http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18492552 Number 14 - Mika Hakkinen Number 15 - Lewis Hamilton Number 16 - Nelson Piquet Number 17 - Emerson Fittipaldi Number 18 - Jack Brabham Number 19 â Graham Hill Number 20 â Jochen Rindt
Well, who is missing so far? (in no special order): Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Fangio, Alonso, Stewart, Clark, Lauda, Vettel, Mario Andretti, Hunt, Ascari ?
I'd expect Moss to be in the top 12, maybe G.Villenueve as well. I'll be very surprised if number 12 isn't Vettel.
Nelson Piquet Emerson Fittipaldi Jack Brabham Graham Hill Jochen Rindt Lewis Hamilton Ayrton Senna Alain Prost Michael Schumacher Jackie Stewart Niki Lauda Fernando Alonso Nigel Mansell Jim Clark Mika Hakkinen John Surtees Phil Hill Juan Manuel Fangio Alberto Ascari Sebastian Vettel
James Hunt won't be in the top 20, he was more famous for his playboy lifestyle than his driving. Somebody in McLaren once said (forget who) said James could of been a great if he focused on the task of driving rather than getting smashed every weekend. Because of that he doesn't deserve to be a great, even Lewis and Jenson should be higher than Hunt.
I assume these were all picked before the current season, when Vettel's dominance was fresh in the mind. I don't doubt his ability but perhaps he may end up a place or two higher up than he deserves at this stage in his career. Modern drivers pro's shine most brightest in our minds, although we often forgive the misdemeanour's of the past far easier as time goes on.
I'm not sure of your nationality, Bergy; but if you are British, I'd say your expectation of seeing James Hunt in this selection is heavily based on patriotism!
I would have Jack Brabham higher than Nigel mansell. Who's doing this list, if it's Benson, i wouldn't be suprised if he didn't put Alonso or Vettel in there, as they're threats to his beloved Hamilton.
Several from the BBC F1 team so I guess Benson is in there, and its 2008 World champion Lewis Hamilton, not Hamilton
I don't think a driver should be included in a greatest list until they've retired, for all we know, Vettel and Alonso could each become really rubbish (not likely) and destroy their respective reputations.
Rejoice in this comment from BLS, for here lies real wisdom⦠If wearing blinkers, please read down to the interlude but not beyond. Off topic. Nonetheless, a very relevant underlying truth⦠What BLS has said here is very true. Furthermore, it is something no poll or vote can adequately account for. This psychology is utilised as the mechanism behind manipulation of opinion; and therefore all politics and all consensus.* (Oops! Sorry Auntie Beeb, or should I say Uncle Rupert? âHave I given your game away?) It is also the reason I have so little time for statistics as a qualitative argument** âespecially when discussing the spurious notion of 'greatness' amongst people, which tends âincorrectlyâ to promote quantity over quality. Greatness is, after all, a measure of both but is only statistically applicable to physical size of number; whereas it very much implies quality when used to describe people. - - -o0o- - - WARNING! Reading beyond this re(a)d line will damage all known blinkers, which should be removed now to avoid irreparable damage. * It is also literally responsible for changing history! (In the sense of how historic events are perceived, understood and/or believed to have occurred). Ultimately, no one 'knows' of events beyond their personal existence, unless they can be aware (or be made to be aware) of some mechanism for collective recall and its interpretation, which in turn imparts meaning to the ignorant. This is reliant upon some 'authority', which reinforces the existence of both the authoritative view and the existence of the authority! For instance, believing that Jesus Christ, Henry VIII or Napoleon actually existed is necessarily an act of faith, regardless of any fundamental truth, since it is fundamentally un-know-able! (Wait, it gets worse: intense light can cause pain if blinkers only recently removed)⦠It follows that those who have written of such events have had bestowed upon them the status of authority to make such self-reinforcing statements, by elevating their own status by making such statements! Thus the strong will control the weak through 'knowledge' and/or giving the impression of having knowledge! ** Statistical arguments are used as a tool to hand down to the ignorant, an authoritative impression. This is done in the knowledge that the ignorant will use the tool in an effort to prove they are not ignorant, which reinforces the tool-maker, who can go on to manufacture and sell more tools! And once in motion, these wheels become ever more circular and ever more likely to improve their own momentum. There is a name for this methodology. Propaganda.
So when translated for the average ignoramus such as myself, it basically says "Michael Schumacher is crap, get over it Manny. No stats will help you now. HAHAHA!!!" (demonic laugh)). EDIT: Thats the impression i got from it anyway, but as an average ignoramus, i tend to misinterpret things. And misspell things too.
Kyle: I swear to you, in all sincerity; that was not my intention. Seriously. My intention was to make a general observation about the fundamental reasons behind disagreement. However, your translation is not only funny but interesting, isn't it? Translations are always interpretations. Interpretations are the result of what one understands. Understanding can be arrived at as the result of translation. One can only hope therefore, that those who translate are worthy of our trust. Similarly, when wearing blinkers, we tend to be bolstered in finding agreement in the translations of others in whom we place authority, since it is an elevation of one's personal standing towards such authority. Can it not be argued then, that translation is a tool of propaganda?
Notice the bbc didn't think 1995 was worth a mention. You'd think his career ended in Indy. Compare that to the heavy criticism in the Piquet article.
