Times Online engages in comedy, their best 50 drivers of all time list

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

21st October 2009, 19:54
UltimateDanGTR

Quote:

Originally Posted by elis

Kimi's 13th ;)

thanks, sorry everyone, ignore my above post.

still, stupid list.
21st October 2009, 20:10
edv

Would've been nice to see Nuvolari on the list, but I guess they're only counting from 1950 onwards.
Also, Wolfgang von Trips, although not a WDC, came much much closer to achieving it (1961) than many drivers on this list.
21st October 2009, 20:33
jens

The only purpose of such lists is to create buzz among F1 fans and get some attention for the publication, which it has successfully done. :D Otherwise there is no point in such lists. There are too many good and great drivers, so that it's unfair to pick Top50 of them. For example if drivers like Coulthard and Barrichello are in Top50, then it could be rightly asked, why on earth are they preffered over their contemporaries like Heidfeld, Webber, Alesi, Frentzen, Panis, etc, etc. Such questions can be asked endlessly and all lists can be questioned.
22nd October 2009, 08:25
F1boat

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens

The only purpose of such lists is to create buzz among F1 fans and get some attention for the publication, which it has successfully done. :D Otherwise there is no point in such lists. There are too many good and great drivers, so that it's unfair to pick Top50 of them. For example if drivers like Coulthard and Barrichello are in Top50, then it could be rightly asked, why on earth are they preffered over their contemporaries like Heidfeld, Webber, Alesi, Frentzen, Panis, etc, etc. Such questions can be asked endlessly and all lists can be questioned.

Well, while I agree about the fact that such lists are just for fun, I think that one should check the stats as I find them most reliable. For example, you compare Heidfeld to Coulthard and Barrichello, which is IMO ridiculous. Nick Hedfeld has zero GP wins, the other two are multiple winners. Yes, he is consistent and yes, the cars was not good enough and yes, he might be equally talented. This, however, is irrelevant. You have to check the results. The fact that he has or had potential is not important when you make lists. Does Nick's results come close to the stats of, un, R Schumacher? Nope. Sorry. He is not great at all. Good, solid, yes. Great - no.
Same about UltimateDan who was aghast that Button is considered to be better than Montoya. Well, Montoya is a very talented guy who raced with success in different categories, but in F1 he was too inconsistent, never made a real charge for the WDC although in 2005 and maybe 2003 he had the car. To me it is funny that people write off Jenson's achievement because of bad second half of the season, but praise Montoya who lost in 2003 because of bad first half. Not to mention 2005.
So IMO you have to check the stats. Some people really get the lucky break and others do not. But for me a WDC is for sure better than a driver without a single GP win.
23rd October 2009, 02:16
markabilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimateDanGTR

hilarious reading. Jenson 16th best ever. apparently, better tha Fittipaldi, Pironi, Gilles Villenueve, Surtees, Andretti, Hamilton, jack Brabham, Rindt, Hunt, Pironi and Juan Pablo Montoya. Now, I think all of the afforementioned are better than Button. And, even more comedic, where's Mr.Raikkonen? Had a look, and i couldnt see him. maybe its just me and im going insane. Rubens Barrichello is 37th, yet Kimi is not even in the top 50. Gerhard Berger and Alboreto are apparently better than Kimi also.

Now, who here agrees with that?

No one who knows anything....you might add button is better than Dan Gurney, Hulme, Peterson, Ickx and on and on????????????

BTW--Kimi was 13th

If button is 16, then Rubens B deserves either 15 or 17 (and RB has 11 wins/280 races or 2.5% to Button's 7 wins in 171 races or 2.4%)
23rd October 2009, 08:12
Roamy

Well not too bad but obviously the guy is no stranger to Guiness
26th October 2009, 14:35
jens

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1boat

Well, while I agree about the fact that such lists are just for fun, I think that one should check the stats as I find them most reliable. For example, you compare Heidfeld to Coulthard and Barrichello, which is IMO ridiculous. Nick Hedfeld has zero GP wins, the other two are multiple winners. Yes, he is consistent and yes, the cars was not good enough and yes, he might be equally talented. This, however, is irrelevant. You have to check the results. The fact that he has or had potential is not important when you make lists. Does Nick's results come close to the stats of, un, R Schumacher? Nope. Sorry. He is not great at all. Good, solid, yes. Great - no.
Same about UltimateDan who was aghast that Button is considered to be better than Montoya. Well, Montoya is a very talented guy who raced with success in different categories, but in F1 he was too inconsistent, never made a real charge for the WDC although in 2005 and maybe 2003 he had the car. To me it is funny that people write off Jenson's achievement because of bad second half of the season, but praise Montoya who lost in 2003 because of bad first half. Not to mention 2005.
So IMO you have to check the stats. Some people really get the lucky break and others do not. But for me a WDC is for sure better than a driver without a single GP win.

If we need to just check the stats, then these lists are even more meaningless, because everyone can just easily check the stats and see, who has more wins/titles, etc - what do we need random lists for?

Heidfeld vs Barrichello/Coulthard - resultswise he may look worse, but I find nothing ridiculous in comparing their driving talent, quite the opposite actually.
26th October 2009, 17:29
Garry Walker

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens

If we need to just check the stats, then these lists are even more meaningless, because everyone can just easily check the stats and see, who has more wins/titles, etc - what do we need random lists for?

Heidfeld vs Barrichello/Coulthard - resultswise he may look worse, but I find nothing ridiculous in comparing their driving talent, quite the opposite actually.

Let`s talk about that when Heidfeld wins a race in his career (so, basically, we will never discuss this).
26th October 2009, 20:14
pettersolberg29

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens

Heidfeld vs Barrichello/Coulthard - resultswise he may look worse, but I find nothing ridiculous in comparing their driving talent, quite the opposite actually.

I agree - Heidfeld is as, if not a better driver than Rubens and Coulthard, but has never had the chance to show this in a good car whereas the other two had championship winning cars for several years.

Nick outraced Kimi and Massa at Sauber, yet missed out on the McLaren seat to Kimi for no real identifiable reason. There is every reason to believe that Nick would be as fast if not faster than Kimi and Massa if given equal machinery.
26th October 2009, 23:20
ShiftingGears

Quote:

Originally Posted by pettersolberg29

There is every reason to believe that Nick would be as fast if not faster than Kimi and Massa if given equal machinery.

Like what?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page