Yet Another B* All Time List Of Gp Drivers.

[Eric 0]

How ridiculous! Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows the real top 10 are:

10: Kimi Raikkonen

9: Kimi Raikkonen

8: Kimi Raikkonen

7: Kimi Raikkonen

6: Scott Speed

5: Scott Speed

4: Jesus Christ

3: Tony Stewart

2: Scott Speed

1: Kimi Raikkonen

[mikathegreat2 2]

Schumi 11th ???

[Eric 0]

Schumi 11th ???

Yeah, I know. He shouldn't be anywhere near the top 1000, let alone top 100.

No, really, 11th is too low for him. He should be, in theory, number one. But these lists are all stupid. Even if they were as accurate as possible. Who cares? In the end, the results do the talking in sports. You'll never be remembered if you were good enough. You'll be remembered if you were great. Wasted potential, forget that. No one will remember Scott Speed or Tonio Liuzzi years from now. No, they'll remember the drivers who won. No matter what, they will remember the winners. Are they the best on the grid? How could we answer a question like that and determine the answer? We can't. The winners win, the losers lose. If you can't win, I don't care how good you were, you never got the results. You never got the desired goal you came here for, to be a champion, and that, in the end, means you failed, and are not great. To do that, to be a champion, many times, that is greatness, and in that sense, based on pure statistics, as I feel this should be, shows that Michael Schumacher, as much as I do not like him, is the best F1 driver to race. I don't care what arguments you make against that, because I'm not going to change my point of view. Schumacher had more determination if he kept pressing on to win 7, and even in his relatively old age (compared to the competition, at least), even after doing everything there has to be done and more, fought on in 2006 to try to get another. Say whatever you want about his wins, his championships, but in the end, it all comes back to him being the best grand prix driver. End of.

[Rainmaster 7]

How ridiculous! Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows the real top 10 are:

10: Kimi Raikkonen

9: Kimi Raikkonen

8: Kimi Raikkonen

7: Kimi Raikkonen

6: Scott Speed

5: Scott Speed

4: Jesus Christ

3: Tony Stewart

2: Scott Speed

1: Kimi Raikkonen

Finally a list I can live with

[Rainmaster 7]

Yeah, I know. He shouldn't be anywhere near the top 1000, let alone top 100.

No, really, 11th is too low for him. He should be, in theory, number one. But these lists are all stupid. Even if they were as accurate as possible. Who cares? In the end, the results do the talking in sports. You'll never be remembered if you were good enough. You'll be remembered if you were great. Wasted potential, forget that. No one will remember Scott Speed or Tonio Liuzzi years from now. No, they'll remember the drivers who won. No matter what, they will remember the winners. Are they the best on the grid? How could we answer a question like that and determine the answer? We can't. The winners win, the losers lose. If you can't win, I don't care how good you were, you never got the results. You never got the desired goal you came here for, to be a champion, and that, in the end, means you failed, and are not great. To do that, to be a champion, many times, that is greatness, and in that sense, based on pure statistics, as I feel this should be, shows that Michael Schumacher, as much as I do not like him, is the best F1 driver to race. I don't care what arguments you make against that, because I'm not going to change my point of view. Schumacher had more determination if he kept pressing on to win 7, and even in his relatively old age (compared to the competition, at least), even after doing everything there has to be done and more, fought on in 2006 to try to get another. Say whatever you want about his wins, his championships, but in the end, it all comes back to him being the best grand prix driver. End of.

And now a post I completely disagree with

[Eric 0]

And now a post I completely disagree with

Ahh well. I'm proud of myself for saying good things about Michael Schumacher. That, for me, is quite a stretch.

And of course I'm inconsistent in belief, as I rate Dale Earnhardt as the best driver to ever race in NASCAR, and while he was tied with Richard Petty for most championships (7), he only had 76 wins, which is less than Richard Petty (200), David Pearson (105), Bobby Allison (84*), Darrell Waltrip (84), Cale Yarborough (83), and Jeff Gordon (81).

*Bobby Allison is sometimes credited with 85 wins, but his 85th win was won in a Ford Mustang, which has never been a legal NASCAR vehicle, and every 3 minutes they change their mind about if he won the race or not.

[Rainmaster 7]

Ahh well. I'm proud of myself for saying good things about Michael Schumacher. That, for me, is quite a stretch.

And of course I'm inconsistent in belief, as I rate Dale Earnhardt as the best driver to ever race in NASCAR, and while he was tied with Richard Petty for most championships (7), he only had 76 wins, which is less than Richard Petty (200), David Pearson (105), Bobby Allison (84*), Darrell Waltrip (84), Cale Yarborough (83), and Jeff Gordon (81).

*Bobby Allison is sometimes credited with 85 wins, but his 85th win was won in a Ford Mustang, which has never been a legal NASCAR vehicle, and every 3 minutes they change their mind about if he won the race or not.

That'll wear off, you'll feel dirty later.

[tifosi too! 0]

Seriously what's the logic behind that list?

Maybe he sorted them by height? Then again Wurz is not No 1 ...

He could have been though...

[Kati 0]

:S:S Why is Rubens there anyways?!

[Autumnpuma 0]

This is one man's list, his personal opinion. It doesn't matter at all unless you value Henry's opinion. Go make your own list, DOF, and post it. Be warned that, like you did with Henry, we'll likey pick apart your decisions.

[Max Mosley 2]

Alan Henry is a very respected F1 Journo, but that list is ridiculous!

Yeah. He is well respected in the UK, that's what makes it interesting to me that he said such odd things.

[Eric 0]

This list sucks, and there is no way to defend it. However, in defense of other stupid lists, it is pretty hard to do. As a test, I did this: Eric's list of every driver he has seen race in F1 in order of how good he thinks they are.

1: Michael Schumacher

2: Fernando Alonso

3: Kimi Raikkonen

4: Lewis Hamilton

5: Rubens Barrichello

6: Juan Pablo Montoya

7: Jenson Button

8: Mark Webber

9: Nick Heidfeld

10: Felipe Massa

11: David Coulthard

12: Robert Kubica

13: Sebastian Vettel

14: Alex Wurz

15: Nico Rosberg

16: Heikki Kovalainen

17: Giancarlo Fisichella

18: Jacques Villeneuve

19: Ralf Schumacher

20: Jarno Trulli

21: Pedro de la Rosa

22: Robert Doornbos

23: Vitantonio Liuzzi

24: Adrian Sutil

25: Scott Speed

26: Takuma Sato

27: Kazuki Nakajima

28: Christian Klien

29: Anthony Davidson

30: Tiago Monteiro

31: Sakon Yamamoto

32: Christijan Albers

33: Franck Montagny

34: Markus Winkelhock

35: Yuji Ide

(Those are the 35 drivers who competed in at least one race in 2006 and 2007)

The point is, the list is hard to make, and as much as I criticize and find Henry's list stupid, mine is equally as stupid. There is nothing I can do to base my opinions on, and I have not seen many of these drivers throught their entire career. Take JV for example. He's a WDC, but of the 17 drivers I rated above him, only 3 have championships.

Anyway, Alan Henry, what an awful journalist. Sorry, but, what an awful piece of journalism. Does his writing make any point? No. Does it tell the reader anything they don't know, but should know? No. Is there any good reason for a reader to read it? No. Does it provoke discussion? Perhaps, but not good discussion. Does it do anything original? No. Is it based on a really interesting idea? No. So why did he write it? This is what a weak journalist does to simply take up space and make themselves seem credible.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Did Henry tell us why he listed them as he did? Maybe he has a good reason. Personally, I don't think it's possible to accurately list these past the top 15. Past 15 you just plug in the names based on gut feel. Past 50 and you're bored stiff (or limp) with the whole exercise and simply drop names in willy-nilly.

A few years back F1 Racing asked a panel of former drivers, team principals, journos and such for their lists and they averaged them out to get a pretty good sampling of such a subjective list as '100 best drivers'. That's the list I agree with more than Henry's list.

[Eric 0]

Well, to be honest, as "accurate" as any list can be considered, no matter who made it, I find it all to be stupid. It really doesn't say anything. Debating the absolute best F1 driver ever could be interesting, but in the end, who really cares who the 23rd best driver ever was? Hell, even the best I don't really care too much about. It's been beaten to death, and, to be honest, we can't even determine who is the best NOW, let alone all time. I'm not saying I don't care for the history, because I enjoy the history of all sports and watching old footage, but in the end, it means nothing to me who the best ever was, because there's no way to tell. The stats give a good comparison in a sense that it is an equal way to compare all, but is it a fair way? In motor racing, so much depends on the car, that when you say "Well this guy was the best..." you get into all these big IF statements about the cars they drove and didn't drove and the era they were from and the tracks they raced on. Even if football or baseball you get these issues. You could say Tom Brady is currently the best QB in the NFL, but then you have to consider that if he didn't have Randy Moss and Wes Welker as his receivers, how good would we think he is? In baseball, you can say so many different players are the best, but then comes the issue of steroids. How good would they have been without them? What if they took them at a time when they were "legal?"

It's all, to me, stupid.

[Rainmaster 7]

Well, to be honest, as "accurate" as any list can be considered, no matter who made it, I find it all to be stupid. It really doesn't say anything. Debating the absolute best F1 driver ever could be interesting, but in the end, who really cares who the 23rd best driver ever was? Hell, even the best I don't really care too much about. It's been beaten to death, and, to be honest, we can't even determine who is the best NOW, let alone all time. I'm not saying I don't care for the history, because I enjoy the history of all sports and watching old footage, but in the end, it means nothing to me who the best ever was, because there's no way to tell. The stats give a good comparison in a sense that it is an equal way to compare all, but is it a fair way? In motor racing, so much depends on the car, that when you say "Well this guy was the best..." you get into all these big IF statements about the cars they drove and didn't drove and the era they were from and the tracks they raced on. Even if football or baseball you get these issues. You could say Tom Brady is currently the best QB in the NFL, but then you have to consider that if he didn't have Randy Moss and Wes Welker as his receivers, how good would we think he is? In baseball, you can say so many different players are the best, but then comes the issue of steroids. How good would they have been without them? What if they took them at a time when they were "legal?"

It's all, to me, stupid.

The 24th best driver?

I agree with all you say, in this post I mean.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I agree that Kimi and Alonso are *very* gifted, Kimi especially but I'm holding out until they've gone a little further before I rate them above drivers like JYS.

miss Elizabeth Sterling...yes, it was'nt a serious list I did.... I just placed them in those positions to "brag" about Kimi being higher than Alonso...

[dribbler 6]

I saw this list in Autocar a couple of weeks ago. It made me laugh then and it makes me laugh now. Yes, Alan Henry has been around for a while, annoying the hell out of everyone he encouters in the pitlane but at the end of the day he's just another self opinionated jumped up has been. He trades on the amount of time he has been a journo'. Most weeks though i think his column is misinformed and mostly inaccurate. He grabs stories from sound bites. Last week he was prattling on about he believed Ron would step dwon before Melbourne. Well, got that one wrong didn't you Alan? Got the tip off from a web site like this one probably.

What's worrying is that some idiots may actually give this poll some credit and believe it's worthy. True fans know it's subjective garbage.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I saw this list in Autocar a couple of weeks ago. It made me laugh then and it makes me laugh now. Yes, Alan Henry has been around for a while, annoying the hell out of everyone he encouters in the pitlane but at the end of the day he's just another self opinionated jumped up has been. He trades on the amount of time he has been a journo'. Most weeks though i think his column is misinformed and mostly inaccurate. He grabs stories from sound bites. Last week he was prattling on about he believed Ron would step dwon before Melbourne. Well, got that one wrong didn't you Alan? Got the tip off from a web site like this one probably.

What's worrying is that some idiots may actually give this poll some credit and believe it's worthy. True fans know it's subjective garbage.

well, I only caught some tidbits from his column in F1 racing, December issue...but this specific statement caught my eye.....apparently, according to him, Alonso will never be able to win a race again

[maure 1]

not even worth a laugh,maure?

The joy of being me...

[monza gorilla 1]

40. Mike Hawthorn ?!?!

The worst WDC in history placed so high. Blashpemy.

What have you got against Hawthorn? You've shown contempt for his name before. Just wondered why.

It is an utterly pointless list though.

[DOF_power 0]

1 victory WDC, only 3 victories to his career, Fangio's mantle holder. It should have been Moss, and I'm no Moss fan.

[monza gorilla 1]

I agree it should have been Moss. But Moss gave it away with his sense of fair play.

[goferrarigo 0]

Yeah, I know. He shouldn't be anywhere near the top 1000, let alone top 100.

No, really, 11th is too low for him. He should be, in theory, number one. But these lists are all stupid. Even if they were as accurate as possible. Who cares? In the end, the results do the talking in sports. You'll never be remembered if you were good enough. You'll be remembered if you were great. Wasted potential, forget that. No one will remember Scott Speed or Tonio Liuzzi years from now. No, they'll remember the drivers who won. No matter what, they will remember the winners. Are they the best on the grid? How could we answer a question like that and determine the answer? We can't. The winners win, the losers lose. If you can't win, I don't care how good you were, you never got the results. You never got the desired goal you came here for, to be a champion, and that, in the end, means you failed, and are not great. To do that, to be a champion, many times, that is greatness, and in that sense, based on pure statistics, as I feel this should be, shows that Michael Schumacher, as much as I do not like him, is the best F1 driver to race. I don't care what arguments you make against that, because I'm not going to change my point of view. Schumacher had more determination if he kept pressing on to win 7, and even in his relatively old age (compared to the competition, at least), even after doing everything there has to be done and more, fought on in 2006 to try to get another. Say whatever you want about his wins, his championships, but in the end, it all comes back to him being the best grand prix driver. End of.

Good Post from you, Eric. I am surprised ....

Yeah and obviously the list is utterly crap...

[DOF_power 0]

Ahh well. I'm proud of myself for saying good things about Michael Schumacher. That, for me, is quite a stretch.

And of course I'm inconsistent in belief, as I rate Dale Earnhardt as the best driver to ever race in NASCAR, and while he was tied with Richard Petty for most championships (7), he only had 76 wins, which is less than Richard Petty (200), David Pearson (105), Bobby Allison (84*), Darrell Waltrip (84), Cale Yarborough (83), and Jeff Gordon (81).

*Bobby Allison is sometimes credited with 85 wins, but his 85th win was won in a Ford Mustang, which has never been a legal NASCAR vehicle, and every 3 minutes they change their mind about if he won the race or not.

Kyle Busch rules em all. Such car control and driving style is something that was seen at Gilles Villeneuve, Tazio Nuvolari and Bernd Rosemeyer.

What's he doing in NASCAR ?!

[dribbler 6]

Yeah, I know. He shouldn't be anywhere near the top 1000, let alone top 100.

No, really, 11th is too low for him. He should be, in theory, number one. But these lists are all stupid. Even if they were as accurate as possible. Who cares? In the end, the results do the talking in sports. You'll never be remembered if you were good enough. You'll be remembered if you were great. Wasted potential, forget that. No one will remember Scott Speed or Tonio Liuzzi years from now. No, they'll remember the drivers who won. No matter what, they will remember the winners. Are they the best on the grid? How could we answer a question like that and determine the answer? We can't. The winners win, the losers lose. If you can't win, I don't care how good you were, you never got the results. You never got the desired goal you came here for, to be a champion, and that, in the end, means you failed, and are not great. To do that, to be a champion, many times, that is greatness, and in that sense, based on pure statistics, as I feel this should be, shows that Michael Schumacher, as much as I do not like him, is the best F1 driver to race. I don't care what arguments you make against that, because I'm not going to change my point of view. Schumacher had more determination if he kept pressing on to win 7, and even in his relatively old age (compared to the competition, at least), even after doing everything there has to be done and more, fought on in 2006 to try to get another. Say whatever you want about his wins, his championships, but in the end, it all comes back to him being the best grand prix driver. End of.

I would love to be able to not want to agree.

Did Henry tell us why he listed them as he did? Maybe he has a good reason. Personally, I don't think it's possible to accurately list these past the top 15. Past 15 you just plug in the names based on gut feel. Past 50 and you're bored stiff (or limp) with the whole exercise and simply drop names in willy-nilly.

A few years back F1 Racing asked a panel of former drivers, team principals, journos and such for their lists and they averaged them out to get a pretty good sampling of such a subjective list as '100 best drivers'. That's the list I agree with more than Henry's list.

It's strange how some people feel the need to get their little anally retentive lives in order by having to make lists. "I have decided that this is what i think about something or somebody and must compartmentalise my thoughts by demonstrating this in questionable and pointless list form". Well, that's how it seems.

By the way, Mike, you are currently third.