FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[f1ea]

Moss is right about the Ferrari thing.

Too subjective and difficult to know for sure. Partly true, but he's a well known proud briton and surprisingly he sees the biggest contribution was him bringing British engineers with him. Sounds subjective.

No one knows if he would have been able to do it with another set of engineers, or if even having such a good car but turned out unreliable. Those engineers would not have migrated unless they saw real possibilities. Also, they could have not have kept such a high standard/motivation without Michael either pushing and keeping them motivated with his results.......

One thing Moss is spot on is that Michael should not have retired, and he should not have come back. 100% agree with that, maybe he is past it, but he definitely should not have retired/come back.

Of course he's past his prime! But surely everyone can admit that his prime was at such a high standard, you cannot say that it is the sole reason for his relative underperformance so far. I'll give Schumacher a couple more races, but if there's no improvement it doesn't look good for him...

[madbrad]

Generally, he needs the best car to win a title.

[f1ea]

Generally, he needs the best car to win a title.

Almost everyone does. But he got 7, there's the difference.

In any case, I definitely dont think (have never thought) Michael is as great as his numbers suggest. But he is the greatest.

[racechick]

Generally, he needs the best car to win a title.

Almost everyone does. But he got 7, there's the difference.

In any case, I definitely dont think (have never thought) Michael is as great as his numbers suggest. But he is the greatest.

No he's not. He has the most titles.

[f1ea]

In any case, I definitely dont think (have never thought) Michael is as great as his numbers suggest. But he is the greatest.

No he's not. He has the most titles.

Hmmm. Can you (or anybody) say who IS the greatest, with reasons for it?
I seriously doubt anybody can come up with someone else being categorically better/greater than Michael without being overly subjective.

Who could it be though... Senna, Fangio, Gilles?

I tell you, I SWEAR i would change my statement if anybody's opinion is stronger.
(specially this dude Moss' opinion he better come up with something A LOT better than MS's teammates or whatever he means with the honor of losing in a brittish car).

[bud]

this dude Moss? whats with the disrespect?

[Gaz]

this dude Moss? whats with the disrespect?

When you race in the 1950's and survive crashes, and then fall down an elevetor and are still prepared to get back to classic racing.

Then you can say what you want.

[f1ea]

this dude Moss? whats with the disrespect?

When you race in the 1950's and survive crashes, and then fall down an elevetor and are still prepared to get back to classic racing.

Then you can say what you want.

always alert eh?
Well, I'm actually being disrespectful of this opinion rather than him... but in any case, I ussually find his analisis very truthful and interesting. EXCEPT this particular case, where I feel he is trying to put Schumacher's relevance on a lower level with purely subjective views; for whatever the reasons.

Moss is great (as i said in some prev post. I think he is/was a true racer and a gentleman... but his opinion on this matter is not too clearly truthful. Doesnt matter how many crashes or elevator accidents he's survived.

[madbrad]

Generally, he needs the best car to win a title.

Almost everyone does. But he got 7, there's the difference.

In any case, I definitely dont think (have never thought) Michael is as great as his numbers suggest. But he is the greatest.

No he's not. He has the most titles.

I agree. He's not the greatest.
I cannot say who is, but really that's subjective. Everyone has different criteria. For example by whatever intangible set of measurements my gut uses, I find Alesi to be better I think he was friggin fantastic. Doesn't need mentioning but Senna too, and Prost and Alonso, and Hamilton when he isn't making bonehead mistakes. Maybe Vettel too. Maybe Hakinnen and Mansell. Some earlier guys might go on that list too if I thought it were fair to span eras, like GV and Arnoux, Mass, Lauda, Piquet, Hunt maybe, Clark, Fangio, OK that's not fair I'm just having fun with it.
But there are alot of drivers who could have got the stats MS got had they been given the same set of circumstances. It was a big elaborate well oiled points collecting machine of which he was a cog.

[scotty]

In any case, I definitely dont think (have never thought) Michael is as great as his numbers suggest. But he is the greatest.

No he's not. He has the most titles.

Hmmm. Can you (or anybody) say who IS the greatest, with reasons for it?
I seriously doubt anybody can come up with someone else being categorically better/greater than Michael without being overly subjective.

Who could it be though... Senna, Fangio, Gilles?

I tell you, I SWEAR i would change my statement if anybody's opinion is stronger.
(specially this dude Moss' opinion he better come up with something A LOT better than MS's teammates or whatever he means with the honor of losing in a brittish car).

I don't think anyone can reasonably state '(whoever) is absolutely, 100% definitely the greatest driver ever'. Too many variables and unknown factors to take into account, as has been mentioned. I think i could probably limit my nominations to maybe a top 6 or so but realistically no further.

However, there is one other key factor here - competition. I honestly reckon there was a lull in truly brilliant drivers in that period Schumacher DOMINATED. I personally think that became apparent once Alonso and Raikkonen began to grow into their potential (i guess '03 and '06 are good examples of that), before that there was probably only Hakkinen (perhaps a slightly overrated driver but still brilliant, IMO) and maybe Coulthard on his day who could really get anywhere close to him. Which brings me onto those 80's drivers - you had Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet, etc etc etc all against each other when they were at their absolute best, and all the obvious consequences of that. As a result, it's arguably harder to make the definite distinction that one of them were 'the greatest ever', unlike Schumacher because the general standard was so high. Hope i'm making my point here, kinda rambling a little... I think the standard is really back to that stage myself, with Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel being obvious choices (Button is making a bloody good case for joining the very top group too, and you'd have Raikkonen up there if he returned).

I find Alesi to be better I think he was friggin fantastic.

Jean was an absolute monster! The amount of race wins he was denied cause of reliability alone is really annoying.


We're getting a bit off topic but i don't mind as long as it's civil like this!

[bud]

i think what Moss said about bringing British engineers is pretty accurate, apart from the South African Rory Byrne but hey his decent is probably British by the sounds of his name
and to dismiss Moss' view based soley that he is British isnt very fair.

did Schumacher join Ferrari without bringing half of Benetton with him? NO he did. Moss was accurate and is deserving of respect afterall he was team mate to Fangio arguably the best of all time. Fangio and Moss two legends team mates. Fangio had his work cut out for him. who did Schu have?

[f1ea]

i think what Moss said about bringing British engineers is pretty accurate, apart from the South African Rory Byrne but hey his decent is probably British by the sounds of his name and to dismiss Moss' view based soley that he is British isnt very fair.

What he said, is that Shumacher's greatest achievement was bringing in British engineers with him. Which maybe true about them being british, but definitely not his greatest achivement. After all, these engineers were with other dirvers/team before... and where was the dominance??

did Schumacher join Ferrari without bringing half of Benetton with him? NO he did. Moss was accurate and is deserving of respect afterall he was team mate to Fangio arguably the best of all time. Fangio and Moss two legends team mates. Fangio had his work cut out for him. who did Schu have?

Yup, both are legends. Great legends, but for example Moss' legendarity: is it because he was next to Fangio? and Fangio's because he was next to Moss?
So, what does it matter who was next to Schumacher? he was after all racing the whole grid. Which included at times some really good names. In other words, Moss is trying to lower Michael's achievements due to his teammates. It doesnt work that way.

I don't think anyone can reasonably state '(whoever) is absolutely, 100% definitely the greatest driver ever'. Too many variables and unknown factors to take into account, as has been mentioned. I think i could probably limit my nominations to maybe a top 6 or so but realistically no further.

However, there is one other key factor here - competition. I honestly reckon there was a lull in truly brilliant drivers in that period Schumacher DOMINATED. I personally think that became apparent once Alonso and Raikkonen began to grow into their potential (i guess '03 and '06 are good examples of that), before that there was probably only Hakkinen (perhaps a slightly overrated driver but still brilliant, IMO) and maybe Coulthard on his day who could really get anywhere close to him. Which brings me onto those 80's drivers - you had Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet, etc etc etc all against each other when they were at their absolute best, and all the obvious consequences of that. As a result, it's arguably harder to make the definite distinction that one of them were 'the greatest ever', unlike Schumacher because the general standard was so high. Hope i'm making my point here, kinda rambling a little... I think the standard is really back to that stage myself, with Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel being obvious choices (Button is making a bloody good case for joining the very top group too, and you'd have Raikkonen up there if he returned).

Yes, its difficult to state who the greatest driver ever is... and it is definitely not ONLY due to ammount of titles won. But without being subjective, it is pretty hard to rule out Schumacher, specially because of who his teammate was. As I mentioned above, he was racing against lots of good (potentially great?) drivers; none legends... because none beat him!

Not really drifting the topic actually... the topic is Moss' opinion on Schumacher. So we still tight on topic

I would prefer Senna to be the greatest. Its the obvious romantic choice. But unfortunately, he was not in for long enough to make the point for him or against him. He chased the best car as well and really didnt 'build up' the team; also the legendary folks...... but some of those legends, are they great because they had a 'better' standard then (ie did they race other potentially 'greatest' drivers), really? were their cars not the greatest when they did win?

There are some cases, of course; i have to look at all the names and numbers to think about it though... in the meantime, I'm being lazy and calling Schumacher the greatest. hehe But i'm sure after all the names and numbers not much will change.

[7UpJordan]

I stirr a lot of pots...







... because I cook a lot at Home.

[Big Azza]

In my opinion, If you have 7 world titles, then you're the greatest driver in history. Hmmm... Everyone else who wins World Championships have had fast cars.....

Senna either won a championship or came second in a McLaren. Prost similarly in a McLaren or a Williams. Fangio in whatever.


The guys who win always have had fast cars. Same with Schumacher. Schumacher was better than all of them.

[racechick]

Nah. For all the reasons already given.