A World Champ ALWAYS rates over a non World Champ - Discuss

[John Turner]

In a very good post made by deeks6 on the David Coulthard - 2005 review thread, he made the above comment, which I challenged using Moss as an example. Boots came up with Ronnie Peterson and, I guess, another would be Gilles Villeneuve. I wonder if this would make a good basis for a thread on its own. Is the above statement generally true, or are there sufficient examples to challenge that assertion? Clearly we will probably need mostly, but not exclusively, to discuss drivers that were contemporaries with each other. What do you think?

[Adam43]

It isn't true due to the word 'ALWAYS' as you say and using the examples you give. However remove that word and generally it is true as great drivers tend to win things. Pretty much what you say really

[Kicking-back]

There has never been a poor world champion.

But names like Moss do show it's not the be-all and end-all.

[Boro]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

There has never been a poor world champion.

But names like Moss do show it's not the be-all and end-all.

judging by some people's attitude towards JV, u'd think he's exempt from your first statement

[John Turner]

Ok, Adam, perhaps I should have substituted the 'Always' for 'generally' but I was quoting verbatim and it maybe that there are those who might not agree with the examples given. But, if these examples are accepted and added to by other posters perhaps it will not even be 'generally' true - subjective, I know, but I just love this type of discussion!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Ok, Adam, perhaps I should have substituted the 'Always' for 'generally' but I was quoting verbatim and it maybe that there are those who might not agree with the examples given. But, if these examples are accepted and added to by other posters perhaps it will not even be 'generally' true - subjective, I know, but I just love this type of discussion!

Nothing wrong with the title. You had to take the extreme to make your point.

Moss, Peterson and Villeneuve are all better than some of the world champions. They deserve to be world champions. However I wouldn't want to remove a championship from any driver that has one to give it to them because that removes the point of the competition.

[John Turner]

I agree k-b, there never has been a poor World Champion and that includes JV, Boro, but do we rate them all above some of their contemporaries?

[BootsOntheSide]

Alonso looks set to become the 28th different world champion, and I'd certainly rate Moss, Peterson, G Villeneuve and Raikkonen among the 28 greatest drivers ever. I completely disagreed with the idea all along really. Moss would've won titles if he wasn't so honest and so determined to drive British cars, and Ronnie and Gilles were both cut short in their prime. Chris Amon never won a race and I'd rate him above some champions for natural talent.

[Hip Priest]

I agree with KB basically.

You have to be a great driver to become a Champion, but you don't have to be a Champion to be a great driver.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

..... and Raikkonen among the 28 greatest drivers ever.
Chris Amon never won a race and I'd rate him above some champions for natural talent.

I have said on another thread, without getting verbally lynched, that I thought Raikkonen is probably the greatest 'natural' talent since Jim Clark, but do you really think that he is already among the top 28 greatest drivers? I think it is probably a bit early to put him that high.

Totally agree about Amon. Quite unbelievable that he didn't win a string of GPs.

However, what I'm trying to discover is which drivers, if any, you rate above their contemporaries who became World Champions, and if possible, why? This is not an attempt to belittle any of the World Champs; more a way of acknowledging those who had the talent and/or skill to reach that goal, but for whatever reason, failed to achieve it.

[BootsOntheSide]

I'd rate Moss above Hawthorn and Phil Hill. Peterson and Gilles Villenueve probably each above Andretti and Scheckter. Chris Amon mostly raced against some very strong champions, but Hulme seems a bit out-of-place alongside Clark, Stewart and Rindt. And although he wasn't fully-rounded I think Alesi had more natural talent than Damon or JV.

[Dutton]

You bring to mind one of the issues in this debate Boots. Are we thinking in terms of raw pace, natural "feel", all-rounder, race craft? Do we include more than just on-track driving?

It is tricky.

[IL LEONE]

There were lots of drivers who never became champion that were almostly good enough or should have been WDC. It's hard for me to rate them above their winning contemporaries, preferring to remind people of the unsung heroes.

From limited knowledge I have to mention Rene Arnoux, a staggering amount of poles for a non champion and although a fairly old driver when starting in F1, his career is certainly interesting. A very Quick and talented driver.

[Dan Fielden]

Originally Posted by Boro

judging by some people's attitude towards JV, u'd think he's exempt from your first statement

I agree, i cant reali understand how Villeneuve won a championship, BUT! there is a but, i only started following f1, fully, in 1999 and Villeneuve was always Mid-Field with the likes of Frentzen, Zonta, Wurz, Fisi etc etc.
I never saw the "champion". I mean even now he's seems to be struggling to match Massa's pace IMO
How good was he?

[ASCII Man]

He was the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be!

Anyho...

As a complete driver I'd rate Jacques just below Mika and TGF (tied for the top spot IMO), but above Damon and then the rest, well at least in his first 3 seasons, after that it sort of went downhill with some improvements in 2000-2001 as you might have noticed...

In those first 2 seasons with Williams he was definitely on par with TGF in terms of speed and skill, but sometimes dropping the ball made it a tight squeeze for the title fight, losing out in his first season and narrowingly winning it in the second one, in arguably the best car, although the Ferrari was seemingly on par with the Williams at least in the second part of the 1997 season...

To make it short, he was good, very good.

[Dan Fielden]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

He was the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be!

As a complete driver I'd rate Jacques just below Mika and TGF (tied for the top spot IMO). To make it short, he was good, very good.

I would say that just behind Mika is a bit OTT IMO. Are you seriously saying your puttin JV ahead of Senna, prost, Fangio, and all them boys. He won one championship, in a great car and then went downhill thereafter.

[ASCII Man]

I think I made it clear that I was referring to Jacques' first 2-3 seasons in F1, not the entire F1 history..... °sighs°

[Dan Fielden]

You said "As a complete driver" forgive me

[Dutton]

Well, I guess you could argue he is now incomplete.....

[ASCII Man]

I meant 'complete driver' in terms of speed, skill, strategy, etc...
Sorry for bad english speaking, mister!

[Dan Fielden]

[BSchneiderFan]

Dan Gurney was, in my view, better than Jack Brabham, Graham Hill, Phil Hill and John Surtees, all of whom won championships while Gurney was active. One recalls the very touching story of Jim Clark's father coming up to Gurney at Clark's funeral and telling Gurney that he was the only driver Jim Clark truly feared. Compliments don't come any greater than that, as Gurney observed.

Amon has already been mentioned; pure class, and arguably better than Brabham, Hulme or Graham Hill.

For myself, I'd be tempted to rank Jacky Ickx above, say, Emerson Fittipaldi or even, maybe, (say it softly) Jochen Rindt. I'd certainly put Ronnie Peterson ahead of James Hunt and Jody Scheckter.

I'd also rank Gilles Villeneuve and Didier Pironi ahead of the aforementioned Scheckter, Keke Rosberg, Alan Jones and (perhaps) Nelson Piquet.

[deeks6]

John, I think we have had a few discussions in the past and agreed to disagree - we may have to again. The answer is yes...but I agree he comes close to the exception.

My reasoning is this. A WDC is a driver who (even for only 1 season) is able to put it all together consistently, not just for a race or a few races. So I'm afraid he does rate (in my humble book) behind those guys in the big scheme of things.

Moss is an interesting case. His legend has grown for a number of reasons:

- He has been accessible to the media for a long time, he is outspoken, not shy about his own achievements and has also "subtly" denigrated other great drivers who beat him (notably Jack Brabham but also Hawthorn and Hill). Whetever Stirling says seems to end up as fact.
- There are more "British" GP media than any other and they tend to be a bit phobic about their "British" drivers to the point of euphoria. Moss is held up as their pin-up boy.
- His career-ending accident probably saved his reputation from decline because his career was definitely on the wane at that stage. If he had continued along with a bunch of ordicary results, he may not be remembered in the light he is.

He was, no doubt, one of the FASTEST drivers of all time. This is unquestionable and he would rate an most people's "Top 10" if that was the only criterium. But there is more to a "Great GP Driver" than pure speed...
Remember, he was beaten quite easily by Fangio when teammates in a good team and failed to win a WDC (whatever the circumstances) in other good (factory) teams. Yes, he won a lot of races but he also failed to finish a lot of races.

(Shock, Horror to all the British fans), with that record, I cannot honestly see why he should'nt rate (overall) with the likes of Rubens and DC - when all is aid and done, he did'nt achieve any more in F1 than they have.

I understand where you are coming from, John, and I understand that my comments might be ridiculed by some fans but you have to have something to judge it by. Speed is one thing but when all the factors are taken into consideration, the likes of Ascari, Fangio, Brabham, Clark, Stewart, Fittipaldi, Mario, Prost, Senna, Piquet, Schu, Hakk and even Mansell are streets ahead of him.

Put it in the wrong thread before...oops

[deeks6]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Moss would've won titles if he wasn't so honest and so determined to drive British cars.

Since when was a Mercedes a British car?????

[deeks6]

GP racing, like no other sport invokes a lot of emotion and passion. Fans have their favorites and nothing will sway them from opinions that they were "better" than the next guy. The point is, though, to make a case for them, you must have set criteria as to what makes the "best". Surely, the WDC is that criteria. To win it, you must be CONSISTENTLY fast, reliable, good at qualifying and development, work well with the team, win races etc etc.

Some of the ones that invoke the most discussion:

Moss - already discussed

GV - if you said he was the most entertaining driver ever, I'd probably not argue but best? Not even close...clearly beaten by Reutemann and Sheckter, Reutemann clearly beaten by Jones and not many would say Jones was the best ever.

Ronnie Peterson - could'nt get close to Mario...

Amon - never won a GP. Come on...

Alesi - please...

JV - much maligned, no doubt because of his last 6 or 7 years but he was a mighty good racer. Challenged for WDC in 1st year against a good teammate and then won it. He may have lost the plot now but I recall some fantastic drives in 96-97 with some daring moves to boot.

Dan Gurney - yes, probably the unluckiest driver of all time - should have won 3 WDC's if not for poor judgement moving camps. None other than Jack Brabham rated him one of the best ever and was desperate for Dan to head up his 66 challenge, which history shows would have been a walk in the park for the big fella. I rate him the best non-WDC. Check his overall record in ALL forms of motorsport. Impressive.

The much maligned (underrated drivers):

Jack Brabham - despite his incredible record, most "British" fans don't rate him (e.g. Murray Walker did'nt have him in the top 10). Crikey, 3 WDC's (2 of them against Moss) and one in a car he designed and built and he does'nt rate in the Top 10? Wow. If you want proof of his ability, check 1966 - despite the fact he was not going to drive (Dan Gurney was hid No 1 driver until leaving), he beat 7 past or future world champs (Clark, P Hill, G Hill, Stewart, Rindt, Surtees and Hulme), 10 other GP winners (Bandini, Bonnier, Ginther, Ireland, Scarfiotti, Baghetti, Gurney 7, McLaren 4, Rodriguez 2, Siffert 2) as well as other highly rated drivers Amon, Parkes and Spence. Not Top 10? You must be joking!

Mario Andretti - won everything except the Tour de France. A superstar...and one of the best set-up men of all time.

Phil Hill - WDC, 6 GP wins in 49 starts, Le Mans ... a lot of guys would love to be that bad.

Mike Hawthorn - beat Moss in 1958 despite having an inferior car (Moss teammate won 3 GP's that year also) and just to put a lie to the Moss speed factor, Hawthorn had 5 FL's to Moss 3.

If it was'nt F1, this would not be an argument at all. In any other sport, the greatest are the World Champs.
Would we remember Mohammed Ali if he'd just won an Olympic medal? No.
Ron Clarke set more distance running records than any athlete in history but does anyone rate him with Zatopek, Nurmi, Viren etc? No, because he failed at the highest level.

"Best" or "Better" means you achieved more at the HIGHEST level, surely ...