Every day we come across statements and articles comparing the current best/stars of Formula 1 with the greats of the past. Is it worth doing this and is there any point in such discussions?
In short: Yes. In more detail: NO…
We ourselves always have a good time when we read the comment fields after a publication with a high-sounding title and think we discover elementary outrage there. The advertisement of the press is the publication, its surface is the hypotheses, information, and their peculiar mixtures and interpretations. Therefore, dear reader, the answer for us is yes, because a click-sensitive topic is always useful, and comparing competitors is one of these hits. For those who don't like all this: If you weren't primarily interested in the tabloids, we wouldn't be writing about this. And nothing else.
From another perspective, however, there is no reason to compare Max Verstappen to Ayrton Senna or even Michael Schumacher. In the days of the Brazilian or German legend, Formula 1 was completely different, but everything was completely different, and so was the whole world. Nowadays, “bred” formula car drivers like Verstappen arrive at their very first open wheel test having done thousands of laps on a simulator on a track they have never been to before. They know the quasi-limits of a car they have never driven before. They are absolutely prepared for every eventuality, apart from force majeure, they have already modeled every unexpected situation, they have gone through a lot of internal camera footage, trackside observations, track visits, and mentor reports.
In this regard, let's think back to the competitors of the old days, who usually learned their routes during collective tests and free training sessions. All this is a measurable disadvantage for such a long time that we can actually end the reasoning here, the development of sports professionals and the practically endless store of simulation possibilities close the discourse. If there is a football European Championship, it's a bit like comparing Ferenc Puskás with Judge Bellingham... It would be pointless, since ball games also show the "mechanization", strengthening, and acceleration of the sport, which is almost incomprehensible to the layman.
To conclude with some kind of conclusion: Any kind of comparison would only make sense if we took the given competitors out of their own context, erased their entire sports background and all their experience, and put them together in a brand cup. Preferably for several seasons, maybe then we would get an approximate answer as to who is the most talented among them.
Because we NEVER get to the point of who is the best of all time. And since the above example will never come true due to its futuristic nature, it's better to understand: If any renowned expert compares, they do so solely for the sake of building their own media portfolio. You're welcome. 😉
