minchy wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
I put more stock in Patrick O'Brien's assessments.
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.ca/I still miss you Patrick, RIP my friend.
I was also going to say Patrick's ratings are still the best by far. He worked on his formula for so long, taking driver, car and overall package into account from their entire f1 career.
Always loved his posts and discussions and echo your sentiments.
Patrick's daughter Catherine O'Brien posting here an excerpt from his 'Explanatory Chapters' (2016) which may be relevant to this perennial question:---------------------
3.6 Is there a greatest driver of all time? After publication of my analytical book in 1994, and since 2002 with my Rating System and blog started in 2011, many have asked who I consider to be “the greatest driver of all time”. This is the most popular topic among enthusiasts of Grand Prix racing, and has led to much debate and often heated argument.
Is Fangio better than Schumacher? Senna better than Alonso? Nuvolari better than Moss? Clark superior to Lauda? What of Prost and Stewart? Is Vettel the best ever? What about those German stars of the thirties Caracciola and Rosemeyer? Or those drivers of the ‘monster’ cars in the early 1900s: Levegh, Fournier, Gabriel, Théry, Nazzaro, de Palma, Hemery, Tetzlaff or Georges Boillot? How would they fare, rate or compare against modern-day stars, such as Hamilton’s exceptional speed?
My contention is that it is impossible to nominate any single driver, or even a top five or ten, as ‘the greatest’. The most I can conclude is that there are 87 drivers who top driver-rated at the ultimate 100.0 (1894-2013) according to my System [sic - POB's 'Season Summary Tables' updates this figure to 98 for 1894-2016]. As I could not differentiate between them, I place them all equal in the top tier.
Assuming the hypothetical ideal, same-era/same-cars, it is my contention that the top drivers would all be close-matched. The basic talents, desire, will, need-to-win, passion, feel and competitive skills required have not differed over the entire period. This hunch is supported by those few seasons when high-rated drivers (those pairs equal or close to the ultimate 100.0 rating) were team-mates in same-cars. Their performances were so close-matched as to be virtually identical. In the cases that I list below, the time-based differentials between the two drivers (season-averages) as per my System, worked out at less than 0.2% and in many cases equal. This has been the case from the start of racing in 1894:
High-rated team-mate drivers in same-team cars
[.........................]
The only way in which I rate and rank drivers across eras is in tiers: all the top-raters at 100.0 form the first tier; those at 100.1 form the second tier, those at 100.3 the third tier, and so on down. Within each tier, I cannot separate or rank individuals.
Although ‘Greatest Drivers’ lists are always popular and interesting, we should be suspicious of any in which linear rankings are used. Whether by personal selection or by some arbitrary points system, such lists always produce strange, unrealistic ratings and rankings. They are subjective, with little or no scientific basis. These lists expose their contributors’ personal and era biases and national prejudices, and reflect on the depth or otherwise of reading-research. Those that are points-based also produce unrealistic rating/rankings due to the arbitrariness of the points allocations.