio, Nuvolari, Gilles V., et. al. were all legends in their time, and established the benchmarks -- they were the benchmark, now he is and soon there will be another. So what? I as a scientist never sit around w/ collegues and compare einstein to feynmann to bohr to planck to etc. | ||
| Frederick Thomas (Fred)
Member Username: Fred Post Number: 852 Registered: 2-2001 |
I think Schumacher is the all time #1. There was a good article in USA TODAY a week or so ago. Mario Andretti said he thought schumacher was the best of all time. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1577 Registered: 1-2002 |
Alright, alright ... Buddha v. Jesus? | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Intermediate Member Username: Psk Post Number: 1060 Registered: 11-2002 |
Gilles was probably a better driver than anybody since his time, but like Andreas said MS is the most complete driver of the modern era. Senna was very complete too, but I personally do not think he would have been able to raise Ferrari from an also ran team to the number 1 like MS did. How much of that was MS or Jean Todt I do not know. Senna was a brilliant qualifier and had huge charisma, but was actually beaten by Prost (look at the stats, Prost was the better driver, ie. more wins, more points, more WC's, etc. and during the same period). Prost also nearly pulled Ferrari out of the ashes ... but he did not play so diplomatically like MS does and was thus sacked! Talking complete packages: I think Gilles was as good as Senna. Prost above them both, with MS even better. Talking drivers only: Gilles would be above them all. MS next, followed closely by Senna and Prost. Pete | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Intermediate Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 1225 Registered: 4-2002 |
"Ghandi v. Dalai Lama." There is an entire line of Dali Lamas, but only one Ghandi! | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2597 Registered: 10-2002 |
Schumacher did it all: Brought two mid field teams to the top. At different times facing different rules and competitors. Had just about the whole world against him in 94 and won against being unfairly taken out of the championship for a few races (just read Hatchet's book if you don't believe me). Ended a 20 year drought for Ferrari. Now winning the championships looks easy, but it is based on his work. He is superfast, very smart, knows how to setup a car and also how to develop one. Gilles was charismatic and superfast. Not so sure how smart he was and whether he'd been able to group the team around him and develop the car. You can argue all you want, there is NOTHING that compares to six titles. I'm actually so glad we finally got past the five titles. Oh and btw: I'm not even much of a Schumacher fan. As you might know my heart beats for Irvine and Montoya. But admiration cannot get in the way of six titles. Call it overwhelming force if you like. | ||
| todd a tiede (Apex)
New member Username: Apex Post Number: 31 Registered: 7-2002 |
An interesting question indeed... As for talent they both have it in spades Emotion give Gilles a slight edge over Michael. Different eras indeed Given identical cars and prep time it would be one of the great races to see; Gilles vs Michael... Having known Gilles through his career prior to Ferrari i can say betting against hinm would be a mistake... | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1576 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ghandi v. Dalai Lama. | ||
| Tazio Nuvolari (Nuvolari)
Member Username: Nuvolari Post Number: 320 Registered: 9-2002 |
Andreas, I am not about to enter into an argument as to who is the greatest however I will say one thing. It is short sighted to call Schumacher the greatest ever based on his 6 world championships being more than anyone else. I am a huge fan of Schumacher's ability and he has earned my respect over the years as I was a huge Senna fan too. Scumacher's success over the course of his career has to be considered with the quality of competition he has had. Since the death of Senna, there has not been one driver who has been Schumacher's consistent threat based on driving skill. Other drivers in superior cars have challenged him but there have only been fleeting glimpses of him truly been challenged. In the Fangio days there were a handful of first rate drivers that were a real challenge on the driving level. There are far to many parameters to consider and it is very much subjective however in rating the top 100 driver's of all time, Motorsport magazine (perhaps the best and most knowlegable source in the press today) ranked Schumacher 7th. The rankings were not only on results as Gilles Villeneuve was 2nd and first was Tazio Nuvolari. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2596 Registered: 10-2002 |
You're comparing apples and oranges. Gilles was fantastic in his own way. Kinda like Montoya is today. But Michael is in a league of his own. Since Suzuka he has become untouchable, out of reach even by Fangio's standards. Nothing compares to a six times world champion. And probably nobody ever will. He can only break his own record. People will discuss forever who was greater, Senna or Prost. But since Japan, Michael is outside the boundaries of any discussion. He has reached the Olymp of motorsports. | ||
| Darrell Pardy (Dpardyferrari)
New member Username: Dpardyferrari Post Number: 49 Registered: 8-2002 |
With Michael securing his 6th WDC I wonder how he will be reveared against Gilles Villeneuve who managed 6 GP wins. I know it is different eras and different machinery but having watched Michael's dazzling performance this year at Indy and having witnessed Villeneuve's electrifying performance at the 1980 Canadian GP (22 on qualifying and finished 5th) I would still prefer to watch Gilles in the old # 27. Lots of great memories however from both drivers. |