I actually agree with that, Fangio probably was the best, but that's only my opinion. Considering he was what about 35 when he first stared makes it all the more impressive to me. Plus some days i feel Senna was best, other days Prost, lol ever changing
I think Alboreto did a good job with the bad Ferrari F1 cars he drove, his talent was worked 100 percent.
Thats for sure! in the 80's Ferrari had a hard time! The lost of Gilles Villeneuve, and after the world championship of Jody Ferrari had no succes till Schumacher came in 1996. Alboreto was a great driver just as Gerhard Berger. Not a top driver but very usefull for the team.
I read an F1 racing article that stated that Michele was an absolute master at gearshifting - tremendous speed, smoothness at shifting forgoing the clutch for the most part
I really believe there is no comparison that can possibly be made between drivers of different eras. If you were to take any sport and compare modern athletes against those of even ten years ago the statistics would be biased toward the modern athlete. Why? Technology. Nearly everyday we find out more and more about the human body; we find what works, what doesn't. What foods to eat, what foods not to eat. The only real comparison that could be made would require taking drivers from another era (like Clark, Graham Hill, etc.) and raising them with the same equipment/knowledge the modern drivers have. Otherwise, hidden within the argument of who the better driver is, lies the argument of which driver has the better technology and knowledge, both on and off of the track. - Chris
I agree Chris. It's like the Joe Lewis v. Muhammad Ali debate I used to have with my g'pa. Haha. Right now, Alonso is on top of the pile. (The guy with the trophy can back up his claim, the others can't)
This isn't a true comparison, because by that standard, Elio DeAngelis' father 'sponsored' him into Lotus, and he wasn't that hot. Money can buy you a seat - but only so much of a seat. There are a LOT of REALLY RICH drivers that can't buy a podium. It is absolutely impossible to compare the 'great' drivers fairly, from Nuvolari to Fangio to Moss to Clark to Stewart to Lauda to Piquet to Prost to Senna to Schumacher, and now to Kimi and Alonso - see the transition ? In equipment, strategy, teams, tracks ? Tires mattered nowhere near as much as they do today, they didn't have 'team engineers' 30 years ago, you didn't have wind tunnel testing, you didn't have teams were 125 guys go with the team and 400 stay back at the shop, drivers didn't fly in in their private helos and stay at the Hilton............. And I wouldn't think Senna in a Lotus was as top-notch as you think it is, we could also make an argument for the question: what if Prost had a Renault that didn't break down every other race in the early-mid 80's ? Senna DID say in about 1990 that the Toleman he started in back in '84 was by far the best handling car he ever drove - but the engine never lasted, so that doesn't make it 'great equipment'. One might also argue Stefan Bellof was one of the absolute best drivers in the world - ever - but he wasn't around long enough to solidify that statement, so nobody remembers him.
As much as I like both of these men, this is debatable. 'Best' for one, and 'Most Popular' for the other I would agree with. Don't get me wrong - both were awesome to watch - WHEN their equipment was 'on' (just like everyone else), I just can't put GV in the 'greatest' category.
Just read a recent interview with Moss and he thinks Fangio, Clark, Senna and Villeneuve are some of the best. Of the modern drivers he thinks we are blessed to see two real racers: Kimi and Alonso The interviewer was surprised and asked him about Schumacher and his reply was, that he doesn't think much of MS. He thinks MS shared the best people around him and motivated Ferrari to build a great car, but other than that he is not very impressed and thinks MS lacks the real instinct a racer has. I was pretty stunned reading that.
I kinda agree with that - MS hasn't really had much competition 'overall' until last year, if you think about it. A few years ago we would have been STUNNED if anyone outside of the 'top 8' won a race, but for the last few years the top 8 has turned into a 'top 3' - and by looking at the picks for the top 7 for the previous 3 races, that bears true - most everyone has MS, Kimi and FA - in any order - but usually those 3. Oh, MS has had a couple of competitiors per year, Damon for a year, Mika for 2-3 years, but overall, he hasn't had the 6-8 guys capable of putting on a show with him.
Say what you want about MS (and I'm really not a fan of him as a person), but I think Moss simply had an axe to grind. It is really difficult to look at MS' accomplishments and not count him into the group of the greatest racers of all times and deliberately leave him below Kimi and Alonso. Moss criticizes him for being a points collector rather than a racer. And that might be true for some of his drives, but looking back at his career I think he often raced really hard (particularly when driving for Benetton). Maybe it is Moss' unique perspective of his own career where he often sacrificed the best chance at the title car for being able to drive the car he really wanted. Sortof an Alesi attitude with more talent.
I remember reading a quote from Moss praising Schumacher as one of the all time best earlier. I guess people have different moods and they say what they feel at that time. I think it is very tough to be 100% objective when trying to evaluate drivers of a different era. And in Australia, he said that they were 3 racers on the grid when he was interviewed on the Speed TV gridwalk. Michael was the hard charger in the past where he thought nothing of finishing the race with margins of 40 secs or more instead of backing off the pace. In today's two race per engine mode, you would be stupid to strain the engine unnecessarily for glory's sake. Therefore you would back off. And Michael not the real racer ... okaaaaaaay... he's proved it n number of times in the past - diving past an unbelieving Barrichello in Monte Carlo, pushing Montoya to the edge of the Tosa hairpin in 2004. There are so many examples. Moss doesn't know what he is speaking or his words were taken out of context.
Glad to hear that he said something different at some other time. Because I respect Moss and couldn't believe he would make such a dumb statement. The source is pretty good, so I tend to believe he really said that. Who knows.
Andreas, here is an article by Moss that is in line with your statement: Moss on Schumacher: Is he a real racer? The real deal?By pitpass.com - June 22 2003 Speaking to Reuters, Stirling Moss has raised the question of whether the Scuderia's lead driver Michael Schumacher is a real racer. 73 year old Moss makes a very clear distinction in his mind between what contributes to a 'racer' as opposed to a 'racing driver', "Being a racer is not just about winning. It is to do with attitude, fighting spirit and the thrill of going wheel to wheel with an opponent." says Moss. Like his great rival in the 1950s, Juan Manuel Fangio, Moss sees Schumacher as having a great talent and dominance but perhaps not that rare spirit of a 'racer'. Moss adds "In my whole life of racing, and I did 500 and something races, I reckon there were only two or three people that I could call racers. It's a very rare commodity. Whether Michael is or not is difficult to say." Whilst Moss considers the ranking of all time greats he says of Schumacher "(he) has got to be up there but he makes too many mistakes." Of the current drivers, Moss feels Raikkonen and Alonso both have that extra edge and he strongly tips both drivers as future champions. On Raikkonen in particular he is quick to add "What I like about Kimi is that he's a racer. And I reckon I was a racer. Not a racing driver. There's a hell of a difference." For Moss there was no greater compliment than a fellow driver pegging you as a man to beat. "If the other drivers felt I was the person they wanted to beat, that was the highest accolade I could ask for." says Moss before turning his attention to the modern day attitude, "The thing that I find difficult to accept nowadays is that there is no humility. Most of the drivers nowadays are a bit like Eddie Irvine, who if he was half as fast as he thought he was would be moderate. It seems that the modern thing is to feel that you are without doubt the best. It never used to be like that."
I think what is getting Moss' goat is that thru 2001-2004, Michael had the advantage of a faster car (except maybe 2003) and superb strategy where he would typically wait till the pitstop, bang a couple fast laps in and then get ahead of other drivers and cruise to the finish. This was blindingly obvious in 2004. He didnt want to risk getting into an accident by trying to overtake before the stop. I dont have much respect for ex-Formula One drivers comments - the world of racing was different then and there is no comparison.
Thanks for posting that article. That was very close to the interview I read (in a German mag though). Also agreed on your comment above. Moss lost me at Eddie Irvine.
what is so annoying, and i mean SO ANNOYING, is that if Senna had not died we would have known who was faster. it is impossible to compare drivers across generations, you are only better than the drivers you are driving against. I have a feeling that Schumacher would have been quicker than Senna lap for lap, but Senna was peerless in qualifying, although that mattered less since '94, since you could effectively pass in the pits with refueling, not acheivable before. That was why senna won so many races prior to '94, he got pole, wandered round the pits all weekend like the he was the man, hed beaten most drivers already. If you were first into turn 1, then you had no turbulence and your tyres were looked after. starting mid pack burnt your tyres out racing to the front. Weve seen that even now, Schumacher does not like starting mid pack, makes it easier to get in drama. But something to think about, Schumacher was never on pole when Senna was alive.
Better dont talk about the death of Ayrton (please) I also dont understand the fight Senna VS Schumacher. This are 2 verrrry diffrent drivers with both great driving skills. For me Senna is the best, for a lot of other F1 fans Schumacher is the best. I love to see drivers that going to the limit, racing with there heart, and arent happy with 2nd place. Senna was a person like that! Schumacher is more a driver with great skills and very good tactic's. And im so agree if Senna didnt crash at 1 May 1994 14:18h and died at 18:40h Schumacher never would get the pole record! But what are we with stats? We have to deal with the lost of one the best F1 drivers in history. ( But I think he didnt wished it any other way .. Ron Dennis) Amen, McCoy24
Not to nitpick, but since you mentioned the exact time of his death, are we really sure, that is true? I thought in reality he died right there on the track, but because "the show must go on" they pronounced death only later that evening in the hospital. Does anybody know?
