|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
11 May 2004, 06:10 (Ref:967215) | #26 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 61
|
What about the most forgotten F1 world champ in history? Denny Hulme?
I would suspect that he struggled to make the top 50 as he is hardly mentioned in any articles. For example in all the adverts for Grandprix Legends they mention about five drivers from the 67 session but they don’t even mention the world champ from that year. I wonder if the next Kiwi world drivers champ Scott Dixon will be forgotten 30 years after he was WDC? Last edited by Sirio; 11 May 2004 at 06:11. |
||
__________________
Grunt if you like pushrods |
11 May 2004, 07:30 (Ref:967279) | #27 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 539
|
Í would say that listing is pretty realistic actually.
|
||
|
11 May 2004, 09:07 (Ref:967381) | #28 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,160
|
Yes, nothing conreversial there. Fair enough. I'd always put Prosty higher, but there we go.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
11 May 2004, 10:29 (Ref:967446) | #29 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,083
|
I wonder if a 'plus & minus' system would help sort them out in these lists?
For instance senna may not have been the most naturally tallented but he was certainly the most dedicated ever or G.vilenueve being outrageously tallented but not having a clue about car development or testing That would help place alot of drivers in the list-but of course it would be a 'best overall' list .Prob why they've done other types of polls mentioned a few posts back |
||
|
11 May 2004, 10:37 (Ref:967457) | #30 | |||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,160
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Brum brum |
11 May 2004, 10:40 (Ref:967461) | #31 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't have Eddie ahead of Brundle either, despite his GP wins. As others have said though, it's all good in sparking debate. |
||||
|
11 May 2004, 10:45 (Ref:967467) | #32 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Quote:
Dont' get me wrong though, a great driver and, if we look outside F1, he would certainly score 'versatility' points for his success in the States. |
|||
|
11 May 2004, 12:47 (Ref:967605) | #33 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,550
|
Quote:
Piquet seems very excessively placed. At Brabham he had superior hardware on performance, and it wasn't exactly all above board either. When paired with Schumacher or Mansell he was somewhat showed up, and he has to take some of the blame for Lotus' demise. |
||
__________________
"Stacy's mom has got it going on, she's all I want, and I've waited so long. Stacy can't you see, you're just not the girl for me, I know it might be wrong but I'm in love with Stacy's mom" |
11 May 2004, 12:55 (Ref:967619) | #34 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,160
|
TV age?
50-80 non TV age: ~30 years 80-85 transition: ~5 years 85-04 TV age: ~20 years. Well we are approaching the time when the TV is nearly as long as the non TV age. Also this has also coincided with an age when drivers started to take it more seriously - professionally. Look at some of the greats - Moss, Stewart, Lauda... These all achieved success because they were more like modern drivers than their contemporaries. If that is a measure of success then perhaps it isn't suprising that some of the lesser lot in the top 100 contain a lot (although no where near all) of those that are more professional. However I do agree. The votes are effected because of the age of people voting. Younger people haven't seen the older drivers. |
||
__________________
Brum brum |
11 May 2004, 19:04 (Ref:968018) | #35 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 325
|
Quote:
Also, regarding the legality of his Brabham, remember that at that time all the teams sailed pretty close to illegality. I think Brabham only started using the 'rocket fuel' in '83 after the governing body refused to censure Renault for some of its erm... inovations. And Rosberg said at the time that while he liked Prost very much (and didn't much like Piquet) he hoped the Brabham won because he was tired of Renault's games. Nelson was outpaced more often than not by Michael but that was at the end of his career - and he still outscored Michael. That is often forgotten - you read that Michael beat all his team-mates. No - he beat all but Piquet. I find the different reactions to Piquet and Lauda puzzling. Perhaps people are reluctant to criticise Niki because of what he went through after the Nurburgring? Much of the criticism of Nelson could be applied to Niki: both didn't always perform at their best and both could be a right *****. But both were also brilliant and amusing and intelligent. Last edited by santori; 11 May 2004 at 19:09. |
||
|
11 May 2004, 19:09 (Ref:968023) | #36 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 325
|
And on another point - H2F is rated far too low. Only 11th of those racing in recent years. Have they forgotten '95 and '99? He almost won the championship in a car which shouldn't have been near it. Whereas Mika (no.11!) nearly lost it despite having by far the best car.
p.s. though I like Mika and think he was superb at times (esp. '98). |
|
|
11 May 2004, 20:04 (Ref:968062) | #37 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,577
|
Ok, so by notable I meant recent, plus their dads where neccesary. Here's the placings of the few others asked for:
Fittipaldi - 15th Brabham - 12th Hulme - 39th Any more? |
||
__________________
Brought to you by Glagnar's Human Rinds: "A-bunch-a-munch-crunch-a-human" |
11 May 2004, 20:14 (Ref:968070) | #38 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 325
|
Rindt.
|
|
|
11 May 2004, 20:19 (Ref:968078) | #39 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,577
|
A surprisingly low 16th.
|
||
__________________
Brought to you by Glagnar's Human Rinds: "A-bunch-a-munch-crunch-a-human" |
11 May 2004, 20:39 (Ref:968104) | #40 | |
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 325
|
Humph.
(thanks). |
|
|
11 May 2004, 20:53 (Ref:968115) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,506
|
I dont agree with the idea that the drivers from the sixties/seventies were less professional than their later 90's/millenium drivers. Thats like saying Roger bannister, peter Snell and John walker were less dedicated/professional than present day runners and triathletes. What is physically required to be competitive (often becuase of modern nutitional/physiology knowledge) may be different to what was the regime of older traing methods but it simply doesn't hold water. How is Button more dedicated/professional than G. Hill, Gurney, Brabham, McLaren or Clark?
Making up a list of 100 greatest drivers is not too hard. You'll get agreement on 70-80 of them anyway. 20-30 of them will be contestable. But ranking them? A top ten with four or five on the cusp maybe. A top twenty with 5-6 on the cusp perhaps. atop 50 with 10-15 on the cusp is possible. A top 100 in order-no way. |
||
|
11 May 2004, 21:05 (Ref:968126) | #42 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,056
|
I agree with Damon. Manell should be in the top 10 instead of Piquet...and I agree with baclightning...my personal list had Brabham in 17th.
F1 Racings ranking was based on the "Greatest F1 Drivers since 1950" and they asked a very large number people involved in and around F1. I assume they added up the names as votes? I've been following F1 since 1957 (when Mike Hawthorn won the last title for a front engined car) My greatest 10 of 25 reads... CLARK (He came down from heaven to race mere mortals and was snatched back, sublime natural talent) SCHUMACHER (The ultimate focused driver) SENNA (The most passionate, blind faith and most commited) FANGIO (A Legend passed into folklaw) STEWART (Thinking professional) PROST (The Prof' won with the minimum effort) MANSELL (True Grit! Bravest driver ever) MOSS (The first professional and for that race at the old Nurburgring in the early 60's where he left the all the more powerful Ferraris behind on lap one in his punny little Lotus) LAUDA (Enzo "Lauda is Lauda") GURNEY (Any driver who was the most feared by Clark is only separated by 8 places because of the passage of new talent) I wrote down every F1 driver I could think off...cut them out then shifted them about whilst referring to their races and CVs. A process of elimination if you will, I left out a few one-off titlists and the barmy exhibitionists! |
||
|
11 May 2004, 21:09 (Ref:968128) | #43 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,056
|
I rated Rindt 13th.
|
||
|
11 May 2004, 21:13 (Ref:968133) | #44 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,056
|
I ranked Fittipaldi 11th, Hunt didn't feature in my top 25.
|
||
|
12 May 2004, 02:13 (Ref:968282) | #45 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,811
|
Surely, Sir Jack Brabham should be top ten, if not top five. I mean, he built his own car to win the world championship! Who else will ever be able to say they did that?
IMHO, Raikkonen and Alonso, while clearly talented, haven't done enough yet to merit inside the top forty. Bottom of the top fifty at best for them. Hakkinen at 11? Just wrong (IMHO!). |
||
__________________
"Brakes are no good. They only make you go slower." - Tazio Nuvolari |
12 May 2004, 08:45 (Ref:968428) | #46 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 392
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
12 May 2004, 08:58 (Ref:968445) | #47 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Yes, I think that might be a good idea, though mags might baulk at that as it might put some, how shall I say, less 'historically interested' readers off!
Dixie, as Teretonga says, putting the drivers in order really is very difficult and subjective. I guess the main thing is that the right drivers are there in roughly the right regions of the top hundred (which isn't necessarily the case here). I think 12th is pretty good for Jack. Definitely a great and had the technical ability to build up his own team, but he wasn't quite on a Moss (I'm sure I've read somewhere that even he though Stirling was the top man when Jack was winning his first two titles) or Clark level. Looks around for Deeks, waiting for his arrival Last edited by krt917; 12 May 2004 at 08:59. |
||
|
12 May 2004, 10:14 (Ref:968501) | #48 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
100 Grand Prixs is too long a time to wait really - remember that Clark only did 51 races and Stewart 99. You can usually get an idea of how good someone is after 50 races, although it took Mika and Nigel much longer to win.
I think the original list is pretty good, but I'd agree that Piquet doesn't belong in the top 10. In Lauda's defence, I'd say that it was only his withdrawal in Fuji 76 that stopped him beinf the first driver since Fangio to win 3 titles on the trot, and his 1984 championship included a succession of gret fighting drives. |
||
|
12 May 2004, 10:22 (Ref:968509) | #49 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 392
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
12 May 2004, 15:45 (Ref:968854) | #50 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 995
|
Few drivers still with my interest to their positions?
Keke Rosberg? Ronnie Peterson? Btw, who was placed #100. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who are the top 10 touring car drivers of all time? | Sideways-Fast | Motorsport History | 101 | 2 Jun 2005 22:03 |
Race start time? (merged) | JohnnyFiama | Formula One | 6 | 5 Mar 2005 23:24 |
Yay!!! A new all time record!!! / DC's year - again... (Merged) | Damon | Formula One | 97 | 16 Jan 2003 00:12 |
Not for the first time.../Verstappen the boxer (merged) | R | Formula One | 24 | 6 Dec 2002 18:45 |
Drivers who have yet to win a race, and drivers who havn't won for a long time | Raoul Duke | Formula One | 20 | 28 Sep 2001 22:16 |