Juan Manuel Fangio to Michael Schumacher—Is It Fair to Rank All-Time Greats?

It seems to be human nature to look back on eras gone by with a sense of nostalgia, looking for arguments to prove that the drivers of old were greater than those racing today.

As a species we always try to categorise things, try to separate the best from the rest. But is it fair to argue that a driver who soared to the top of the Formula 1 world in the '50s is more talented than one who dominated in later decades?

At the same time, we must ask if it is fair to say that today’s drivers are more talented than all those who have gone before them?

Formula 1 supporters have been blessed by so many graceful talents and characters since the formation of the world championship in the early '50s. Early heroes such as Juan Manuel Fangio, Alberto Ascari and Stirling Moss have become immortal in the hearts of fans the world over, their achievements still celebrated to this day.

As eras go by, it is inevitable that more drivers will become beloved by fans. The '60s saw characters such as Graham Hill, Jackie Stewart, and Jim Clark rise to prominence, whereas the '70s brought about the emergence of Emerson Fitipaldi, James Hunt, and Nikki Lauda.

The '80s is perhaps the most celebrated era of motorsport with Keke Rosberg, Nelson Piquet, Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell, and the late great Ayrton Senna dominating proceedings. The '90s and early 2000s brought about a very one-sided era in which Michael Schumacher dominated.

Already we are presented with a long list of supreme greats who have reached the pinnacle of their profession, without taking into account the achievements of others such as Ronnie Peterson, Gilles Villeneuve, Jody Scheckter, and Jack Brabham.

How can you separate one from another? The answer: you cannot!

By all means you can create a list of the greatest drivers of all-time—there are obvious candidates that stand out above the rest. But to create this list is one thing, and to rank them is another. 

All a driver can do is beat the opposition he is presented with. The drivers regarded as greats have done this, consistently.

To go on and say that Jackie Stewart was better than Jim Clark would be an insult to Clark and his achievements. I'm sure Jackie would agree.

At the same time, I'm sure Ayrton Senna would disapprove if someone told him he was better than Fangio. He may be flattered by the statement, but at the end of the day all F1 greats know what it takes to win championships, unlike ordinary members of the public who do not.

We may have an idea based on our observance over the years, but only those who have won championships know precisely what it takes to do so.

Still, the ability to drive fast and dominate is part of a person's identity.

Ayrton Senna, for example, is a born winner. If you placed him in any era of motorsport he would win titles. The same can be said for Fangio, Graham Hill, and any other driver who has won championships.

Fernando Alonso is a top driver in today’s sport and had he been competing in the '70s he would have been a top driver then. The make up of a great driver is the same and is inherent in a select few individuals.

Fans may have opinions about their favourite driver of all-time. For example, the calm and controlled driving style of Fangio could inspire one person where as the ruthless desire to win could motivate another. This is subject to one's personal opinion and as such is relative.

The make up of a great driver, however, is empirical fact and intrinsic within an individual. You could never truly say there is one that is greater than anyone else factually, only via personal opinion and preference.