Using the number of titles is deceptive because someone like Clark should have won 5 or 6 but lost several due to freak mechanical problems. Would you argue that Piquet was a greater driver than Stirling Moss or that Andretti was a weaker driver than Mika? I wouldn't. Statistically speaking, Schumacher certainly is the most successful but once again that is not a strong enough argument for his being the greatest ever. Prost is the second most successful statistically but few would place him above a Senn or Clark. And how do you account for drivers who lost their lives at the height of their careers. A lot of people (myself included) would argue that Schumachers accomplishments are tainted by the fact that Senna died. Had he lived, no question MS would have FAR fewer wins and championships, no question. The point that I was trying to make is that all of those former record holders were statistically the most successful drivers up to that time, eventually a new recordholder came along, so will another someday.
At the end of the day, the majority of people that watch F1 will probably only remember one statistic, the World Driver's Championship title. Most will not remember how many poles, how many victories, etc, just who won the championship. One point that is significant to this discussion, is that irrespective of most of the statistics of previous world champions, Michael Schumacher has won the World Driver's Championship in a manner proportionately greater than previously accomplished. So stating that future WDC's will do the same is not realistic. Additionally, he has surpassed 99% of of the other previously established records of those former world champions. Put that all together, and only one's subjective opinion would not see MS as being at the top of the list. We all have our favorite driver for various reasons, not just statistics, it appears most here put Michael as #1 for good reason. I do not recall ever saying that MS is the best driver of all time especially when you consider all factors, but statistically he is number one, and in a manner that will be vitually impossible to surpass in the future. I have said that to me Michael Schumacher is one of the top five of all time, but the debate as to who is the best is very subjective. Despite statistics, but considering what makes a complete driver, I personally put Lauda and Prost at the very top, along with Schumacher. I would agree that if Senna had not tragically left us, he would have taken away one, maybe two, of Schumacher's WDC's. I do not think that WDC's is all it takes to be considered "the best". For me, how a driver relates his own team is a sign of his greatness. Schumacher made Ferrari what it is today as no other driver has previoulsy done to their team of the season. And he did it in a manner that brought him the respect of his entire team and the Italian public. But statistically, Schumacher is #1, and I believe will stay there for most of our lifetimes.
good post Ron. i agree with all your post. yes, Senna, IMO would have beaten MS. i don't know. it's very hard to say. aside from 94-95, i think Senna's real chance could have ended around maybe 97. he could have retired at that time. so, it still ends up in the same manner, in terms of MS securing 5 titles in a row with Ferrari. Maybe, MS's wins and poles could have been reduced, but not his WDCs. MS won the 95 title by a mile. maybe the only realistic chance Senna could have had is the 94 title. ( i'm saying in terms of VS Schumi ). and Senna could have ended up champ in 96 & 97 as well. that will make him 6 time champion. but then again, at the end of the day, i refuse to compare both men. both are special in their own way. Senna could not have done what MS has done to Ferrari all this years, and MS, could not have done what Senna had did ( in terms of pole and number of wins ).
As you said great minds think a like. Being a huge Senna fan, I don't think anyone could or would be able to do for Ferrari what Michael did. Even Mansell and Prost were not able to lift the team the way MS did. However, MS was very fortunate that Luca was in charge and Jean Todt was there as well.
This is why I don't have you on ignore (yet). Once in a blue moon you come up with an interesting post and a good point. Let me address your points: First of all, records are made to be broken. Prior to Schumacher coming along, most people would have said that Senna's pole position record or Fangio's WDC record would never be broken. A cursory look at the debates on these points years ago will demonstrate this. In the Tour de France, no one would have believed a rider could win it 7 times in a row. In the NHL, no one would believe someone could score 200 points in a season. In baseball, no one would believe that pitchers would strike out 5,000 batters. Yet all of these milestones have been breached. It is folly to suggest that Schumacher's records will never be surpassed, there has NEVER been an unsurpassable record in F1. Given the increasing stratification of competitiveness in F1, the increase in the nuber of GPs per year, and the greater longevity in driver careers brought about by improving safety standards, it is not at all inconceivable that a great drivr will emerge, driving for a team that maintains competitiveness over a string of seasons, and suddenly he has racked up 100+ GP wins. Secondly, if you read my previous posts, I have always conceded that "statistically" he is the most successful of all time but I have qualified this by pointing out that he has been the beneficiary of Senna's absence. Had Senna survived, he would absolutely have taken several more WDC, broken Prost's record by a mile, and may well have kept Schumacher out of Ferrari. Unfortunately we will never know but to blindly state that Schumacher would have been just as successfuly with Senna alive is sheer folly and completely naive. I have, on several occasions, stated that I believe Schumacher is absolutely one of the five greatest drivers in F1 history but I would argue that Senna, Clark and Fangio rank higher. Schumacher has had an outstanding career but if you pro-rate his statistics over the number of starts, Fangio's record is superior. Statistics are funny things, you can pretty much make them say whatever you wish. As far as your final point, how a driver relates to his team as a sign of greatness. I would suggest that Schumacher's relationship with Ferrari is no better than Clark's was with Lotus and Colin Chapman. I would even suggest that Senna's relationship with Honda (as engine builder as opposed to McLaren or Williams) is as strong, if not stronger. Schumacher has taken advantage of the opportunity afforded him at Ferrari as well as anyone could be expected to, he has done a phenomenal job without question, but he did not do so alone. Todt, Byrne and Brawn have all contributed enormously to Ferrari's success. Absent any one of them, do you think Ferrari would have been as successful? I don't. Schumacher was a key part of the team...but it was a team, and not an individual, that created that success. Jimmy Clark was far more integral to Lotus' success in the early 60s than Schumacher was to Ferrari, hell even Irvine nearly won the championship in that car and they made GP winners out of Rubens and Massa. While Rubens is a solid driver, I seriously doubt any one of those 3 (especially Massa) would be competitive in any other car. In fact, consider their careers outside of Ferrari, NONE of them has been even remotely close to a win before or since. Now here's an interesting and informed debate. Good post.
If Senna would have survived... If Jean Todt had not joined Ferrari... If Ross Brawn had not joined Ferrari... If Luca was not in charge of Ferrari... If ducks could talk... If cows could fly... To finish first, you must first finish! There are is if, but, maybe, could have, would have, and should have in racing! What matters in racing is RESULTS! Michael actually won 7 world championships. Things are they way they are for a reason. He finished races and he sruvived races. Michael Schumacher is the greatest racer of all time.
GREAT post. But we may as well give up the idea of settling on who the greatest driver of all time is, because to some people that title is statistics-driven ONLY, and to others it is not; there is more to 'greatness' than numbers, but some folks will NEVER understand that, let alone agree with it.
yes. u have very strong points. i understand what ur trying to say here. we can't say that individual talent plays a part in building a team, directly. sure, there are Jean, Luca, Ross, and MS himself. every needed to play the part there. Jean was incharge of recruiting the right people, at the right time with the right skills. he reported this to of course, Luca. Ross was in charge of the team's strategy, etc. while MS, he did his job as a driver. but what some people are actually saying here is, MS understands the car every bit and translate this to the engineers directly. not many people have that kinda talent here i would say. most drivers will just say to the mechanics, the car is doing this, not that, fix it. but MS, he says directly what the problem is, and he motivates them with his feedback, and of course, his wins. if u noticed, in most post race interviews, MS always praises the team, from the cooking lady to the cleaners of the factory. i think that's very special of MS. having a 7 time champion thanking u for ur efforts is a huge motivator. LOL...good one!
Yeah, I know that Clark was at least robbed from one World Chamionship in 62, when his engine broke in the last GP when he was leading, and G. Hill inherited the title. In 64, I think he won more GPs than Surtess, but his car was fragile (well, it was a Lotus!) and kept breaking. In 66, he didn't have a 'proper' car, racing most of the year with a 2L against 3L, and finishing with a 'miraculous' win in US on the Lotus_BRM H16, that was fragile like crystal. In 67, his DFV kept breaking while G. Hill's didn't. Could he have won 5 or 6 WC, that is purely hypothetical. Regarding Stirling Moss, by his own admission he was not really focussed on a WC anyway. Moss liked to race, and for him the next race was more important than a WC. That's the way he conducted his career, and I think Gilles Villeneuve had the same mentality. I remember reading an interview with Gilles where he said "GPs are for racers, WCs are for accountants!" Moss liked to race to the limits, but what is not well known is that most of the best cars were not available to him, and most of the contracts offered to him were out of reach: Moss had signed a long term contract with British Petroleum and couldn't drive anything else than a BP sponsored car. That closed for him the doors at Cooper, Lotus, and later on Ferrari. From 1958 on, he raced for private teams (BRP or RCC Walker), most of the time with 'last year's car', and with no hope of constantly scoring wins, although he gave factory drivers a good run for their money. And yes, Piquet was most successful than him: he was twice WC! If Stirling was greater than Nelson is a matter of personal choice.
Piquet had three WC actually. I can't wait till we see the battle of the juniors (Piquet and Rosberg). They're both very talented.
What I was trying to say is that the entire Ferrari team did an excellent job in producing a winning car for several seasons in succession. They are as much responsible for the team's success as Schumacher. Schumacher exploited the car to its fullest potential and was rewarded with 5 championships. However the fact that Irvine, Barrichello and Massa also were able to win in the car shows how great a job the team did in producing a tremendous race car. It is difficult to say how much of the teams success was due to Schumacher being a superior driver and how much of it was due to the team producing a superior car. For sure, Schumacher would not win a GP in a Minardi. And admittedly a lot of current F1 drivers still couldn't win even behind the wheel of a Ferrari. However the team showed that a mid-level driver could get behind the wheel of a Ferrari and be a potential race winner. What that tells me is how great a job the team did in creating a superior car.
Personally I think the bloom is off the rose on Rosberg. He had a strong start but hasn't impressed me all that much since. Piquet Jr. is a non-starter, I think. I am not impressed by his performance in the junior formulas. He has a name and litlte else, I am afraid. I am more excited by Hamilton than I am by either of these two.
Excellent post. Lets give Rosberg a little more time, I agree about the comment regarding Piquet vs. Hamilton.
I agree with you about Hamilton. It looks like he's the real deal. Piquet Jr. may surprise though. He did come on strong this year in GP2, sometimes showing superior speed to Hamilton. The big question is can he do it consistently enough to matter.
HEHE...i can't imagine if he starts outpacing FA on regular basis. and with Kimi in the red cockpit, FA will really start cracking.
