The most up to date list of the best of modern era journeymen racers

[Nitrodaze]

To me, a journeyman racer is someone who is with a different team just about every other season, may win a race or two, but without ever being in serious contention for a world championship.

De Cesaris springs to mind here, as do Boutsen, Alesi, Heidfeld, Herbert, Brundle, Trulli or Fisichella.

Drivers like Hill or Button, who have won a championship or have at least come agonizingly close (Massa, Webber) , do not meet the journeyman criteria, IMO.

I think this is the best definition for a journeyman. I also have to say, you cannot call any world champion or runner ups, journeymen. Even with a better car than the rest of the grid, to string together a world championship title is more work than we can imagine. To fall short of a world championship title by a few points, also takes a huge amount of skill and work, some bad luck and great disappointment. Hence, personally would not consider Hill, Button, Massa, Irvine or Barrichello to be journeymen. I admit, there is some question mark on Barrichello and Rosberg who were runner up to their teammates. To be a little strict, we could say only runner ups to champions in a different car counts. This would not be entirely fair to Barrichello whom l thought could have won the year Button won given the right level of support. Both were good enough to win it.

[zako85]

So a journeyman is a driver who changes teams all the time, but a driver of equal skill who sticks with the same team for a long time is not? I disagree.

[Nitrodaze]

So a journeyman is a driver who changes teams all the time, but a driver of equal skill who sticks with the same team for a long time is not? I disagree.

Is any driver who tried to get to the front but failed to do so because there are better drivers a journeyman? I ask this question because there is danger that we may call drivers like Heiki Kovalainen journeymen.

I am thinking a journeyman is not interested in being the best but just interested in the pay or a chance to drive a car. Hence they are typically paired to support a stronger driver with realistic chances of achieving success. Another type of journeyman is one that has a drive [that better drivers should have] because he has connections.

It shouldn't matter if it was short or long. The underlying characteristic is they are never going to win anything but hang around somehow.

[jens]

Don't we have a journeyman racer on the forums here?

But depends on the criteria - I can understand that "journeman racer" is not your all-time legend, but kind of a mid-level/upper-midlevel talent, who had a long-lasting career (a decade, or more). But what do we rate, what is the criteria? Driver skills or results? Because yeah - Irvine may have been a title contender, but there is no way I would rate him higher than, say, Heidfeld as a driver.

For me it is a mix of all, so everyone from Barrichellos and Webbers to Verstappens and Salos of this world fit in. They may have slightly varying talents, big variety in terms of results and overall career 'fate', but overall still fit into the main criteria - not among the brightest talents of your generation, but still had a recognizable career and hanged around for a while.

I can understand that people want to make a special "World Champion clause". Because it is a special "height" achievement, the goal of everyone. Even if some WDCs easily may not be more talented than several "journeyman" category drivers were. But we can debate about criterias forever.

[jens]

Is any driver who tried to get to the front but failed to do so because there are better drivers a journeyman? I ask this question because there is danger that we may call drivers like Heiki Kovalainen journeymen.

I am thinking a journeyman is not interested in being the best but just interested in the pay or a chance to drive a car. Hence they are typically paired to support a stronger driver with realistic chances of achieving success. Another type of journeyman is one that has a drive [that better drivers should have] because he has connections.

It shouldn't matter if it was short or long. The underlying characteristic is they are never going to win anything but hang around somehow.

I personally think everyone is INTERESTED in success, otherwise they would not have gone through the hardships of establishing a racing driver career all throughout the minor formula categories.. Of course people can have varying levels of motivation at different stages of careers. By the "motivation" criteria Räikkönen is the epitome of a journeyman driver, for the last two seasons at least. He may be a WDC, but he is just hanging around there and not achieving a great deal.

[AndyL]

Using the traditional definition of journeyman, we would be looking for those drivers who are beyond the apprentices but not at the level of the master craftsmen. In F1 terms, to me that would be those drivers who have performed at a consistently decent level for a number of years, but never shown the spark of brilliance that indicates the potential to be a champion. So someone like Hulkenberg would not be a journeyman, nor Button even before he won the championship, as they have put in performances at various times displaying that potential.

Kovalainen? I don't know, I think maybe he could fit the description.

[jens]

Using the traditional definition of journeyman, we would be looking for those drivers who are beyond the apprentices but not at the level of the master craftsmen. In F1 terms, to me that would be those drivers who have performed at a consistently decent level for a number of years, but never shown the spark of brilliance that indicates the potential to be a champion. So someone like Hulkenberg would not be a journeyman, nor Button even before he won the championship, as they have put in performances at various times displaying that potential.

Kovalainen? I don't know, I think maybe he could fit the description.

The problem is that lots of drivers showed potential at some stages in their careers indicating "they could be championship contenders in the right circumstances". Even someone like Alex Wurz in 1998. As for Kovalainen, he beat Fisichella in 2007 on his debut season, making quite a fair amount of people wonder whether he could give Hamilton a run for his money at McLaren.

Dividing line is not an easy task to make, it will always be subject to personal criteria. Also it seems "journeyman racer" can have a bit of a negative echo - "Agh, this useless past-it driver hangs around for years, achieves nothing, and is blocking the seats from young guns" as it is sometimes used in a derogatory manner.

[zako85]

Heidfeld must surely be the king of the journeymen. 183 starts over a 12 year career, was a regular points-scorer in most years, and even took 13 podiums, yet no-one can remember a single thing he ever did.

The WEC racing teams probably recognized this. Rebellion was the best team that would hire him.

[Nitrodaze]

The problem is that lots of drivers showed potential at some stages in their careers indicating "they could be championship contenders in the right circumstances".

Also it seems "journeyman racer" can have a bit of a negative echo - "Agh, this useless past-it driver hangs around for years, achieves nothing, and is blocking the seats from young guns" as it is sometimes used in a derogatory manner.

I think this line of thinking would suggest that drivers who's career ebbs and flows into various modes. One mode where they have produced their best and are serious contenders and a real threat of winning the ultimate goal [WDC]. Another mode where their performance has deteriorated to mediocre levels due to self problems, poor machinery, bad luck, superceded talent level etc and they are obviously blocking the potential of a new young gun occupying their seat. I am sure you can think up other modes if you want.

If we go by this modal approach to defining the journeyman, then it probably should not matter whether they are WDC or not. It should be a case of what mode their career is at the time of making the assessment whether they are journeymen or not.

Then we can use phrases like:-

Raikonen is in journeyman mode at the moment as Bottas et al is waiting in line for that seat at Ferrari. Button is in journeyman mode at the moment as Magnussen is waiting in line for that seat at Mclaren. Drivers that pay for their seat but are not good enough to get a seat on the back of their own talent and are not rookies may be considered journeymen.

The thing is, l am not sure this is the correct way to make this judgement. When a driver has attained the ultimate goal of being WDC, they should not be considered journeymen because the have intrinsic value or the experience of winning a WDC which is very valuable to the team that employs them. At Mclaren, the input of Button and Alonso to the development of the Mclaren is invaluable compared to having a rookie in the seat with less experience. Hence, it is fair to say driver not at the competitive edge at the moment but assisting in developing a car, are doing valuable work and are not in the journeyman mode as it were.

Similarly, motivation must be measured with consideration to the team and car's potential to take the battle to the sharp end. Hence if a car is half a second to one second off the pace of the leading car, then one would expect motivation to be low for a driver that has tasted the sharp end in their career. Kimi, Button and Alonso comes to mind on this one. I exclude Alonso from this group as he is exceptional based on him pushing his Mclaren to the pits at Hungary.

[jens]

If we go by this modal approach to defining the journeyman, then it probably should not matter whether they are WDC or not. It should be a case of what mode their career is at the time of making the assessment whether they are journeymen or not.

Basically I agree with this. I am personally not fond of linking "journeyman" title to specific drivers, it is more of a description of status. Ralf Schumacher was an exciting fast driver in 1999, while got a huge paycheck for unspectacular performances in 2007 (his last year in F1). Same driver, but as different situation in a career as it can be.

Of course, considering "journeymen drivers" (who are they? Experienced unspectacular performers?) still get hired by teams and usually get paid for their services, they still offer value for teams. As you also mention in another paragraph.

Classical paydrivers normally do not last over the age of 30 years and fizzle out sooner or later, even though Pedro Diniz and Pastor Maldonado have had lengthy enough careers to consider them somewhat journeymen.