planetf1.com

Blake wrote:

Todd wrote:There have been too many drivers who have actually accomplished something in F1 for Moss to belong in a conversation about the top ten F1 drivers.

There are too many forumites who did not get see Stirling Moss drive. The implication that Stirling Moss did not accomplish "something" in F1 reeks of ignorance about the man and the time. Before such statements, perhaps some research should have been done.

To offer a counter argument - and I say this as someone who ranks Moss in the top 10 - that if someone feels that the significance of the silverware tally in a specific discipline is important to how well ranked a driver is within that discipline it is fair to say that as a non WDC, there will be more than 10 drivers who rank above Moss. It really depends on one's own personal formula, how they weight the various factors, for determining their top 10.

I personally believe though, especially after watching the Patrick Stewart documentary, that Moss is more than worthy of consideration as being one of the top ten of all time.

Fair enough assessment, alien. For those using that criteria, it is quite easy to rate F1 greats and in doing so minimizes driving skills as a key factor. their is no question that Schumi is #1 as WDCs is the only factor that counts as the greater number of races and points available dismisses nearly early all other considerations.

Blake, I agree with you, but you've only listed 1/4 of the field. What about the rest of the field? Remember, back the grid was made up of 30-40 cars, depending on how many privateers could make the race, and it was the general norm. So against the top drivers he didn't fair too well. He did respectable, but certainly not spectacuar.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Blake wrote:

Todd wrote:There have been too many drivers who have actually accomplished something in F1 for Moss to belong in a conversation about the top ten F1 drivers.

There are too many forumites who did not get see Stirling Moss drive. The implication that Stirling Moss did not accomplish "something" in F1 reeks of ignorance about the man and the time. Before such statements, perhaps some research should have been done.

To offer a counter argument - and I say this as someone who ranks Moss in the top 10 - that if someone feels that the significance of the silverware tally in a specific discipline is important to how well ranked a driver is within that discipline it is fair to say that as a non WDC, there will be more than 10 drivers who rank above Moss. It really depends on one's own personal formula, how they weight the various factors, for determining their top 10.

I personally believe though, especially after watching the Patrick Stewart documentary, that Moss is more than worthy of consideration as being one of the top ten of all time.

I don't think anyone said Moss wasn't an elite driver. Just that "IN F1" he failed to replicate the vast successes he enjoyed everywhere else. The ole chap won just about everything, just not F1.

But the reality is that as great as some drivers may be with certain types of cars and/or in certain series, they simply cannot produce the same kinds of results in others.
Case and point Juan Pablo Montoya… Superb in all things Open-Wheel, but looked average in NASCAR, to the point many felt he was no longer a great driver, yet he jumped back into Indy and was immediately mixing it up with the best. Simply put, for him Nascar was never a fit for his skills set, and there's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't take away from his overall greatness and achievements.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Blake, I agree with you, but you've only listed 1/4 of the field. What about the rest of the field? Remember, back the grid was made up of 30-40 cars, depending on how many privateers could make the race, and it was the general norm. So against the top drivers he didn't fair too well. He did respectable, but certainly not spectacuar.

I didn't list all of the competitive drivers of the era, F1, just ones that I thought some here might recognize. If course there were drivers who were less than stellar, but then every era has had those drivers too, yes, even today. The point that I want to make is there was a very representative number of high quality drivers.

On the subject of Moss vs top drivers, I'd argue that as well. No, he didn't ring up any WDCs, but then with Fangik winning 5 in the decade of the 50s and almost always in the Best car, Stirling's opportunities were not as great as it might seem. Add to that, Moss' desire drive a British car to a championship (meaning usually uncompetitive/unreliable cars) and his chances skimmed further. I suspect that few if any of the Top drivers of the 50s viewed Stirling Moss as anything other than a fellow top driver and a serious threat for the wins.

I was fortunate to have grown up in era of Moss and Fangio and while few races were televised, I read every magazine article on F1 that I could get my hands on...lived for the Rob Walker articles and watched whatever races I could, including hours of watching Wide World of Sports on Saturdays for the few minutes they would give the sport. The one thing that I can say from my experiences is that Moss was never referred to as anything less than a top tier diver, pretty much as Fangio's equal. Just some thoughts.

Blake wrote:I was fortunate to have grown up in era of Moss and Fangio and while few races were televised, I read every magazine article on F1 that I could get my hands on...lived for the Rob Walker articles and watched whatever races I could, including hours of watching Wide World of Sports on Saturdays for the few minutes they would give the sport. The one thing that I can say from my experiences is that Moss was never referred to as anything less than a top tier diver, pretty much as Fangio's equal. Just some thoughts.

Same experience here.

My point was that Fangio, Moss, etc, never had to qualify in F1's feeder series, coming up through the ranks to earn a superlicense, etc. None of the 1950s drivers -- in their prime -- had to be cocooned (sealed) in hot, fireproof suits, nor develop muscular fitness levels sufficient to wear 4-5 pound full face helmets, rounding 4-5G turns for 2-3 hours at a time. The cars simply were not fast enough to require drivers have necks the size of most people's thighs.

This is not to question the courage of a 1950's driver, as many didn't live long enough to see the 1960's or '70s, they were so poorly protected. And it's not to say that I don't cherish the wonderful memories of that era. Just saying that the technology has advanced so much that only a few from that era would be able to qualify to race in today's environment.

Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

Todd, do yourself a favor and do some research. And address the question.

Being a multiple WDC does not necessarily mean you are the better driver. It means that you were at the very least a very good driver in a very good car in a very good team. The question was how good was Stirling Moss? Not who won the most WDCs.

This whole idea that being a WDC automatically makes you an all-time Great, in my opinion, doesn't do justice to the driver aspect. I have no doubt that there were any number of drivers who could have won the WDC in Schumi's '02 & '04 Ferraris, or in some of Hamilton's Mercs. Would that make them all-time great Drivers? The cars and teams are huge factors in WDCs. The fact that there has been 16 multiple WDC drivers does not automatically mean they are the 16 best ever F1 drivers. That kind of "logic" battles me. I firmly believe that Moss, like Fangio, was an all-time Great DRIVER...even if one restricts to only F1. I also believe Moss certainly had the ability and fortitude to be a multiple WDC...as a driver. His choice in teams to drive for does not take away from his skills on the track which is what the question asks.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Blake wrote:

Todd wrote:There have been too many drivers who have actually accomplished something in F1 for Moss to belong in a conversation about the top ten F1 drivers.

There are too many forumites who did not get see Stirling Moss drive. The implication that Stirling Moss did not accomplish "something" in F1 reeks of ignorance about the man and the time. Before such statements, perhaps some research should have been done.

To offer a counter argument - and I say this as someone who ranks Moss in the top 10 - that if someone feels that the significance of the silverware tally in a specific discipline is important to how well ranked a driver is within that discipline it is fair to say that as a non WDC, there will be more than 10 drivers who rank above Moss. It really depends on one's own personal formula, how they weight the various factors, for determining their top 10.

I personally believe though, especially after watching the Patrick Stewart documentary, that Moss is more than worthy of consideration as being one of the top ten of all time.

I don't think anyone said Moss wasn't an elite driver. Just that "IN F1" he failed to replicate the vast successes he enjoyed everywhere else. The ole chap won just about everything, just not F1.

But the reality is that as great as some drivers may be with certain types of cars and/or in certain series, they simply cannot produce the same kinds of results in others.
Case and point Juan Pablo Montoya… Superb in all things Open-Wheel, but looked average in NASCAR, to the point many felt he was no longer a great driver, yet he jumped back into Indy and was immediately mixing it up with the best. Simply put, for him Nascar was never a fit for his skills set, and there's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't take away from his overall greatness and achievements.

That's a good argument. I'd be tempted to counter that by stating that Moss spent time in an uncompetitive car and time as team-mate to Fangio who, Moss himself admitted, was just better then him. He was capable of mixing it with the best but simply didn't have the WDC to go with it.

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

It's important to you remember that in Moss' era the F1 world championship was not the be all and end all as it is now. It was just something attached to half dozen of the many, many races a driver would compete in over a season. So when you say something like "There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss." That's only true over the small selection of races awarded championship points. At the time these races weren't necessarily considered more important than those that weren't. Being WDC did not have the prestige that it does now.

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

When you argue effectiveness, what role do you think does reliability play? And the different competitiveness of the cars?

I have a question for those who watched Moss race - if he wasn't considered the greatest of his own era (or even the second best really - Fangio/Ascari were miles ahead) - how can he be considered to be an all-time great? Genuine questions, not trying to troll.

I have watched documentaries and read quite a bit about him, but to me it just reeks of nationalistic bias - we never talk about Tazio Nuvolari as an all-time great, even though Ferdinand Porsche himself thought he was the greatest ever.

A.J. wrote:I have a question for those who watched Moss race - if he wasn't considered the greatest of his own era (or even the second best really - Fangio/Ascari were miles ahead) - how can he be considered to be an all-time great? Genuine questions, not trying to troll.

I have watched documentaries and read quite a bit about him, but to me it just reeks of nationalistic bias - we never talk about Tazio Nuvolari as an all-time great, even though Ferdinand Porsche himself thought he was the greatest ever.

I wasn't around at the time but courtesy of my father I have read many, many books from the era and it seems Moss was considered Fangio's equal.

Nuvolari is an all time great and recognised as such, but obviously not if we are talking about F1.

Blake wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Blake, I agree with you, but you've only listed 1/4 of the field. What about the rest of the field? Remember, back the grid was made up of 30-40 cars, depending on how many privateers could make the race, and it was the general norm. So against the top drivers he didn't fair too well. He did respectable, but certainly not spectacuar.

I didn't list all of the competitive drivers of the era, F1, just ones that I thought some here might recognize. If course there were drivers who were less than stellar, but then every era has had those drivers too, yes, even today. The point that I want to make is there was a very representative number of high quality drivers.

On the subject of Moss vs top drivers, I'd argue that as well. No, he didn't ring up any WDCs, but then with Fangik winning 5 in the decade of the 50s and almost always in the Best car, Stirling's opportunities were not as great as it might seem. Add to that, Moss' desire drive a British car to a championship (meaning usually uncompetitive/unreliable cars) and his chances skimmed further. I suspect that few if any of the Top drivers of the 50s viewed Stirling Moss as anything other than a fellow top driver and a serious threat for the wins.

I was fortunate to have grown up in era of Moss and Fangio and while few races were televised, I read every magazine article on F1 that I could get my hands on...lived for the Rob Walker articles and watched whatever races I could, including hours of watching Wide World of Sports on Saturdays for the few minutes they would give the sport. The one thing that I can say from my experiences is that Moss was never referred to as anything less than a top tier diver, pretty much as Fangio's equal. Just some thoughts.

I guess many of us got sidetracked after reading many posts so I'll state my opinion on how good Moss was…

Sterling Moss was a brilliant driver of such elite skill that he could show up to races and jump into cars he'd never driven and win with seeming ease.
And in cars he knew really well he was even better and was able to win more frequently than anyone else. He was a fierce competitor, but more importantly, he was consummate sportsman and liked to win cleanly and fairly. He had no issues mixing it up with rivals but given his exceptional ability, usually that meant a brief couple of corners before he'd sweep past and continue on his way to victory lane.

And while he was consistently excellent pretty much everywhere, for some reason he simply could not be as good as consistently during F1 races. I say it that way because in those days drivers like Moss didn't only contest F1 races and would travel quite a bit to compete in various races and series concurrently. Some races were run in the same cars driven for F1 races, but the races weren't part of the F1 calendar and therefore no points were earned towards securing the WDC. That's a hugely important aspect that is perhaps overlooked by most people. The men who drove in that era were spread pretty thin with crazy schedules and through it all Moss was clearly the best of anyone. Through pure dumb luck his gremlins seemed to strike when he entered F1 races and it kept him from winning F1 events. That's why he only won 16 times in F1 compared to over 100 wins outside of F1. But that also shows how much racing the top guys were doing in that era.

Comparitively speaking Fangio had around 80 total wins with 25 of those being F1 wins. So comparatively speaking, Moss was considerably more successful, but when it came to F1, others faired better.

Blake wrote:Todd, do yourself a favor and do some research. And address the question.

Being a multiple WDC does not necessarily mean you are the better driver. It means that you were at the very least a very good driver in a very good car in a very good team. The question was how good was Stirling Moss? Not who won the most WDCs.

This whole idea that being a WDC automatically makes you an all-time Great, in my opinion, doesn't do justice to the driver aspect. I have no doubt that there were any number of drivers who could have won the WDC in Schumi's '02 & '04 Ferraris, or in some of Hamilton's Mercs. Would that make them all-time great Drivers? The cars and teams are huge factors in WDCs. The fact that there has been 16 multiple WDC drivers does not automatically mean they are the 16 best ever F1 drivers. That kind of "logic" battles me. I firmly believe that Moss, like Fangio, was an all-time Great DRIVER...even if one restricts to only F1. I also believe Moss certainly had the ability and fortitude to be a multiple WDC...as a driver. His choice in teams to drive for does not take away from his skills on the track which is what the question asks.

No other driver would have brought about Schumacher's 2002 and 2004 Ferraris. It took years of stability at Ferrari that only Michael Schumacher ever could or did produce. Saying someone else could have won in them is completely meaningless. Why didn't Alonso end up driving Ferraris of that caliber? Because he wasn't half the talent of Schumacher so he could only arrive and drive. When the planets aligned and the tires were the reason for the season, he was better than drivers who were not Michael Schumacher.

Alonso did defend his WDC with an equipment advantage and some luck against a better driver. That takes some talent, and I'd say that it puts him in the conversation among the second tier below drivers like Schumacher and Fangio. Scoring Moss there just seems like the result of a popularity contest. I've been a fan of the sport for forty-three years. I'm a voracious reader. I've seen Robb Walker mentioned here. If anyone really read him more than once and didn't notice that he lacked objectivity when it came to issues of nationality, then that is really myopic. There's a driver who goes virtually unmentioned here, even though he won three WDCs in three very different cars and in very different situations. He's disregarded because he humiliated popular drivers, even though he accomplished more while overcoming greater challenges. There are some one-time WDCs that I don't respect. Which multi-time WDC didn't earn any of them? Graham Hill?

Moss didn't fail to win WDCs because he refused the best equipment. His teammate won WDCs with him in the same car. Moss was a great driver as demonstrated by his plethora of wins in many categories. Calling him a great F1 driver is a disservice to all the drivers who performed better in F1 cars.

I congratulate you on your ability to adapt to our modern world. Feeling are more important than facts to the recent victims of our educational institutions, and you've certainly usurped me in utilizing a current approach to this topic.

A.J. wrote:I have a question for those who watched Moss race - if he wasn't considered the greatest of his own era (or even the second best really - Fangio/Ascari were miles ahead) - how can he be considered to be an all-time great? Genuine questions, not trying to troll.

I have watched documentaries and read quite a bit about him, but to me it just reeks of nationalistic bias - we never talk about Tazio Nuvolari as an all-time great, even though Ferdinand Porsche himself thought he was the greatest ever.

Nuvolai is my favourite driver of all time, but he wasn't an F1 driver so how could he be considered in a top 10 of F1 drivers?

Regarding Moss not being the greatest of his era, well, you could be regarded as the second greatest 100m athlete of all time, but if your time at the top was alongside Usain Bolt, you probably finished your career with no Olympic or world golds. That doesn't mean you can't be regarded as the second best sprinter of all time.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

When you argue effectiveness, what role do you think does reliability play? And the different competitiveness of the cars?

The truly great average out their unreliable and uncompetitive cars by driving with mechanical sympathy when necessary, developing their cars and teams, or at least attracting offers from the best teams. The 1996 Ferrari was a bunk sandwich, but Schumacher produced some results with it and protected Jean Todt's job long enough to build a team that could produce competitive and then dominant cars.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

It's important to you remember that in Moss' era the F1 world championship was not the be all and end all as it is now. It was just something attached to half dozen of the many, many races a driver would compete in over a season. So when you say something like "There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss." That's only true over the small selection of races awarded championship points. At the time these races weren't necessarily considered more important than those that weren't. Being WDC did not have the prestige that it does now.

F1 was originally a willful attempt to erase Grand Prix racing's history between the wars. Why do you suppose there wasn't a German WDC until 1994? Moss was supposed to win, gosh darn it. The praise he received was supposed to set the stage for him finally winning the thing and being treated like the British savior of motor racing. He just never got it done.

Todd wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

It's important to you remember that in Moss' era the F1 world championship was not the be all and end all as it is now. It was just something attached to half dozen of the many, many races a driver would compete in over a season. So when you say something like "There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss." That's only true over the small selection of races awarded championship points. At the time these races weren't necessarily considered more important than those that weren't. Being WDC did not have the prestige that it does now.

F1 was originally a willful attempt to erase Grand Prix racing's history between the wars. Why do you suppose there wasn't a German WDC until 1994? Moss was supposed to win, gosh darn it. The praise he received was supposed to set the stage for him finally winning the thing and being treated like the British savior of motor racing. He just never got it done.

No, winning the WDC was not a huge deal in the 50s. It was just the thing attached to only a few of the races a driver would do throughout a year. As evidenced by Moss being happy to surrender a championship to a rival.

mikeyg123 wrote:

A.J. wrote:I have a question for those who watched Moss race - if he wasn't considered the greatest of his own era (or even the second best really - Fangio/Ascari were miles ahead) - how can he be considered to be an all-time great? Genuine questions, not trying to troll.

I have watched documentaries and read quite a bit about him, but to me it just reeks of nationalistic bias - we never talk about Tazio Nuvolari as an all-time great, even though Ferdinand Porsche himself thought he was the greatest ever.

I wasn't around at the time but courtesy of my father I have read many, many books from the era and it seems Moss was considered Fangio's equal.

Nuvolari is an all time great and recognised as such, but obviously not if we are talking about F1.

Nuvolari might well be the greatest driver of all time, but he raced way before F1 was even a thought. He drove large cars on terrible skinny bias ply tires and did so far better than anyone by a decent margin. Of note, he was also excellent on 2 wheels, but decided to dedicate himself to racing on 4 wheels primarily and thank goodness he did.

There used to be good write ups of Nuvolari's incredible 1935 triumph at the German Gran Prix and it's simply one of the most incredible feats in the history of motorsport.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Todd wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

It's important to you remember that in Moss' era the F1 world championship was not the be all and end all as it is now. It was just something attached to half dozen of the many, many races a driver would compete in over a season. So when you say something like "There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss." That's only true over the small selection of races awarded championship points. At the time these races weren't necessarily considered more important than those that weren't. Being WDC did not have the prestige that it does now.

F1 was originally a willful attempt to erase Grand Prix racing's history between the wars. Why do you suppose there wasn't a German WDC until 1994? Moss was supposed to win, gosh darn it. The praise he received was supposed to set the stage for him finally winning the thing and being treated like the British savior of motor racing. He just never got it done.

No, winning the WDC was not a huge deal in the 50s. It was just the thing attached to only a few of the races a driver would do throughout a year. As evidenced by Moss being happy to surrender a championship to a rival.

I would hesitate (putting it very mildly) to equate displaying sportsmanship - which I expect from every sportsman in an era where money hasn't poisoned the atmosphere yet - with the notion that the championship wasn't worth winning. I would rather read reports from that particular time than projecting current perceptions onto it.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Todd wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

It's important to you remember that in Moss' era the F1 world championship was not the be all and end all as it is now. It was just something attached to half dozen of the many, many races a driver would compete in over a season. So when you say something like "There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss." That's only true over the small selection of races awarded championship points. At the time these races weren't necessarily considered more important than those that weren't. Being WDC did not have the prestige that it does now.

F1 was originally a willful attempt to erase Grand Prix racing's history between the wars. Why do you suppose there wasn't a German WDC until 1994? Moss was supposed to win, gosh darn it. The praise he received was supposed to set the stage for him finally winning the thing and being treated like the British savior of motor racing. He just never got it done.

No, winning the WDC was not a huge deal in the 50s. It was just the thing attached to only a few of the races a driver would do throughout a year. As evidenced by Moss being happy to surrender a championship to a rival.

I would hesitate (putting it very mildly) to equate displaying sportsmanship - which I expect from every sportsman in an era where money hasn't poisoned the atmosphere yet - with the notion that the championship wasn't worth winning. I would rather read reports from that particular time than projecting current perceptions onto it.

Not worth winning is an over exaggeration. Certainly not as highly prised and today and not giving a full account of a drivers racing year.

A.J. wrote:I have a question for those who watched Moss race - if he wasn't considered the greatest of his own era (or even the second best really - Fangio/Ascari were miles ahead) - how can he be considered to be an all-time great? Genuine questions, not trying to troll.

I have watched documentaries and read quite a bit about him, but to me it just reeks of nationalistic bias - we never talk about Tazio Nuvolari as an all-time great, even though Ferdinand Porsche himself thought he was the greatest ever.

I don't think that Ascari was better than Moss; rather the opposite. Fangio and Moss were very close.

Nuvolari along with Carraciola definitely and firmly belongs to the top 10 greatest ever grand prix drivers ( but obviously not to a list limited limited to F1, I.e. post-war era).

Todd wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

When you argue effectiveness, what role do you think does reliability play? And the different competitiveness of the cars?

The truly great average out their unreliable and uncompetitive cars by driving with mechanical sympathy when necessary, developing their cars and teams, or at least attracting offers from the best teams. The 1996 Ferrari was a bunk sandwich, but Schumacher produced some results with it and protected Jean Todt's job long enough to build a team that could produce competitive and then dominant cars.

Then Jack Brabham is the greatest ever. He is the last one who can be credited with developing his car and his team. Schumacher did neither of this.

Todd wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

It's important to you remember that in Moss' era the F1 world championship was not the be all and end all as it is now. It was just something attached to half dozen of the many, many races a driver would compete in over a season. So when you say something like "There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss." That's only true over the small selection of races awarded championship points. At the time these races weren't necessarily considered more important than those that weren't. Being WDC did not have the prestige that it does now.

F1 was originally a willful attempt to erase Grand Prix racing's history between the wars. Why do you suppose there wasn't a German WDC until 1994? Moss was supposed to win, gosh darn it. The praise he received was supposed to set the stage for him finally winning the thing and being treated like the British savior of motor racing. He just never got it done.

Okay, I am curious: why wasn't there a German wdc until 1994?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Okay, I am curious: why wasn't there a German wdc until 1994?

Because Von Trips died at Monza in 1961.

Harpo wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Okay, I am curious: why wasn't there a German wdc until 1994?

Because Von Trips died at Monza in 1961.

Alternatively, because Jochen Rindt raced under an Austrian license despite being German by birth and citizenship.

Exediron wrote:

Harpo wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Okay, I am curious: why wasn't there a German wdc until 1994?

Because Von Trips died at Monza in 1961.

Alternatively, because Jochen Rindt raced under an Austrian license despite being German by birth and citizenship.

Or, Stefan Bellof died in that Porsche in Spa.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Then Jack Brabham is the greatest ever. He is the last one who can be credited with developing his car and his team. Schumacher did neither of this.

I have a maximum of respect for Jack Brabham, but you and I aren't discussing the same sport in the same world. There are some who think that nobody has control of their own destiny, that we're all just creatures of circumstance. People have enslaved billions and killed tens of millions by appealing to that sense of hopelessness, but it still doesn't explain why anyone so-afflicted would care about spectator sports. Is it in order to gamble on a game of chance to improve one's circumstance through fate? Good luck.

Todd wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Then Jack Brabham is the greatest ever. He is the last one who can be credited with developing his car and his team. Schumacher did neither of this.

I have a maximum of respect for Jack Brabham, but you and I aren't discussing the same sport in the same world. There are some who think that nobody has control of their own destiny, that we're all just creatures of circumstance. People have enslaved billions and killed tens of millions by appealing to that sense of hopelessness, but it still doesn't explain why anyone so-afflicted would care about spectator sports. Is it in order to gamble on a game of chance to improve one's circumstance through fate? Good luck.

I have to admit that I don't understand your reply at all.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Todd wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Then Jack Brabham is the greatest ever. He is the last one who can be credited with developing his car and his team. Schumacher did neither of this.

I have a maximum of respect for Jack Brabham, but you and I aren't discussing the same sport in the same world. There are some who think that nobody has control of their own destiny, that we're all just creatures of circumstance. People have enslaved billions and killed tens of millions by appealing to that sense of hopelessness, but it still doesn't explain why anyone so-afflicted would care about spectator sports. Is it in order to gamble on a game of chance to improve one's circumstance through fate? Good luck.

I have to admit that I don't understand your reply at all.

neither do I.

Todd wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

It's important to you remember that in Moss' era the F1 world championship was not the be all and end all as it is now. It was just something attached to half dozen of the many, many races a driver would compete in over a season. So when you say something like "There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss." That's only true over the small selection of races awarded championship points. At the time these races weren't necessarily considered more important than those that weren't. Being WDC did not have the prestige that it does now.

F1 was originally a willful attempt to erase Grand Prix racing's history between the wars. Why do you suppose there wasn't a German WDC until 1994? Moss was supposed to win, gosh darn it. The praise he received was supposed to set the stage for him finally winning the thing and being treated like the British savior of motor racing. He just never got it done.

Because von Tripps died too young

Harpo wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Okay, I am curious: why wasn't there a German wdc until 1994?

Because Von Trips died at Monza in 1961.

Ah, I was too late!

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Todd wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

When you argue effectiveness, what role do you think does reliability play? And the different competitiveness of the cars?

The truly great average out their unreliable and uncompetitive cars by driving with mechanical sympathy when necessary, developing their cars and teams, or at least attracting offers from the best teams. The 1996 Ferrari was a bunk sandwich, but Schumacher produced some results with it and protected Jean Todt's job long enough to build a team that could produce competitive and then dominant cars.

Then Jack Brabham is the greatest ever. He is the last one who can be credited with developing his car and his team. Schumacher did neither of this.

While I hold Brabham in the highest of regards, He was only able to accomplish what he did BECAUSE of the era he competed in. In those days it was VASTLY easier to build your own car, and Brabham's first 2 championships came in bought coopers he worked on and helped develop, so when it came time for him to build his own chassis he already had a base from which to work from in both concept and experience.

So while his 3rd championship was won in a chassis built by him and his team, I think the legend of him building his own car is a wee bit over exaggerated. It's no different than engineers today working for one team and working on a top performing car and then joining a different team and bringing their knowledge and experience to help design a more competitive car. Does that make said engineer more brilliant than one who designed, built and developed a concept from scratch?

I recognize that Brabham was a brilliantly talented driver and engineer, and agree he was better than any other driver who attempted to field a car of their own design, but that doesn't automatically make him the best ever. Dan Gurney was an excellent driver and won a race in a car designed and built by him, but he wasn't solely focused on F1 so he didn't win more races, but throughout his lifetime, he continued to design and build race cars/chassis for other series (he made the construction of the Deltawing possible), so maybe he could be considered the best ever based on that?

Nelson Piquet was quite the mechanic/engineer himself and he was the ONLY driver of his era who could and would work on his own cars and he was never too proud to roll up his sleeves and turn wrenches with his mechanics, and he did so during a period of time where technology was experiencing exponential growth, far greater than anything ever before. Towards the end of his era however, F1 became so technically advanced that armies of engineers were a necessity and we will never again have anyone design, build, and drive a car conjured up in their head.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Todd wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Todd wrote:Hamilton
Vettel
Alonso
Schumacher
Hakkinen
Prost
Senna
Piquet
Lauda
Stewart
Fittipaldi
Clark
Brabham
Hill
Fangio
Ascari

That's sixteen multi-time champions by my count. The point of racing is to finish first. The point of the championship is to score the most points, or have the most high finishes. Organized competition is about achieving defined goals. When it comes to rating F1 drivers through history, we can only reasonably compare them with their peers. There was never a year when someone wasn't more effective than Moss. Fangio had about twice the win percentage and shut him out on titles. Is Fangio one of the best? Absolutely. Is being maybe half as good as Fangio enough to deprive some number of multi-time champions of their rightful place in the top ten? No.

I'm not anti-Moss. He was a great racing driver, piling up wins in many categories. Does that make him a better F1 driver than the guys who won championships? Good grief. There's more to auto racing than F1, and whatever you achieve in other categories doesn't make you a more significant F1 driver.

When you argue effectiveness, what role do you think does reliability play? And the different competitiveness of the cars?

The truly great average out their unreliable and uncompetitive cars by driving with mechanical sympathy when necessary, developing their cars and teams, or at least attracting offers from the best teams. The 1996 Ferrari was a bunk sandwich, but Schumacher produced some results with it and protected Jean Todt's job long enough to build a team that could produce competitive and then dominant cars.

Then Jack Brabham is the greatest ever. He is the last one who can be credited with developing his car and his team. Schumacher did neither of this.

While I hold Brabham in the highest of regards, He was only able to accomplish what he did BECAUSE of the era he competed in. In those days it was VASTLY easier to build your own car, and Brabham's first 2 championships came in bought coopers he worked on and helped develop, so when it came time for him to build his own chassis he already had a base from which to work from in both concept and experience.

So while his 3rd championship was won in a chassis built by him and his team, I think the legend of him building his own car is a wee bit over exaggerated. It's no different than engineers today working for one team and working on a top performing car and then joining a different team and bringing their knowledge and experience to help design a more competitive car. Does that make said engineer more brilliant than one who designed, built and developed a concept from scratch?

I recognize that Brabham was a brilliantly talented driver and engineer, and agree he was better than any other driver who attempted to field a car of their own design, but that doesn't automatically make him the best ever. Dan Gurney was an excellent driver and won a race in a car designed and built by him, but he wasn't solely focused on F1 so he didn't win more races, but throughout his lifetime, he continued to design and build race cars/chassis for other series (he made the construction of the Deltawing possible), so maybe he could be considered the best ever based on that?

Nelson Piquet was quite the mechanic/engineer himself and he was the ONLY driver of his era who could and would work on his own cars and he was never too proud to roll up his sleeves and turn wrenches with his mechanics, and he did so during a period of time where technology was experiencing exponential growth, far greater than anything ever before. Towards the end of his era however, F1 became so technically advanced that armies of engineers were a necessity and we will never again have anyone design, build, and drive a car conjured up in their head.

Don't forget the Gurney flap!

Siao7 wrote:

Harpo wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Okay, I am curious: why wasn't there a German wdc until 1994?

Because Von Trips died at Monza in 1961.

Ah, I was too late!

Well, I deserve no credit for being that fast : the death of Von Trips is my eldest memories of motor racing, and one of my eldest memories of reading...

So many appallingly ill-informed views here.

Blake - above - is correct.

Enzo Ferrari is on record as saying that Nuvolari and Moss were the best he'd seen. So did Brooks. So did Ginther. Moss's peers conceded that he was their clear leader, at least from 1957 to the point - during 1961 - when Clark started to hit his straps. What a tragedy that April 23 1962 robbed us of the great Moss/Clark battles during the 1960's.

I am not, incidentally, concerned about attempts to rate any two drivers of different eras. It can't be done with anything approaching objectivity. But make no mistake, when he was racing, Stirling Moss was considered THE benchmark, with the possible exception of Fangio. Moss always, modestly, asserted that Fangio was faster in an F1 car - others, including Ferrari, felt that Moss was Fangio's equal, at least from 1956.

Phil Hill, who might just know a little more than some of the experts here about racing, wrote: "I regret that followers of the sport are becoming less aware than they should be of the extraordinary record that Stirling Moss achieved..." Like I said, some appallingly ill-informed views here.

Thank you, Huw.