Groups

BBC’s Top 20 F1 drivers ever (list) (365 posts)

Topic tags: F1

Viewing post 316 to 330 (365 total posts)

← 1 … 21 22 23 … 25 →

safeeuropeanhome said 6 months, 4 weeks ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19998444

Michael Schumacher at number 4. Bit of a surprise for me, this is where I personally would put him in the grand scheme of things, but I was pretty sure he would be in the top 2 with Senna . Happy to be proven wrong though. Jim Clark being number 1 would make me very happy indeed although Senna is still odds on favourite.

Saying that they seem to have factored in Schumacher’s penchant for controversy in their ranking, surely they can’t ignore what Senna did at Suzuka 1990 and his overall very aggressive driving style by this reasoning. This is however something of a very common double standard applied when it comes to Senna. Of the three left:

3. Fangio
2. Senna
1. Clark

#
Journeyer said 6 months, 4 weeks ago:

That is a shocker. I was expecting Schumacher at #2 (behind Senna), but wouldn’t have been surprised to see him at #3 (behind Fangio too). But to be #4 (behind Clark as well) is just too much for me. Don’t get me wrong – Jimmy is a great driver and is right up there. But the extent to which Schumacher was F1 itself from 1995-2006 is just staggering and should’ve given him the edge IMO.

P.S. Benson tweeted this: “To all the Schumacher fans questioning him at “only” 4th, numbers aren’t everything. And if they were Fangio would be first, not Schumacher.”

I actually agree that Fangio and Schumacher should be Top 2 in that order! I’ve tweeted Benson as much. But props to him for retweeting it.

That said, I posted it here because I think it provides a clue as to how they’ll be ranked in the end. It seems we can safely take Fangio out of #1 contention – which leaves Senna and Clark.

3. Clark
2. Fangio
1. Senna

#
Slr said 6 months, 4 weeks ago:

Well for me that is completely wrong, Schumacher in my opinion is the greatest of all time. He raised the bar in Formula One, he turned Formula One into the “Michael Schumacher show”. I do not believe his last three years have tarnished his reputation, though it hasn’t improved it either. Schumacher didn’t just win because he had the fastest car, he was the fastest driver in his prime and he used the great cars and resources to showcase his great talent.

If Senna is number one, then it’s clear that they’re happy to ignore Senna’s questionable actions during his career, but use Schumacher’s against him. Also they didn’t use the fact that Vettel had the best car and little competition last year against him, so why use it against Schumacher?

#
katederby said 6 months, 4 weeks ago:

I’m happy with the top 3 and will be especially pleased if Jim Clark is #1. Schumacher fans, calm down, it’s just someone’s opinion and your man still holds all the records.

#
Hywel Lewis said 6 months, 4 weeks ago:

Did Michael make it the ‘Michael Schumacher show’ or did Bridgestone, Todt, Byrne and Brawn?

The top4 of any ‘best of’ list is going to be contentious and the cross era comparison muddy’s the water more. I can’t help but feel that Michael’s domination was more of a technical one rather than a driver one and hence three drivers (Yuji Ide could still make it) have been given the nod as having superior driver skills.

Without reading through all 22 pages i dont know if this question has been asked, but do you consider the ability to drive and lead a team as being a contributing factor to the outcome of this list or purely the skill of the man once sat in the car?

#
Mads said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

@barleycorn
But neither of the remaining three drivers has not had class of the field cars either. Its not like Schumacher was the only one with that advantage over his rivals.

#
Kingshark said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

But neither of the remaining three drivers has not had class of the field cars either. Its not like Schumacher was the only one with that advantage over his rivals.

Something that is all too often ignored by Senna admirers.

I certainly didn’t expect Michael to be only fourth. Nonetheless, I hope Clark and Fangio are #1 and #2.

#
Aled Davies said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

@kinshark

that’s a good point! The controversial moments are often used against Schumacher but not Senna or other drivers.

Schumachers relationship with Bridgestone? Any different to Sennas with Honda really?

Had the best car…So Senna didn’t have the best car in 1988, 89, 90, half of 91 did he? and the 90/91 seasons he had Berger as a teamate before anyone mentions the compliant team mate thing.

That’s what really irks me most about the Schumacher haters, yes he dominated in the best car 2001/02/04 but what about 96? In that terrible ferrari, 97 it was still off the pace. If you want to see Schumachers true brilliance watch them seasons he was incredible. 95 really he out performed the Williams which was a better car than the Bennetton.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but it is annoying when people use 1 reason to take the shine off a drivers achievements but then forget when talking of other drivers.

#
Powderfinger said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

If you want to see Schumachers true brilliance watch them seasons he was incredible. 95 really he out performed the Williams which was a better car than the Bennetton.

No, I disagree the Bennetton ’95 was not inferior to the Williams.

Anyway, I do agree to the other points you made. Hungary 1998, if anyone has watched that race, you will agree that it was awesome and he did it in so many other races, where he could and had to exploit the cars potential to the maximum.

Especially with Senna, many things seem to be forgotten, just mentioning the scandals.

Schumachers reputation, I guess has also suffered since his comeback, of course he was beaten by Rosberg in 2010, no doubt about i but in the last two season he has been capable of beating Rosberg on plenty occasions, however this does not reflect in adirect point comparison due to the many failures he has suffered over the years.

For an old fart his driving cannot be to bad, I mean he was the guy, who set the fastest time in Q in Monaco. ;)

BTW: I was reading some tweets and found this:
Matt Knights ‏@MrMattKnights
@andrewbensonf1 Schumi is a good driver, No 4 is about right. Senna No1 by miles. If Schumi was that good would have won in a merc

#
mnmracer said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

I guess that’s why Vettel’s detractors irk me more so, ’cause it’s the ‘fastest car-excuse already’ all over again, equally one-sided.

But honestly, that’s also the reason why I’m kinda irked by those who give Senna his god-status. There’s no denying he was one of the best, but half the things attributed to him he never did, and half the things Schumacher is slammed for, are forgiven/forgotten for Senna.

Nr 4? I’m not sure.
He’s not as solid nr 1 anymore, but nr 4? Certainly not behind Fangio, who I don’t feel did more than Schumacher did. Age and being out of it is a much bigger factor in an era where the difference between pole and 10th place is more than once less than a second.

#
Aled Davies said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

@powderfinger “No, I disagree the Bennetton ’95 was not inferior to the Williams.”

I dont know myself..they were pretty close I think! Either way Schumacher ran rings around them that year!

Hungary 98 probably my favorite win of his…was incredible, I still remember watching that thinking he was out of it then next thing he pops into first place after his pit stops. Amazing stuff

#
Journeyer said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

@powderfinger I think the Williams was clearly a faster car than the Benetton in 1995. They should have won at least Monaco, Germany, and Belgium. Schumacher won all those races.

My personal favorite win of Michael’s is still Spain 1996. That was just magical. In Martin Brundle’s words, he didn’t have the best car by a mile, but he won by a mile.

#
Michael said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

In looking at the top 1 drivers of all time, I think they have to take into account whether the driver died or were injured for a couple of reasons. First, the driver was never able to continue their career as it was sadly cut short by their death and we never will know what the driver could have achieved. Second, the drivers that survived had the luxury of living long, prosperous lives satisfied in their accomplishments while the other drivers did not have that luxury.

Therefore, Clark, Senna and Lauda deserve the top spots in F1 as the greatest F1 drivers not only for their immense skill (they’d be in any top 10 list) but also for paying the ultimate price in their pursuit of speed.

#
safeeuropeanhome said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

@freelittlebirds 1) Niki Lauda is not dead.
2) What you have just said is an idea which I doubt you will find many people agree with. That Clark and Senna died was down to bad luck and the circumstances of the time. It was plain misfortune Clark’s car broke and sent him ploughing off into the trees, same with Senna where the tyre penetrated his visor. Both of those guys knew exactly what they were getting into when they stepped into the car though.

Every person who sits in a Formula One car, and who has ever competed in top class motor racing is fully aware of the risks and that they might be killed or injured, even in this day and age when it is comparatively safe. People who died should not be forgotten by any means, but they should not automatically be elevated above others who had the good fortune to make it through their career unscathed.

In Clark’s era it could have quite easily have been Jackie Stewart, Graham Hill, Jack Brabham or any of the other top drivers who were killed. By your logic this would automatically put them at the top? The case for Jim Clark or Senna to be number 1 is strong enough based on what they did on the track, both had long enough careers to show they were exceptional drivers and it is a dangerous business to extrapolate and say what might have been.

For example in 1994 a certain Michael Schumacher was starting to establish himself as the next great driver, who’s to say Senna would have beaten him? Both of their achievements stand alone on their own merits without placing them as some kind of racing martyr.

#
Michael said 6 months, 3 weeks ago:

@debaser91 I’m pretty sure most people will disagree with my post and your argument might hold more validity than mine. I’m only presenting my opinion. I agree and I don’t think it’s right to automatically “elevate” these drivers but where 2 drivers are almost equal as is the case with Clark and Fangio (almost the same percentage of wins in finished races), their death should be a tie-breaker in favor of the driver who wasn’t able to continue their career. The same goes with Senna.

Yes, Lauda is alive and has lived a long and prosperous life no doubt but he paid a higher price than others but the fact that he returned to F1 and went on to win another 2 WDCs after such a life-altering experience puts him ahead of other WDCs like Prost, Brabham, Moss, Stewart as far as I’m concerned.

To give a comparison, it would be akin to Kubica coming back and winning 2 WDCs after his accident or Massa pulling 7 WDCs in succession after his accident in 2009.

#