F1’s Greatest Drivers ? [Archive]

CNR

26th December 2014, 12:41

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/will-gray/gray-matter--f1-s-greatest-drivers-%E2%80%93-5-to-1-143924901.html

I think he knows f_all about f1
"Qualifying performance: 1/10

Brabham was a gifted driver but his style lacked the precision and delicate control required to get his machinery regularly at the front.
(126 starts Poles 13 Front row starts 38 )
Race performance: 1/10

A raw racer, Brabham was a battler on track but despite winning three world titles his race to win ratio was not as high as his peers.

Multi-team success: 5/10

Not only did Brabham win races and titles with two different teams, the fact one was in a team he set up himself raises him above others.

Entertainment value: 5/10

More of a raw racer than a perfectionist, Brabham had a ‘throw-it-all-in’ driving style that made him well worth watching.

Ruthlessness / Determination: 5/10

The Australian had the dedication to develop his career in F1 to owner-racer and was so committed to the sport he was aged 40 when he took his third world title.

Strategy / Technical Skill: 9/10

A trained flight mechanic who ran an engineering business before going into racing, he was skilled in set-up and even helped design his title-winning cars.

Teamwork: 10/10

Brabham took teamwork to the next level by setting up his own team and he remains the only driver to ever become champion driving a car bearing his own name.
"

Doc Austin

26th December 2014, 17:16

I also can't think of five drivers I would put ahead of Jackie Stewart.

Doc Austin

26th December 2014, 18:19

I also can't think of five drivers I would put ahead of Jackie Stewart.

It's so hard to rate drivers because things from era to era were so different.

I think today's drivers would wet themselves if they ever had to drive through the Masta kink or eau Rouge before they widened the runoff. In 1971, fully 1/3 of the starting grid from the opening race was dead before the year was over, so if you factor in courage those guys are streets and streets ahead.

Before aerodynamics became so important the drive could make a much bigger difference, which is why the formative years of wings and such were so interesting. Now, whenever a team can get it right, like say, with Red Bull, they can run off four championships in a row, and people routinely question how much of that was Vettel and how much was Newey. No one ever questioned the validity of drives from Clark, Stewart or Fittipaldi.

Finally, to show how difficult it is to compare using strictly numbers, before this year Vettel's win percentage was almost exactly like Jackie Stewart's, though I think (as much as I admire Sebastien) few people would put the German in the flying Scotsman's company.

Again, finally, if you factor in courage, determination, and the ability to win in the face of insurmountable adversity, how can anyone even come close to Niki Lauda?

Tazio

26th December 2014, 19:05

I also can't think of five drivers I would put ahead of Jackie Stewart.
I am in total agreement Doc, but I have always rated Jackie at the top, watching him is what first got me interested in F1, so I may be a little biased.
This seems to be a rather shallow evaluation, based largely on statistics and, personal perception, not to mention that it is really not very equitable to compare racers from different eras, driving completely different machinery. It's only one mans opinion, which he is entitled to.

Doc Austin

27th December 2014, 16:51

I rate Stewart so highly because he worked so hard to change deadly dangerous conditions while thumping everyone's arse doing it. When the guy doing the winning is complaining about safety, no one can say it's because he's afraid.

Stewart was within 10 laps of winning the 1966 Indianapolis 500 as a rookie. I don't think anyone has three world titles and an Indy 500 win, or even come close.

Tazio

27th December 2014, 18:56

JYS also said about the matching of Fred and Kimi:

Questioned as to who he expected to win the fight ahead, three-times world champion Sir Jackie said: "Probably Fernando. He's probably got the best mental toolkit." :angel:

Tazio

27th December 2014, 21:51

Doc Austin

28th December 2014, 16:48

Great video piece, Taz. Thanks for posting that.

easy rider

29th December 2014, 01:40

Stewart is right when he said, " The animal is still the same.".........nice!

Rollo

1st January 2015, 01:07

I rate Stewart so highly because he worked so hard to change deadly dangerous conditions while thumping everyone's arse doing it. When the guy doing the winning is complaining about safety, no one can say it's because he's afraid.

This makes me want to re-read his autobiography.
Stewart had already made up his mind to leave F1 by the '73 US GP but the death of François Cevert merely confirmed it.
Drivers aren't paid to kill themselves and when they were being killed at the rate of one every few months, something had to be done.

Stewart was within 10 laps of winning the 1966 Indianapolis 500 as a rookie. I don't think anyone has three world titles and an Indy 500 win, or even come close.

Graham Hill?
Twice World Champion, 3 Second places, the 1966 Indy 500 and the 1972 Le Mans 24 Hours?

Zeakiwi

1st January 2015, 10:04

Mario Andretti is worth a mention - Formula One Champion - 1978, also an Indy 500 and Daytona 500 winner and 12 hours of Sebring.

I prefer not to rank but just whether they are worthy of a hall of fame membership.

Jacky Ickx - not an F1 Champion but 8 GP wins - Multiple winner of Le Mans and the Dakar in Africa. (off road)

N4D13

1st January 2015, 11:43

Rollo

1st January 2015, 11:45

Jacky Ickx - not an F1 Champion but 8 GP wins - Multiple winner of Le Mans and the Dakar in Africa. (off road)

Bathurst 1000 winner in 1977 and Can-Am series winner in 1979 too.

steveaki13

1st January 2015, 12:31

journeyman racer

2nd January 2015, 09:46

Kind of funny with Stewart. In all the years I've followed motorsport, and coming across "Greatest driver of all time" talk, I get the impression he's considered an afterthought. Behind the popular Senna, Clark, Villeneuve, Schumacher, Fangio, group. He's definitely of the "Greatest driver of all time" tag. While I wouldn't agree, Stewart would be one of, if not the only, nomination of someone's "GOAT" that won't make me look at them like they're an idiot.

Personally? Prost is the best driver of all time so far. My reasoning would take to long to bother writing, it wouldn't even be much fun reading.

journeyman racer

2nd January 2015, 10:04

I think the list makes a lot more sense than many others done by experts and, what's more, it has facts behind it to explain the reasoning. :)

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/who-was-the-greatest-f1-driver/
I'm sure the author was well intended and it was fun for them to do, but it is also a load of garbage. It looked like he cherry pick the first five and drew the others out of a hat.

So far. Nigel Mansell is the best English F1/racing driver so far. And best English F1/racing driver is a lot higher than 46. Watson ahead of Prost? LOL! I look forward to going over and dismantling it, in the coming weeks/ Like with this gem.

"My model suggests that at their respective bests, Hakkinen and Salo would have been evenly matched in the same car"

Yeah, non **** Sherlock. Look up the 1990 British F3 results fool!

driveace

2nd January 2015, 23:27

Can remember watching the British Grand Prix at Aintree around 1961 with Phil Hill ,Ritchie Ginter,Wolfgang Von Tripps ,Sure there was Jim Clark,Denny Hume ,Graham Hill too .How you rate all the great F1 drivers is difficult,the cars are a lot easier to drive now,and the circuits are safer too Thanks in a lot of ways to JYS who campaigned tirelessly for all the safety measures we now have

Rollo

3rd January 2015, 06:59

I am still mystified as to how Jack Brabham managed to convince Repco to build an engine for him.

They took the V6 from the 225 cid Oldsmobile Cutlass and somehow shortened the stroke and added to cylinders. Repco isn't even an engine builder. They sell parts:
http://www.repco.com.au/

That would be like Jenson Button asking Halfords to build an engine for him.

The Black Knight

5th January 2015, 09:32

Although this is not exactly the point of the thread, a couple of days ago I came across the F1 Metrics blog, which I guess many in here will know. They have a mathematical model for establishing comparisons between F1 drivers based on their performances relative to teammates and they used it to create a top 60 list of drivers. While cold data don't tell the whole truth, I think the list makes a lot more sense than many others done by experts and, what's more, it has facts behind it to explain the reasoning. :)

https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/who-was-the-greatest-f1-driver/

I know the author of this document means well but this is not something that can be measured the way he is measuring it. For example, Senna down in 19th? I wouldn't have Senna in my top 5 personally but I would definitely have him in my top 10. The top 5 I'm okay with except that I wouldn't necessarily rank them in that order. Watson ahead of Clark though? Frentzen ahead of Senna? Hmmm, the model needs more drafts ;)

schmenke

6th January 2015, 00:06

...
Stewart was within 10 laps of winning the 1966 Indianapolis 500 as a rookie. I don't think anyone has three world titles and an Indy 500 win, or even come close.

Jacques Villeneuve is close:

1994 IndyCar championship: 6th (named rookie of the year)
1994 Indy 500 2nd

1995 IndyCar Champion
1995 Indy 500 winner

1996 Formula 1 drivers championship: 2nd (at the time, highest WDC position for a rookie)
1997 Formula 1 champion

Doc Austin

6th January 2015, 18:39

Graham Hill?
Twice World Champion, 3 Second places, the 1966 Indy 500 and the 1972 Le Mans 24 Hours?

That one slipped by me. His first championship ('62 with BRM, I believe) was before I started watching, so I don't always remember it. Hill was not especially rated for natural ability, but he certainly won enough simply through the force of his will and determination. He will probably never be highly rated on anyone's list in spite of winning the WDC, Indianapolis and LeMans. I don't believe anyone else has achieved that.

Jacques Villeneuve is close:

1995 Indy 500 winner
1997 Formula 1 champion

Except he is two full world championships away from matching Stewart.

Villeneuve's Indycar career was exceptional, but in F1 he had unquestionably the best car, with the best driver stuck in a slow Ferrari. No other team was really even close to Williams in 97. Still, Villeneuve went into the finale a point behind Schumacher in spite of having far and away the very best car.

Every one of Stewart's championships were won against either the Fittipaldis and Petersons in healthy Lotus 72s, or Brabahm and Ickx in a very good Brabham. Stewart beat Rindt and Hill in Lotus' and really, too many other legendary figures to even remember. There were also Hulme, Revson and Scheckter (admittedly wild at the time) in McLarens. I think everyone can google up the grids and it's pretty plain Stewart faced a far more formidable selection of drivers.

I mean, in the end, I can't find a way to rate Hienz Harald Frentzen as highly as Emerson Fittipaldi. so clearly Stewart had much stiffer competition. Still, you can only beat whomever is put in front of you, and Villeneuve did that. I don't want to diminish his accomplishment, but I can't put it on the level of what Stewart did in his three championships.

While we are at it, two world championships and two Indianapolis 500 wins puts Emmo in pretty exclusive company. Is there anyone else who has won both twice?Also remember that Emerson had the 94 race all but won and crashed. Had he pulled that off, how does two world championships and three Indianapolis 500 wins stack up?

Finally, all of this is subjective. Maybe that works better than the scientific approach after all, because on that one link Jack Brabham is listed at something like 38th, and Nico Rosberg is rated ahead of Hamilton! I thought we just settled that this year!

journeyman racer

7th January 2015, 00:14

Except he is two full world championships away from matching Stewart. Now come on Bud. If you want to shit on Villeneuve for what he's done since F1, then fine. If you don't like him as much as others, then fine. That is an outrageous career JV has had, and it could only happen unless he's got some exceptional qualities, even if they're not so obvious to an outsider.

1)Villeneuve's Indycar career was exceptional, but in F1 he had unquestionably the best car,2) with the best driver stuck in a slow Ferrari.3) No other team was really even close to Williams in 97. Still, Villeneuve went into the finale a point behind Schumacher in spite of having far and away the very best car.
Come on Bud. These threads won't be deleted, so some fans who are new, may come across this may take it as fact.

1) It is highly questionable he had the best car. Particularly if you meant "comprehensively, throughout the entire season", which is often what is implied when making "the best car" statement. It's common knowledge that Williams didn't develop the car to the degree they normally would, and JV and Jock Clear had to take matters in their own hands regarding the car in the second half.

2) The 1997 Ferrari was not slow. This is blatantly incorrect.

3) Come on Bud. This is plainly wrong. 1997 was the most closely contested, unpredictable seasons, regarding race to race scenarios. Just like the first 3/4 of 12, without the gimmicky rules to make it so.

In hindsight, The Ferrari was a great car. McLaren came back and won three races, on top of being is great positions to do so in others, til the suffered misfortune of some kind. Olivier Panis was in contention to win some races in the Prost, before he smashed his legs. Had he not done so, if he wouldn't have won one race, he's have won 2+. The Prost was that good, Trulli dominated the first half of the Austrian GP. Damon Hill was leading the Williams by 30secs with two to go, in the Arrows of all things, before his gearbox packed up. Having had look at the wiki page, I'd even forgotten about Benetton winning and being in contention for others. Jordan was also there, threatening to win too.

1997 was one of the most genuinely closely contest seasons in F1. If not, the most.

Every one of Stewart's championships were won against either the Fittipaldis and Petersons in healthy Lotus 72s, or Brabahm and Ickx in a very good Brabham. Stewart beat Rindt and Hill in Lotus' and really, too many other legendary figures to even remember. There were also Hulme, Revson and Scheckter (admittedly wild at the time) in McLarens. I think everyone can google up the grids and it's pretty plain Stewart faced a far more formidable selection of drivers.

I mean, in the end, I can't find a way to rate Hienz Harald Frentzen as highly as Emerson Fittipaldi. so clearly Stewart had much stiffer competition.
No one is saying HHF is better than Fittipladi. But who would say he's got François Cevert covered? Accounting that I've already stated JYS status as an all time great, I'll say this. 1969 is one of the weakest F1 seasons in history, if not the weakest. Small fields and little depth. With a bit of study, 1997 has 71 and 73 covered too.

Still, you can only beat whomever is put in front of you, and Villeneuve did that. I don't want to diminish his accomplishment, but I can't put it on the level of what Stewart did in his three championships.

You might not have wanted to. But unfortunately, you have dumped a weeks worth of elephant **** on him. That is a lot of ****!

Doc Austin

7th January 2015, 05:09

Now come on Bud. If you want to shit on Villeneuve for what he's done since F1, then fine.

I never mentioned anything he has done since 1997.

If you don't like him as much as others, then fine.

I did not say anything about him personally at all. I just don't rate his solitary championship as highly as Stewart's three. The math is not that complicated.

That is an outrageous career JV has had, and it could only happen unless he's got some exceptional qualities,

I never claimed otherwise. I just don't rate his solitary championship as highly as Stewart's three. The math is not that complicated.

No one is saying HHF is better than Fittipladi.

And yet, it was Frentzen who finished second when Villeneuve won his championship. Stewart, by contrast, beat (respectively) second place men Jackie Ickx, Ronnie Peterson, and finally Emerson Fittipaldi.

That, and I just don't rate Villeneuve'ssolitary championship as highly as Stewart's three. The math is not that complicated.

But who would say he's got François Cevert covered?

Jackie admitted there were several races in 1973 that Cervert could have probably beaten him if Ken allowed them to race.

I'll say this. 1969 is one of the weakest F1 seasons in history, if not the weakest. Small fields and little depth. With a bit of study, 1997 has 71 and 73 covered too.

People can look at the names from 1969 and make up their own minds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Formula_One_season

airshifter

7th January 2015, 13:57

Except he is two full world championships away from matching Stewart.

Villeneuve's Indycar career was exceptional, but in F1 he had unquestionably the best car, with the best driver stuck in a slow Ferrari. No other team was really even close to Williams in 97. Still, Villeneuve went into the finale a point behind Schumacher in spite of having far and away the very best car.

Every one of Stewart's championships were won against either the Fittipaldis and Petersons in healthy Lotus 72s, or Brabahm and Ickx in a very good Brabham. Stewart beat Rindt and Hill in Lotus' and really, too many other legendary figures to even remember. There were also Hulme, Revson and Scheckter (admittedly wild at the time) in McLarens. I think everyone can google up the grids and it's pretty plain Stewart faced a far more formidable selection of drivers.

I mean, in the end, I can't find a way to rate Hienz Harald Frentzen as highly as Emerson Fittipaldi. so clearly Stewart had much stiffer competition. Still, you can only beat whomever is put in front of you, and Villeneuve did that. I don't want to diminish his accomplishment, but I can't put it on the level of what Stewart did in his three championships.

While we are at it, two world championships and two Indianapolis 500 wins puts Emmo in pretty exclusive company. Is there anyone else who has won both twice?Also remember that Emerson had the 94 race all but won and crashed. Had he pulled that off, how does two world championships and three Indianapolis 500 wins stack up?

I'd have to agree on this "battle" of drivers. Though all of it can be subjective, in the end Jacques only but together 4-5 good years throughout his career really.

I personally think he should have stayed in Indycar as his skill set there was stronger as compared to the field. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and I'm sure he didn't regret making a move that ended up with him winning a Formula 1 title.

As for F1, I think he had the superior car in 1997. Talent alone doesn't give you that many poles, and that is where he really excelled that year - starting from the front. He didn't claim nearly as many fast laps that year, and in reality only a few of the cars were both fast and reliable enough to even have a chance. IMO that is probably the only reason Schumacher had a chance that year. His car was solid, and Jacques got himself DQ'd at a race towards the season end.

Similar to yourself, I don't throw this out there to diminish JV's career. He has done a whole lot more than a big list of drivers, and came away with a couple of titles that are hard to come by.

But I think Stewart had more competition, and he was solid through his career against his competition. I'd have to rate him ahead of JV.

Finally, all of this is subjective. Maybe that works better than the scientific approach after all, because on that one link Jack Brabham is listed at something like 38th, and Nico Rosberg is rated ahead of Hamilton! I thought we just settled that this year!

I think the problem with the scientific approach is there are too many variables that require a person being subjective to properly calculate. Sheer luck often comes into the picture with other drivers having good or bad days, the record of DNFs, etc. One driver makes a bold racing move and comes out ahead, while another driver does the same and DNFs. Add weather, team calls and strategy, etc, etc.... and it's next to impossible to properly rate the drivers with any formula IMO.

And once we get into the realm of subjective opinions, even when backed by data, there will always be disagreement to some extent.

Doc Austin

7th January 2015, 20:18

The topic was greatest F1 drivers, yet we talk about LeMans and Indy as though they count toward that. They really don't if we are talking strictly in F1 terms, but as far as ranking drivers from all disciplines they do. In the vein, I can't see anyone challenging Mario Andretti. He won Indianapolis, four Indycar titles and a Formula One World Championship, won Sebring three times, and the Daytona 6 hours. He was also a big winner for Ferrari in the 312PB sportscars, If you throw in the Daytona 500 win, sprints and midgets, I don't think there are many who have won as often and in as many disciplines as Mario. I believe he also won an NHRA national drag race to boot.

About the only thing meaningful Mario never won was LeMans, and part of that has to be because he did not have that many starts. Even Bob Wolleck never won LeMans overall.

As far as ranking drivers strictly by their F1 careers, it is a little easier to use statistics, though I still can't figure out how that one link had Jack Brabham at 38th or something. Two world championships, after all, should really put you in fairly exclusive territory.

I'm also still trying to figure out how that same link has Rosberg ahead of Hamilton when the WC score sits at 2-0. I am sure someone will try to rationalize how Rosberg was the more deserving driver last year and it was a travesty Hamilton beat him, but honestly, if it was your career, which driver would you rather be?

I don't know if I really rate Stewart as the best of all, but I admire his accomplishments. He was championing safety and complaining about deplorable conditions even while he was kicking everyone's ass in those same dangerous conditions. Stewart knew the risks, worked to change them, and still went out and was faster and better than everyone he faced. In an era when you had about a 1 in 3 chance of getting killed every time you went out. Stewart may not have been fearless, but he never showed otherwise.

When you realize how many close friends Stewart lost so quickly, it is a miracle he made it past 1970, when both Piers Courage and Rindt perished. Perhaps they were just stupid men in a stupid sport, or perhaps they were very brave in an era where there were unprotected trees just feet off the side of the road instead of 100 yards of fresh pavement with a soft barrier on the other side.

As such, I can't attach hero status to today's drivers as easily as I can tag drivers who raced with open face helmets and no fuel cells, and when an oak tree was considered a soft barrier.

Rollo

8th January 2015, 12:15

That, and I just don't rate Villeneuve's solitary championship as highly as Stewart's three. The math is not that complicated.

Jacques Villeneuve:
F1 - 1 WDC, a 2nd
CART - 1 DC, a 6th

Nigel Mansell:
F1 - 1 WDC, three 2nds
CART - 1 DC, an 8th

Arguably, Nigel Mansell is better than Villeneuve... excuse me, I moustache you a few questions!

Doc Austin

8th January 2015, 15:17

Mansell won quite a few more GPs than Villeneuve, for sure. If you look at the numbers the two are not even close.

journeyman racer

11th January 2015, 08:45

I did not say anything about him personally at all. I just don't rate his solitary championship as highly as Stewart's three. The math is not that complicated.
The maths are not as important as context. Are you saying JYS is better because he won 2 c'ships more than JV? Are you saying all of JYS's titles were more credible than JV? Because it's plausible that JV's single title was of more driving/racing merit than all of JYS's

And yet, it was Frentzen who finished second when Villeneuve won his championship. Stewart, by contrast, beat (respectively) second place men Jackie Ickx, Ronnie Peterson, and finally Emerson Fittipaldi.
MS was second to JV, but was stripped of it. Are you taking a dump on HHF now? What's wrong with him?

Jackie admitted there were several races in 1973 that Cervert could have probably beaten him if Ken allowed them to race.
Enough to knock the title off him? If that that's case, JYS mightn't have been that crash hot in the first place.

People can look at the names from 1969 and make up their own minds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Formula_One_season
The names mean nothing without context.

Doc Austin

11th January 2015, 17:44

Are you saying JYS is better because he won 2 c'ships more than JV?

Which career would you rather have?

Are you saying all of JYS's titles were more credible than JV?

I think so. Stewart was never in a car as unbeatable as the Williams. Most teams used a Cosworth those days and the cars were much more closely matched.

Are you taking a dump on HHF now? What's wrong with him?

Did I say anything was wrong with him? People can make up their own minds how his career compares to the men Stewart beat. I had very high hopes that Frentzen would beat the snot out of Schumacher, but in the end he could only win once, even in a Williams.

Villeneuve was the best driver in the year he won his championship (but some would argue Schumacher had a better year considering the equipment disparity). I just don't think that was as good as beating, Hill, Brabham, Hulme, Revson Fittipaldi, Ickx, Rodrigeuz, Siffert, etc, which Stewart did three times.

Beating Frentzen, Coulthard, Alesi just can't stand up to that.

Certainly JV beat Schumacher too, even without the DQ, but in the end MS scored three times the points of his teammate (Irvine) in the same car, suggesting that the Ferrari was not so good that year. I don't think anyone believes JV would have beaten Schumacher if the cars had been more equal.

Stewart drove a variety of cars, and even managed to win in a BRM and a March. Once Villeneuve got out of the dominant Williams he did not fare so well. Perhaps that will provide some context for you.

Finally, I thought that Villeneuve drove a brilliant season in 97, but he was also fortunate to have the dominant Williams when Schumacher was caught in a less than brilliant Ferrari. I don't believe for a minute that Villeneuve would have beaten Schumacher had the cars been more equal. We saw what happened over the course of the next five years when the roles were reversed.

In the end, Stewart retired with grace (and tragedy) to become an established and respected spokesman and elder statesman. He commands respect any and everywhere he goes.

schmenke

12th January 2015, 16:09

... I don't believe for a minute that Villeneuve would have beaten Schumacher had the cars been more equal. We saw what happened over the course of the next five years when the roles were reversed...

...and Bridgestone was supplying tires to Schumacher... ;)

journeyman racer

13th January 2015, 13:25

Which career would you rather have?
You'd think this is a straight forward answer, wouldn't you? I would much rather be an F1 champ. But I'd much rather win the Indy 500 than a GP (with the faint exception of the Australian). Having crossed the line of World Champ, I think I would take an Indy 500 over another 2 F1 titles. I have huge regard for pre-96 Indy 500s as well.

I think so. Stewart was never in a car as unbeatable as the Williams. Most teams used a Cosworth those days and the cars were much more closely matched.
Really? It plausible that the Matra-Ford was the best, but not necessarily dominant, car in a weak field in 69. Partculalry accounting for the new rules regarding the wings. Using similar/same engines only magnifies the various strength/weaknesses of cars.

You won't have to do much research to know the Tyrrell in 71 was the best car. In fact, if it were able to be conclusively proven, I'd even bet that it was a stronger car, relative to it's opposition, than JV's Williams. And in 73, if the car wasn't dominant, it's had it's time as the better car throughout the season. I think it's also fair to say that JYS benefitted from a hugely supportive team, when Fittipaldi didn't. This is the reason why Fittipaldi left Lotus at the end of the season

Did I say anything was wrong with him?
No. but you're definitely not implying that HHF is good.

Villeneuve was the best driver in the year he won his championship (but some would argue Schumacher had a better year considering the equipment disparity). I just don't think that was as good as beating, Hill, Brabham, Hulme, Revson Fittipaldi, Ickx, Rodrigeuz, Siffert, etc, which Stewart did three times.

Beating Frentzen, Coulthard, Alesi just can't stand up to that.

-Despite Hill being the reigning champ in 69, he was finished. The drove such weak cars it didn't matter afterwards.
-Brabham was only for one year, and past his peak. A peak which by reputation, doesn't seem to be as high as others by reputation, despite his success.
- I've never read anywhere of Hulme being rated as an immense talent. Respected, but not comparable to Clark or Stewart.
-Revson, journeyman with potential. Was also in a weaker car.
- Fittipladi. Was less experienced than Stewart, and without the benefit of prepping modern day "greats" get when they were of similar age. It's fair enough, but easy to point out.
-Ickx. Alright. but I bet there was some weakness that prevented him from being champ.
- Rodriguez and Siffert. Too hard to fathom. Drove weaker cars. Between them only won one race more than HHF.

Did they all race, all of those seasons, at the same time? Some of those guys died in accidents. But anyway, on the other hand.

-HHF. Won two races in a Jordan. Not only that, he even threatened to win the WC in 99, despite driving a Jordan.
- 97 were the days before DC became a known soft****. He was quite formidable in 97.
-Alesi has a miserable winning record, but quite a good podium accumulation. Normally solid and his ability warranted more wins, as he was in contention to do so numerous times.

journeyman racer

13th January 2015, 13:37

Certainly JV beat Schumacher too, even without the DQ, but in the end MS scored three times the points of his teammate (Irvine) in the same car, suggesting that the Ferrari was not so good that year. I don't think anyone believes JV would have beaten Schumacher if the cars had been more equal.
It just confirms the already known notion that Schumacher was better than Irvine. The Ferrari was good that year. Unless JV was sandbagging, the laws of physics say so.

Ferrari was also revolved around supporting Schumacher, and making the most of his performance. JV didn't get this benefit. In fact, with the reputation Williams and Head have in managing the team and drivers, it's just as well their car had an advantage. JV (along with Hill. Maybe even Prost and Mansell) won the title in spite of the team

Stewart drove a variety of cars, and even managed to win in a BRM and a March. Once Villeneuve got out of the dominant Williams he did not fare so well. Perhaps that will provide some context for you.
You're only basing that on some wins. Of which there is not context of how they occurred. JV might not have won a race after 97. But I remember him being outstanding, relative of the McLaren/Ferrari, in 98. The two podiums he got were good performances. In fact, I now recall thinking during 98. That even though JV wasn't winning, he might actually have put in better driving performances in 98 than in 97

Finally, I thought that Villeneuve drove a brilliant season in 97, but he was also fortunate to have the dominant Williams when Schumacher was caught in a less than brilliant Ferrari. I don't believe for a minute that Villeneuve would have beaten Schumacher had the cars been more equal. We saw what happened over the course of the next five years when the roles were reversed.
That's your opinion. But your opinion of using "dominant" and "less than brilliant" is wrong. There was not one car JV drove from 98-02, that was as good as the 97 Ferrari as well.

In the end, Stewart retired with grace (and tragedy) to become an established and respected spokesman and elder statesman. He commands respect any and everywhere he goes.
Everything to do with his status within motorsport, sport in general. Nothing to do with the merit of his success, his driving abilities, relative to JV.

jens

13th January 2015, 21:30

What are we doing? Comparing 1997 to 1971/1969? Lovely.:p: I'll join right in that discussion!

First of all, I rate Stewart higher than Jacques Villeneuve. If the name was Gilles Villeneuve, I'd hesitate – Stewart or Gilles?! Well, I don't know. Drivers with too different styles – Jackie as smooth, Gilles as ragged. But Jackie or Jacques – the answer is clear to me.:)

Anyway, about 1997 or 1970 or whatever. Any era (or specifically even year) has some things similar. At each moment we have a driver, or two or three, who is/are rated as the best drivers at that specific moment, the benchmarks. Around 1970 it was Stewart, around 1997 it was Schumacher. So there you go...

Then we have some excellent drivers, who are also very fast and threatening to steal the throne, be it Rindt, Fittipaldi, Ickx, Häkkinen, or J.Villeneuve from 1997. And then we have so-called journeymen, who are good #2 drivers, be it Regazzoni or Coulthard. And then we have drivers, who are already past their prime and on their way out, like Graham Hill and Brabham in 1969, or Berger in 1997. Then we have some young guns, who are rated as future stars, be it Cevert or Fisichella.

I think you catch the drift. :)

More specific head-to-head comparisons will give a headache. Who was faster, Rindt or Häkkinen? Ughogh?!?! All I know both were rated as supremely fast drivers in their prime, and we certainly didn't see enough of Rindt, who died only at 28...

jens

13th January 2015, 21:41

I always struggle in these threads, because I am certain its impossible to merge era's.

I believe Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Piquet, Senna, Schumi are all greats of F1. No one can say which is better. There are plenty of others too.

I also have limited knowledge of pre 1990 so I can only go on reading and documentary etc.

This is pretty much what I also think.:) Each period or era has a driver or two (Senna/Prost overlap each other, so they are basically in the same era), who are the so-called benchmarks of their era. So they are the greats.:)

Sometimes the picture gets hazy, when car performances are comparable and several drivers seem like standout performers. Like the late 1970s/early 1980s with Andretti, G.Villeneuve, Piquet, Prost, also Keke Rosberg - it was difficult to choose between them at some times. Scheckter, Jones, Reutemann and some others were right up there as well. So it gets really complicated there.