TBK-Light.com

Casted my vote on Fangio and Clark. Mostly because they could dominate taming deathtraps in tracks crossing roads sometimes under heavy rain and with fierce competition. Yet both managed to achieve victory records and Clark even went on to have a 100% form while winning the Indy 500 in the same year

the others that arrived later only perfected the benchmark they set

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now

My knowledge isn't as extensive as most others', but my votes went to Schumacher and Hamilton. All these drivers are amazing but I've always been impressed with his maniacal commitment to testing and technical knowledge of all the cars he drove. As for Hamilton, it seems to me that he so rarely loses his head and gets himself in trouble. He's just so consistently lightning fast and automatic.

For me, a tough choice between Juan Manuel Fangio and Jim Clark but I'll give it to Clark because he died while still during his prime.

Both were classy gentlemen and had seemingly unlimited reserves that they could call upon any time the situation demanded it, almost like magic.

Fangio
Clark

Senna is a close 3rd for me & the rest on the poll presently are in my top 10

Schumacher and Senna. They both did extraordinary things in F1 cars and crucially it was broadcast for the world to see. I'd say Fangio is P3 for his status as a semi-mythical figure

I think Clark may well be the greatest racing driver of all time, though, for what he achieved across multiple disciplines

I can't answer. I have witnessed every success of Schumacher and Hamilton, and only know the successes of Fangio, Prost and even Senna from the stories which filtered out the bad parts and only showed the famous achievements. So in these stories, they appeared to be the best (although Prost seemed boring) but I must rely on the stories.
And I saw Schumacher and Hamilton race, but in cars that were safer and in teams that dominated everything. And I saw them in their weakest moments too, and there have been a lot. No way I can put Hamilton in a list of greatest of all time when his only job in the last 6 years was to beat his teammate. And Schumacher didn't even have to beat his teammate because his teammate wasn't allowed to come too close.

If there ever is a "Greatest ever", he will have to come from an era where you stepped into a car knowing that there was a big chance that you would be dead in 2 hours, and still start the engine and do it.

Can't really answer, this is always a subjective, personal view despite what the statistics will show
(With a side order of "what underdog can I name for obscure reference brownie points)

Fangio was in his 40s racing something like 10 races a year, who knows if more people would've fought him if the death rate wasn't so high in those days

Clark's F1 career was almost a by-line to him racing and winning in pretty much anything on 4 wheels. And who knows how much more he would've won had he lived

Same for Senna, his career would've seriously dented Schumacher's stat rate had he lived. I don't see him leaving until he has more titles than Prost, so that would've taken at least 2 off M.S and probably 1 off Damon and Jaques too.

And like Senna, Schumacher's career is blotted by far too many instances of breaking the rules and controversies. There's always an asterisk next to his achievements when you talk about them. "Best of all time....? Maybe, but Adelaide 94 (or all of 94 really), Jerez 97, Monaco 06, they always come up.
Not only did other people in the list not do this, they simply drove in an era where this wasn't an option unless they wanted to be up on murder charges, due to the safety of the time

Hamilton? He'll probably leave the sport as the statistically best of all time, but that won't stop people trying to argue him down because of the best car argument, or because he once bought a yacht, launched a fashion line or hung out with some rappers
Until he sits down with an almanack of F1 stats, exclusively watches old races and hero worships older drivers and does things we expect an F1 driver to do in their spare time instead of what he gets up to, he'll probably never have hardcore fans respect in that way

So, while I respect we're all locked in and need things to talk about, I think we're on a hiding to nothing here.

(But then I still voted for Senna and Hamilton, because I'm a massive hypocrite )

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

I would give it to Senna, and other (specify) is Niki Lauda.

These are so difficult to choose. Hard to compare the different eras, and whether you'd include great drivers that never ended up in a top car to show their talent.

The best that I've watched in my lifetime are Hamilton, Alonso, Schumacher, Senna, and Prost (who I think is really underrated). Anyone on the list would be deserving, but Clark should be on there. Moss was also fantastic, winning races in lesser cars.

My votes go to Clark - Because he does belong to this league and his highest of Monza 1967 is hard to beat - and to Schumacher - because I think of him as the most complete driver: all the aspects of a driver in which each of the legends could excel, Schumacher was at least close of them.

I think the case for Hamilton is quite an interesting one. He reigns in the biggest dominance a team has ever had, but I think it's incredible how he manages to pull something else even in his toughest days and this is the magic we see from legends. And also, he's been able to keep himself competitive and winning at least a race for quite a long time - and all this sharing the track with other champions. The competitiveness of the field that generally we use to diminish the feats of this or that driver is something that plays for him.

Almost impossible to choose.

I definitely appreciate Prost and his method. He was fast even in shit cars. But, I would probably give the nod to Senna in that era as he seemed to eke out not 110% like Prost but maybe 120%.

Fangio for the earlier eras, along with Clark.

But to be honest, all those pre-80s guys are heroes, for lack of a better term. Just insane mad lads.

Clark.

I had to decide to vote for just one, or I'd have ticked all the boxes. They were all abive and beyond, but in my eyes he benefits from the era he drove in, and the almost mystical nature of the feats we read about him.

It's so hard to define this.

If I vote once, I think I'm going with Clark, but in doing so I'm basing on more than just the numbers, which isn't really the right way to go about it. Clark died at age 32. If he raced until he was 40, he'd have gotten a chance in the almighty Lotus 79, assuming he stayed at Lotus all that time. But who's to say that he would have gotten on with the ground effects/high downforce cars? I assume he could drive a bread truck to victory if he tried, so there's no reason to think he wouldn't have gone on to even more ridiculous greatness.

But, in that same vein, what of Senna? He was killed at age 34. If he'd gone on to race until he was 40 he'd have at least two cracks with a car that won WC's and he may have wound up beating Schumi in 94 and 95. If he had, he could've been the one with 7 WDC with 4 in a row and there would be no debate. If he had climbed unhurt from car on a sunny spring day in 94 the entire landscape of F1 would look very different than it does today.

You know, actually, I'm going to vote for two... Clark and Senna... For what they did accomplish in life and what they probably would have accomplished had that not been cut short.

Clark
Senna
Fangio

In that order.

The 5 GOATS of F1 for me (in no particular order) will always be: Schumacher, Fangio, Clark, Senna and Prost.

Naw that's a stretch at best. He would've eaten into Schumacher's poles and wins totals for sure but not championships. With respect to 1994, I'm sure people will argue that if Hill only lost to Schumacher by a solitary point then Senna would've trounced Schumacher handily...well let's not forget that Schumacher had 4 less race results to work with. Without those 2 DQ's and 2 bans, he would've had Hill by miles and likely come out ahead of Senna too. As for 1995, put Senna in Hill's place and I still doubt he's beating the Schumacher + Benetton combination that was far too good that year. The rest I agree with, he likely would've ended up with 5 world titles adding the 1996 and 1997 championships to his tally.

I voted for Schumacher and Clark. Seems I was thinking what others were thinking. I have always thought of Jim Clark as an awe-inspiring talent during (for me) racings most romantic era. Schumachers statistics speak for themselves.

I think any of these drivers are in another world completely when it comes to talent so it's hard to pick. Which are "greater" might not be possible to quantify. One driver might be faster on one day, and another on another day. It's such a complex system that it's basically impossible to scientifically quantify but of those drivers Clark, Schumacher and Senna stand out as "greatest of all time" sorts. Prost is underrated. Senna is rated pretty accurately. All of these drivers are absolute aliens in their own time.

_________________
R.I.P. Justin

Are you saying that Schumacher and Benetton, who cheated against an inferior car/team, would not use the same tactics against a much fiercer rival?
And the Williams, for all it problems, became at least more stable by the end of the year, so that coupled with Senna's talent could elevate its performance over what Damon and D.C managed.
Plus would Schumacher get a chance to crash senna off, or would he be wiped out by Senna first?
Maybe they'd keep taking each other out and Damon would keep picking up the pieces, Johnny Herbert Style
There's also more to the performance that year than just on track. Had Senna lived he would've been pushing the FIA to penalise Benetton way before they did. And his voice had clout.

Just some of the many, many tantalising prospects that season could've produced and we'll never know about.
Had he lived, surely 94 and 95 would go down as 2 of F1's best seasons with such rivalry, instead of as they're remember now as two of the worst.

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

No I'm not saying Benetton would've done anything different had Senna not been killed. I'm sure their approach to the season would've been exactly the same. I'm saying that it was a fabricated close championship only because of 2 bogus DQs (which cost him a victory and at least a P2) and 2 over the top bans (that's just my personal opinion which I'm sure you'll completely disagree with thanks to your obvious dislike for anything Schumacher related lol) which spiced up what should've been an otherwise straightforward title for Schumacher against Hill, or even Senna for that matter. I just figured if you're throwing big "if's" into the equation such as Senna not getting killed, then let's add those other 'if's' into the discussion as well.

funny that the dsq in Silverstone was because one of the silliest moves ever, pulling ahead for a brief moment during warm up lap. Even today if it happens, nothing happens if a drivers gives back position

now about Spa he was clearly with a worn plank

_________________
Motorsports trend for 2024: everything is a bad taste joke now