Jim Clark vs Michael Schumacher

Champion of Champions

Posted on

| Written by

As we head into the first quarter-final match-up the remaining drivers belong to that select few who were widely acknowledged as the best of their day. That is certainly true of Michael Schumacher and Jim Clark.

They spent much of their careers with the same team: Clark never drove for anyone other than Lotus.

Schumacher set a record by starting 180 races for Ferrari, having already won the championship twice with Benetton

In this time both drivers often had the best equipment available to them and little effective opposition from their team mates.

That changed for Clark in 1967 when he was joined by Graham Hill. Clark tended to have the upper hand but their cars were plagued by unreliability that year, and Clark was killed the following season.

Schumacher was beaten by a team mate for the first time in his career last year. Nico Rosberg held sway as Schumacher returned from a three-year break to drive for Mercedes.

By the end of this season Schumacher will have started exactly four times as many races as Clark did. But which of the drivers was the greater world champion?

Vote for which you think was best below and explain who you voted for and why in the comments.

Michael SchumacherJim Clark
Titles1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 20041963, 1965
Second in title year/sDamon Hill, Damon Hill, Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Rubens Barrichello, Kimi Raikkonen, Rubens BarrichelloGraham Hill, Graham Hill
TeamsJordan, Benetton, Ferrari, MercedesLotus
Notable team matesNelson Piquet, Eddie Irvine, Rubens BarrichelloTrevor Taylor, Mike Spence, Graham Hill
Wins91 (33.96%)25 (34.72%)
Poles68 (25.37%)33 (45.83%)
Modern points per start114.0511.65
% car failures28.2129.17
Modern points per finish315.3016.45
NotesMissed several races in 1999 after breaking his leg at SilverstoneAn oil leak in the final race of 1962 cost him his first title
Retired in 2006 after 11 seasons with FerrariFinished on the podium in every race where his car didn’t break down over the next three seasons
Returned with Mercedes in 2010Killed in a Formula Two race during the 1968 season having won the first race of the year
BioMichael SchumacherJim Clark

1 How many points they scored in their career, adjusted to the 2010 points system, divided by the number of races they started
2 The percentage of races in which they were not classified due to a mechanical failure
3 How many points they scored in their career, adjusted to the 2010 points system, divided by the number of starts in which they did not suffer a race-ending mechanical failure

Round two

Round one

Which was the better world champion driver?

  • Jim Clark (94%)
  • Michael Schumacher (102%)

Total Voters: 817

 Loading ...

You need an F1 Fanatic account to vote. Register an account here or read more about registering here.

Read the F1 Fanatic Champion of Champions introduction for more information and remember to check back tomorrow for the next round.

Have you voted in the previous rounds of Champion of Champions yet? Find them all here:

Champion of Champions

Browse all Champion of Champions articles

Images © Mercedes GP (Schumacher), Ford.com (Clark)

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

322 comments on “Jim Clark vs Michael Schumacher”

  1. Schumy – just

    1. I haven’t had the pleasure of watching Clark, but I know he was very good, as demonstrated by his percentage of wins and poles. But for what I know Schumacher is just unbeatable.

      1. I think there is some serious un-justice if Schumacher doesn’t win this. I get the feeling there will lots of impulse voting just togo against Schumi.

        Oh well I voted for the greatest driver ever, period.

        1. Completely agree that it would be UNJUST to vote against MSC… What is not mentioned in this article is that Schumi should have 8 titles and that he narrowly lost out on a few. The modern era driver had to be more than fast, he had to be invaluable to the engineers; Michael was the best ever because he came to Ferrari, who were crappy at the time, and helped develop the car/program into a winner in just a short stint. This man is the definition of competitiveness and has helped F1 become a global power more than any other driver and to slight him because you don’t like him personally or Ferrari for that matter is just sad and pathetic for you. Perhaps one day there will be another Skywalker, but for now it is clearly MSC that is the G.O.A.T. (Greatest of all time).
          p.s. Woulda, coulda shoulda doesn’t count in the real world; this is all speculative thinking and deters the jury from focusing on what actually occurred.

          1. Should have had 8??
            Well he shouldn’t have had teh one where he rammed Hill off the track – so that would be 6.
            And he shouldn’t have had the one where Benneton were cheating in their pitstops and setting drivers on fire… so that’d be 5…
            etc. etc.

          2. daffid – I may be pro barri and con schumi type guy admittadly. Still, if he had gone against Senna.. well I think you know. He’d have 5 at the most.

          3. There are but ifs but and maybe to argue that MSC could have had less than 7, as you say, but similar excuses could be used to say that he deserved more than 7. They’re all useless in the end. Seven is the only number that matters.

          4. @ Daffid – Both incidents you mentioned are related to the same year- hence you are incorrect.

          5. @David A – Absolutely correct, both 1994,which is why I shouldn’t post at 3.31am! :)
            What I was thinking of was that in 1995 Benetton were probably running illegal traction control.

            Anyway I’m not saying the figure 7 doesn’t count, just that it’s silly to say he should have 8.

            And that Schumi can only dream of people as good a driver as Clark, he’s not even ballpark ;p

          6. Actually traction control was 94 as well wasn’t it? Ah forget it, Schumi got 7, that’s what the books say and I still voted for Clark :)

          7. Michael was better than senna and they both knew it

        2. Unjust to vote for Clark? Hardly.

          1. Daffid, he didn’t ram Hill off, he was in from of Hill. If you watch it again, Hill actually hit the middle to back of his car from clearly going across the corner. Youtube it, hopefully it is there.

            his_majesty, don’t you remember he actually went up against Senna and was leading 4 races to his favour and 0 races to Senna’s before the accident.

            However, not unjust to vote for Clark, but really who was the better? Hate or mere dislike aside, who is the better?

          2. nosa schumacher hit the wall, then went fully left with his bent rear wheel, saw damon in the mirror and then went fully right again…..

            damon saw an open door and went for it. he had not seen michael hit the wall. otherwise he would of held back…but the corner was clearly damons.

          3. How was it Damon’s corner when he wasn’t even alongside?

          4. brendan, how do you go round a corner? Not by going straight, surely.


        3. Yeah agreed! Bet there’s plenty voting against Schumacher cause they are haters. When I voted now it was about dead even between the two.
          7 world championships people, c’mon…

          1. Nope, have to disagree there. Clark died while in his prime, and was reckonised by his peers as the greatest driver of a golden era of F1. If your just going on the stats (WDC in your case), yes MSC would take it, but bear in mind that Clark’s win percentage and pole position percentages are higher than MSC despite having a far worse reliability record.

            This is CofC, not “who’s won the most WDC’s”, so my vote went to Clark, and many will agree I think. He was a model world champion, the greatest of a great era, a race winner across multiple disciplines, and a true gent. If anyone embodys what it is to be a World Champion, its Clark.

          2. No, you are voting for Clark because he’s British and that is the only reason its close. Senna is the pound for pound greatest driver, but numbers DO mean something and in this case the heavyweight in this fight is MSC. The real job here is deciding if pound for pound vs. heavyweight champ can compete… my thinking is that while Senna may have been fast, MSC didn’t drive so hard he killed himself and is therefore the superior driver. When someone says, “leave it all on the line” they mean leave the line there as a reference point. Note: Although I do admire MSC I would still vote for Senna just because of his stats/start. The hatred is unbelievable on here towards that guy; I know he’s German, but its been over 70 years get over it.

          3. @SeattleChris. Senna didn’t kill himself. He had a car failure, which pitched his car off the road at a high speed corner (the Tamburello). I wouldn’t use his fatal crash to claim he is inferior.

          4. After re-reading the language of my post it does imply that he is directly better, but I believe the intent I had was that both were pushing the limits and the boundaries are part of knowing the limit. I do not mean to misuse Senna in a mean-spirited manner. Of all the people on the planet I think MSC had the most respect for Senna; that Senna died so early in Michael’s career, to me, means that we never saw the best of Schumacher. MSC had to race Senna’s ghost and not the man himself which is the largest loss the F1 community ever suffered.

      2. For those that haven’t had the pleasure of watching Clark and would like to know more about him – see this documentary called ‘The Quiet Champion’


        As for my vote, I haven’t decided yet. This is a very hard one. Gut feeling is Schumacher personally, but i’m going to read some of the comments and make a decision later.

        1. Schumacher. Seven titles. Easy.

          1. A lot of people think that Clark, had he not been killed, would have won even more than 7 titles

          2. Not sure its quite as easy as that. Certainly though, Schumacher got the chance to prove that he was capable of 7 titles, which clark won’t be able to show.

          3. Clark died prematurely, just look at his statistics on wins and poles and modern points per finish all ahead of Schu.

            This also at a time when drivers was drivers, no thousands of miles of tire development and testing or drivers aids of any sort besides maybe a rev counter. Further a time when drivers drove in many other race categories and there Clark was as skilled and dominant as he was in Formula 1.

            I have to go with Clark. Clark was purely a master behind the wheel.

          4. A lot of people think that Clark, had he not been killed, would have won even more than 7 titles

            But we’ll never know. We can only vote with the facts.

          5. And the facts are that Clark performed better in the races that he drove?

        2. I’ll second that…anyone here who doesn’t know too much about Clark, please watch this film before you vote.

          1. I’ll second that…anyone here who doesn’t know too much about Clark, please watch this film before you vote.

            I clicked the link and thought “there’s no way I am going to sit and watch it for 1 hour”, but it had me hooked. What a guy. My grandfather said he was one of the nicest men he’d ever met.

          2. The BBC films about Hill and Stewart are also very good.

        3. @sw6569

          Thanks for posting this link to the documentary on Jim Clark. After viewing it I feel like I knew the guy and that makes my comments seem foolish. The man was more than just a fast driver, he was a good person with a heart that society usually misses. He was the kind of guy I wish I was and that we all were. Once again, thank you for the link.

      3. Except that once he lost the Ferrari 2s per lap advantage, Alonso beat him.

        Now he’s lost his teammate golden contract, Rosberg is beating him.

        Clark raced against and dominated the best of his era. Had he not been killed at the peak of his career, he would surely have won several more titles. As Stewert often says, Jimmy was way better than everyone.

        Then there’s Schuie’s 7 titles… Had Senna not died, there’s little doubt he would have won the title in the Williams in 94, 95, 96 and 97 making him a 7 time champion and Schuie at best only 5 (although whether Ferrari would have taken him in ’96 is debatable).

        Lots of what ifs, but the fact is that Jim Clark pretty much either won or broke down, and also won in other disciplines such as Indy says it all for me.

        1. this argument about who deserves which titles is interesting.

          Clark lost in 1962 and 1964 due to unreliability. In ’66 and ’67, lotus were still getting their act together (the brabhams were fully sorted from the word go when the engine regs changed). In ’68 it seems likely that he would have dominated. However, this is where it gets tricky. People will say that if Clark had lived then he would have won more titles. But think of it the other way around – if Moss hadn’t retired, then maybe Clark wouldn’t have won his titles in ’63 or ’65.

          Schumacher’s career is far easier to analyse (he maybe could have won the ’99 title with ease).

          I’m surprised Clark isn’t winning this. He’s widely acknowledged by his peers as being a cut above. Schumacher never had a great teammate and resorted to dirty driving on more than one occasion. I would have had clark in my top 2 (with fangio).

          1. Moss wasn’t driving for teams capable of winning the championship, even with him driving their cars. It was his choice- he probably could have driven for any team he liked.

        2. Had Senna not died, there’s little doubt he would have won the title in the Williams in 94, 95, 96 and 97 making him a 7 time champion and Schuie at best only 5 (although whether Ferrari would have taken him in ’96 is debatable).

          There’s no evidence at all that he would have maintained his speed until then, or even defeat Schumacher in the first place.

          1. There’s little evidence the ’94 or ’95 Williams cars were even capable of delivering titles. The title was only so close in ’94 because Schumacher was disqualified once and banned for two races.

        3. Davidmcgrory
          25th June 2017, 6:53

          Schumacher was schooling senna at the start of the season senna knew Michael was better

      4. Jeffrey Powell
        29th January 2011, 10:56

        In jimmy’s day we only got a chance to see our hero’s racing in the U.K. or the country of our origin except for a tiny minority of the very well off. There was virtually no television coverage, it was even very difficult to get a radio report of a few seconds. I had to wait to buy the Telegraph or Times the next day to find out what was going on. And then wait for thursday to buy the Motoring news for a comprehesive two page report. But I did see Jimmy race in F1,F2 Lotus Cortina’s and Sports Cars on many occasions. This was allways going to be difficult against Schumacher because we’ve all seen him in action but my opinion is that if you put them in the same car (not computer game)it would be only Senna that would have a chance against Clark

    2. Nope.. Jim Clark has better per race stats.

  2. Clark, no problem. Schumacher was incredible, no doubt, but Clark is still, IMO, the greatest driver that ever lived. I just wish he could’ve lived a bit longer.

    1. this could be the final!
      Fangio, Clark, Schumacher. The 3 have dominated the sport as nobody else did. They are like Pele, Jordan, Woods, Ronaldo, Bolt.
      Senna, Prost and Lauda come behind, close. :)

      1. I know, it’s hardly fair putting these two up against each other at this stage, but of Schumacher, Clark, Fangio, Senna, and Prost, one of them is not going to make the semi finals… I voted Schumacher, and apparently broke the tie by doing so as it’s now 105 Schumacher, 104 Clarke. It’ll be interesting to see which of them ekes out the win.

      2. What you say is hardly fair towards Senna and Prost. Because anyone with a brain knows that if they weren’t racing at the same time with one another they would be just as dominant over everyone else as the other three. Senna’s and Prost’s era may be called “double domination”

        1. @ montreal95
          You bring up an excellent point.

          1. And let’s not forget, Prost and Senna had Mansell to deal with too, and he was pretty unlucky, and could easily have won four titles himself. The margin between winning the title has rarely been so fine as it was in the late 80s.

  3. Haven’t voted yet….but really curious how this will turn out, but think I’ll go for Clark

    1. yes, voted clarck…simply seems the better driver to me, just by looking at the points per finish, even with all those amazing years Schumi had with ferrari, Clark is still on top…

      1. 2010 hurt Schumacher’s statistics quite a bit.

        1. Actually I based my vote entirely on Schumacher’s winter 2010-11 performance. Getting sick in a simulator just isn’t the stuff of a champion of champions.

          1. You had me rolling on the floor with that 1. Comment of the year in my books.

  4. I voted for Clark. Don’t know much about him to be honest, but just looking at “Second in title year” sums it up – Schumacher, as great as he is, almost never competed against anyone regarded as one of the best ever drivers.

    1. Schumacher, as great as he is, almost never competed against anyone regarded as one of the best ever drivers.

      How do you rate Mika Hakkinen and Kimi?

      1. I actually rate both of them very highly – but they’re not considered to be in the top 10 all time best drivers, or something like that. On that list you’ll get people like Fangio, Ascari, Brabham, Clark, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and some more…and it seems like there Schumacher might be the only one on the list that never competed against someone else on the list (apart from his first seasons).

      2. So what I’m saying is that whereas Schumacher drove against some good drivers, like Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Alonso, Villeneuve, Hill, are they really as good as Hill, Brabham, Surtees and others that Clark competed against? And other champions?

        Schumacher is extremely good a driver, but he dominated in the era with little opponents, dominating car and a teammate that wasn’t allowed to beat him.

        1. to be fair to the german, his teammates couldn’t beat him, that’s the truth.
          i mean, schumacher was sometimes a full second faster than some of his team mates, that is unimaginable today.
          and who is to say that hamilton, vettel, alonso & co are really worse than mansell, piquet and prost – not as winners, but as drivers?

          1. you’re bang on there magon4. People seem to look back with rose tinted spectacles. Hamilton, Alonso and co are the very best of the current generation just as senna, prost and mansell were the best the 80/90s generation, and hill, brabham, stewart and clark were the best of another. F1 is different now, Hamilton and Alonso cant travel side by side for 4 corners and swap positions 3 or 4 times in the space of 7 laps- the cars and circuits just dont allow for it. Just because the cars are easier to drive now doesnt mean the drivers must be less capable, they can only deal with what they’re given. I think some people seem to assume that if senna and clark were in f1 today they would be 4 wheel drifting through copse, or spinning out only to return and win the race by 30 seconds. Im not taking anything away from the old greats (stewart’s nurburgring win in the wet is stuff of folklore), nor am i suggesting that Hamilton is better than Senna or Alonso is better than Clark. What im saying is you cannot definitively say they aren’t. All we can judge them on is their performance relative to others racing in the similar eras. F1 is such a different sport now that today is almost incomparable with the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The qualities a driver needed were different. Modern drivers don’t necessarily need courage and bravery, at least not to the same extent as those back then did. But how can we know for sure that the men who dominated back then were actually the most capable at driving. It may have been that they were infinitely braver than everyone else and were willing to push their cars further and faster. Just a thought, im not saying its true- just a stream of consciousness. I await the rose-tinted spectacled…

          2. @magon4…. yes, but schumacher hasn’t won a world championship against Hamilton, vettel, or even alonso in a competitive car. So what is the point of all this? ^^^^^

          3. The point is that he’s beaten plenty of excellent drivers to become the most successful of all time.

        2. Agree with Enigma. There weren’t a lot of incredible drivers between the 94-2005 era, or even a team as strong as Ferrari. Additionally, Clark didn’t have the privilege of a car and tyres being designed around his specific needs, and a number 2 driver who would bend over backwards for him.

          As much as I dislike Schumacher, I cannot deny that he is an incredible competitor. But looking at the stats, Clark does look more impressive in a less reliable car.

          Schumi might have 7 titles.. but Clark gets my vote.. hands down.

        3. If there were drivers at his level, then he would not be who he is… Come on guys, this is the same for all other sports.
          I am not saying he is the best ever, but I just dont get it the argument that he did not have competition.

        4. And look at Clark’s team mates. Trevor Taylor, Mike Spence. Who?

          1. You’re getting rather heated in your arguments, I don’t think its quite as simple as stating Schumacher won 7 titles, or that either driver had better or worse teammates.

            What both drivers did was win – a lot. Clarks record is astounding, and actually better than Schumacher’s as when he finished he almost always won. Very rarely had an off day. Having said that, Schumacher was brilliant, particularly in 2004 as despite having a superior car, he used it to perfection which is a trait that is massively under respected as it makes F1 ‘boring’ (which is incidentally why I think Button’s championship win is so underrated, but thats another point).

            I took a long think about this before voting, but I decided that on stats alone, you cannot vote either way. The documentary I posted earlier may have gone some way to my voting choice, but i’d advise you to watch it too to see why people thought Clark was so great. For me, it came down to sportsmanship and personality. And, Clark won.

          2. Peter Arundell, Mike Spence, and of course Graham Hill were all very good drivers.

          3. And look at Senna’s team mates – Johnny Cecotto and Johnny Dumfries. He was obviously rubbish too.

        5. Schumacher only had a completely dominant car in 2002 and 2004 and won seven tiles. That’s right SEVEN.

          1. Also he built Ferrari up from a midfield team and won as many titles as Clark did in a Benetton against the faster Williams.

          2. Schumacher has won the most titles, we all know that. If the only criteria for comparing drivers is the amount of titles then what is the point of this competition? The whole point is to look beyond the crude statistics and look at the racing talent. In my opinion, Clark had that in adundance (moreso than Schumacher) and it was a tragedy that his career was cut short.

            Also, don’t forget that Clark would have won the 1964 championship as well but for an engine failure on the last lap of the last race.

        6. The problem was Michael was that he had no peer as soon as he started he was the best no one could touch him

      3. @ Enigma

        1994, First 2 races Schumacher 2 Senna 0 and then the obvious tragic death at Imola.
        Schmacher raced the best in his early years and won several races. He’s raced Senna, Prost, Mansell, Alonso, Hakkinen, Raikkonen and a few more world champions. How hasn’t he proven himself, The records prove everything!

        1. Senna grabbed pole in both those races and was taken out on the first lap of the second race.

          1. senna lost fair and square to schumacher in interlagos (his home race) with a superior car (you can’t convince me otherwise).
            and i know this is delicate to say but schumacher was racing senna when he died, which means that he was faster then, too.

          2. No it doesn’t necessarily. If Hill could come with one point of Schumacher that year then I have no doubt that Senna would have been capable of clawing back any deficit.

          3. @magon4

            Not trying to say one way or the other, just saying that he was competitive in both. Obviously Senna and Schumacher were very closely matched at that point, with Senna staying right up on him in those races, including at Interlagos where he was gaining after losing first position. In my opinion Senna and Schumacher are among the best of the best and choosing between one of them is very tough. I also voted Schumacher just now.

          4. Schumacher was always better and senna knee it as well

    2. Or maybe they were, but the fact that they were up against Schumacher just made them appear poorer drivers than they where….

      The idea that there was no ‘real’ competition for nearly a decade just leaves me baffled… the idea that all the top teams only hired mediocre drivers is just daft….

      Anyway I am off to think about this one, because everything I have heard about Clark and the documentaries and bits of race footage I have seen suggest that he is certainly a contender for the greatest driver of all time, 3 seasons of finishing on the podium every time his car didn’t break down is just astounding.

      1. Or maybe they were, but the fact that they were up against Schumacher just made them appear poorer drivers than they where….

        Exactly. The Football League Championship/League 1/League 2 is usually percieved to be closer, and more “competitive” than the Premiership, but does that mean they are better than top and midfield Premiership teams?

        1. Great point. The fact that people say Schumacher had no competitors is laughable. He was just miles better.

    3. http://vimeo.com/4228678
      check that video out to learn a lot about him and check out Wikipedia on him. A fantastic guy. Won in almost anything he started or finished on podium (unless there was a car failure or rare crash)

    4. Exactly. My vote is for Clark too, purely because Schumacher didn’t have the same class of opponent and certainly no competition from team mates which devalues his amazing statistics.

      As an aside, if there are 2 words I can’t stand it’s “fanboys” and “haters”, which both seem to litter any Schumacher or Hamilton comments section.

      1. Very well put oweng although the order seems out as hamilton = fanboys & schuf = haters

        1 Fangio 2 Jimmy 3 the rest

      2. When you are the best nobody is in your class can’t blame him that he was so good

    5. Enigma, Schumi raced against Senna,so now Senna was no good in your opinion?

      You talk rubbish.

      Schumi will always be the best unless something supremely special will happen,and that looks unlikely in the short term at least.

  5. “Schumacher was beaten by a team mate for the first time in his career last year.”

    Second, if we count 1999 although we all agree that missing six races made it impossible to surpass Irvine in WDC.

    1. Oh and as the vote goes: Clark. Faced better teammates than Schu in much less reliable and relatively slower car.

      1. Trevor Taylor and Mike Spence. Legends… Never heard of them.

        1. How about Graham Hill? ever heard of him?

        2. Never heard of them? And you call yourself an F1 fan? How disrespectful.

          1. As disrespectful as those who claim Schumacher had no competition.

        3. Graham Hill’s not to be sniffed at. How many of Schumacher’s team-mates have been world champions, let along double world champions?

          Who’s the best team-mate Schumacher’s ever had?

        4. And I know Piquet was a team-mate, but it was right at the start of his career.

          1. At the start of his career,just like Vettel was last year,so now you can right Vettel off also as he is at the start of his career.

            One minute you are saying Schumi was too young then in the next breath you are saying he is too old.

      2. Cyclops_PL says:January 24, 2011 at 12:52pm
        If Hamilton wins it, that would be the ultimate proof of F1 Fanatic’s viewers bias towards that driver.

        3 titles vs 1

        So shouldnt you be voting Schumacher?

        7 titles v 2

  6. I feel schumachers brilliance was excentuated by a very dominant team and weak teammates.


    1. How have his teamates been weak? One of them was a 3x world champion and another is still in the sport after nearly 20 years. :)

      1. Well that three time world champion had…


  7. In the end I voted for Clark.
    Even though Schumi has more WDCs to his name.
    Their win rates and points per finish are almost the same, Clark had the disadvantage of having his car break down a lot more.
    Schumacher is very special, I loved seeing him in his earlier years with Bennetton and dragging that lump of a Ferrari to unlikely victories.
    Then again, Clark won over the only guy who took the triple crown. Stewart still says he was the best and fastest driver he knows, so he was just as special a driver, I gather.

    At this level Schumi’s cheating aura of running into Hill and JV, parking it in Rascasse and almost driving off Barrichello as well as having several questionable FIA desicions helping him/his team getting away with cheating makes me choose Clark over Schumi.

    1. I agree. In terms of driving stature, both are legends and have few people to compare to them. Both deserve to be considered the best of the best.

      But in terms of who was a better champion there’s only one choice.

  8. true, the tire wars robbed us of a straight battle between schumacher and alonso, and senna was arguably already past his best in 93.

    1. 2006 seemed to be quite a straight battle to me. In fact, with a little assistance from the FIA, it actually looked like Schumacher had the upper hand.

      Senna wasn’t really past his best in 94 and 94. If Senna had completed the 94 season, he would have beaten Schumi pretty easily.

      1. *93 and 94

      2. disagree! and actually stats back it up.
        schumacher and senna had similar results in 92 and 93, schumacher even beat senna in points in his first full season, in a lesser car. come on people!

        1. Senna was plagued by failures in the 92 season. I do believe senna would have won the 94 season if he’d have lived

        2. Not really. Senna was the only guy to take the fight to the superior Williams to some extent with his 3 wins. No one else not driving for Williams won more than once. Could’ve been more wins too if not for many failures. Schumacher’s Spa win was a complete fluke, he wasn’t even close to Senna that season. In 1993 Senna took 5 wins in that weak-engined Mclaren, only 2 less than Prost in his superior Williams and 2 more than Hill in the same Williams.Senna was even leading the championship at some point which everyone said was a real stroke of genius against such opposition. Schumacher? One win in Portugal gifted to him by Prost(great race by Schumi though). So, in 1993 they weren’t even on the same planet.
          in the beginning of 1994, Senna’s Williams was faster in qualy but the Benetton was more stable and hence faster in race trim. Nevertheless still Senna was leading all three races, and would’ve walked that championship once Williams sorted their problems. Even Hill almost won that year, but for Schumacher’s cheating.
          That’s by the way one of the reasons it’s Clark hands down for me in this one: All the drivers of the 60’s had utmost respect for Clark. All bar none considered him the best driver, not one had a bad word to say about him. Clark was a great champion and a great gentleman and ambassador of the sport. Whereas Schumacher, well…

          1. Schumacher’s Spa win was a complete fluke, he wasn’t even close to Senna that season.

            How was it a fluke? He beat the superior Williams on that day fair and square. Just face it, Schumacher was 3rd in 1992, Senna 4th.

          2. fact is that the senna x schumacher battle in 94 had the potential to be the most exciting ever. to say schumacher beat hill by one point is to show ignorance of the sport. fia was totally trying to make the 94 season interesting and took way 36 points from schumacher, basically.

          3. to David A: The Spa win would have never happened unless Schumi was stuck behind team-mate Brundle, got on the grass, decided to take a risky strategy that otherwise he would not have adopted. Beat the superior Williams fair and square? give me a break. Schumacher was only 3 in WDC ’cause of Mclaren’s awful reliability. If we go race by race the 1992 season and analyse it you’ll see that what you’ve said is ignorant.

            to magon4: to state only the fact that the FIA took 36 points off Schumacher without mentioning all the other things that happened is either ignorance or deceit.
            Here’a some points to consider:Firstly, you seem to think that Schumacher got all of those 36 points nicked unjustly, but some of those punishments were clear breach of the rules,and that’s even without the accusations of alleged use of TC by Benetton. Secondly, you seem to forget how big is the difference in speed between Senna and Hill, in the first three races of 1994 Hill managed only 4th. 3rd, 3rd in qualy with average gap to Senna of almost 1sec,all this on tracks with small laptimes! Thirdly you can safely assume that Williams’ rate of development would have been considerably greater with Senna, than with Hill, only 2 years in formula 1 at the time. So Todfod’s opinion that Senna would’ve walked it in 1994 has much merit. Unfortunately we would never know.

          4. The problem is, that the defences I see here in favour of Schumacher are based on fact. Things we actually saw. In the 1992 Belgian Grand Prix, Schumacher clearly did beat everyone fair and square. Who cares if he adopted a different strategy? He took that risk and earned the reward.

            The defences here for Senna are based on what could have or should have happened. Wishful thinking, but certainly not fact. He had what was a faster car than the Benetton, that just happened to be a bit more fragile. But he happened to finish 4th, only one point ahead of his teammate.

          5. David A if your idea of beating everyone is to be stuck behind your team-mate(the not so great Brundle),running off the track, having no-choise but to go on the risky strategy , having the weather gods rule in your favour, and then having the superior Williams’ who wouldve catched him easily having technical problems, then I’ve got nothing more to say except read this article and learn:http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr528.html

            Looking at the end of season stats table only was always the wrong method of judging performance. Anyone who saw the season knows the real score.

          6. It’s still unfair to write off his win a fluke. Schumacher had to put in a damn good drive to be able to win. The Williams drivers did not respond quickly to the conditions, and the main reason for them catching Schumacher before technical issues was the superior machinery they had in the first place.

            Ahh, well, at least Schumacher beat his opposition 90 other times, i’d like to see you call them flukes.

          7. The drive was good but it would have got him 3rd place at best. The fact that he won is the very definition of a fluke. And what his other 90 wins have to do with anything? This discussion is about the misleading rubbish magon4 was talking above in his post which I maintain is complete nonsense, and anyone who saw the 1992-93 seasons will agree. But hey. like driver like fanboy, all means accepted to win, even though it’s just a poll that doesn’t really mean anything, right magon4? Schumi would be proud

          8. We’ll have to agree to disagree on it being a fluke. Magon’s statement of “ignorance of the sport” is incorrect IMO, but Hill wasn’t robbed of anything, as so many people suggest. 1994 was to be a fight between Schumacher and Senna. Senna may have ended up on top that year, but it is stretching reality to suggest that he would have won four championships in a row against Michael (as it was suggested).

      3. If Senna had completed the 94 season, he would have beaten Schumi pretty easily.

        Indeed, since Schumacher could only score in 12 races.

        1. And Schumacher would have won another title in 1999 easily if he hadn’t broken his leg.

          1. His drive in Malaysia ’99 was proof of that… he just played with everyone!

    2. I totally agree with you. About the tires and Senna. The same to Prost in 93.
      More, I think Schumacher best years were from 96 to 2003. After that he was not at the top of his game. In 2004 he just had a super car.

      1. Yes but the fact that BAR finished second in the championship tells us that the tires made all the difference in that season

  9. this is not nice.
    jim clark is fantastic and he’ll get tons of votes ALSO because brits don’t really like schumacher.
    but schumacher is pretty unique and probably also a tad better than clark, so come one people, don’t throw schumi out now, that would really discredit this competition!

    1. Well, I’m not British but I still go for Clark. And I’d have to say, don’t throw Jim out, because that would really discredit this competition!

    2. I’m German and I voted for Clark. And this whole “they’re only voting for driver XYZ because he’s British” argument is really starting to get old. There are always going to be people out there who favor a driver because of his nationality, but that doesn’t mean the majority of fans do so.

      1. agreed marucat,
        but i’m afraid that part of this might be decided by who you like better, since the level is so similar.
        and schumacher will definetly lose any popularity contest…

      2. Well said Marucat.

    3. Discredit this competition? A bit like Schumacher discredited F1 with some of his actions? Clark never did anything like this, moreover he wasn’t even a hair’s breadth less good than Schumacher. No British favouritism there(I’m not British btw) just (poetic) justice if Schumi gets kicked out.

    4. You mean like Piquet vs Mansell? :P

  10. Clark was, without doubt, brilliant. And this is not meant to reflect badly on him His driving was immense and he may have won many more WDC’s, but unfortunately, as we know, he was taken before his time.

    However, 7 world championships just cannot be ignored (no matter how dominant or bullet-proof his cars may have been) And I don’t think I’ve ever seen another driver put in so many hot laps when he absolutely had to.

    We knew we’d have tough decisions during the latter stages of this tournament; this is only the first of many!

    My vote goes to Schumacher (just)


  11. I would have to go for Clark, The biggest racing talent that even lived, for me. Maybe only matched by Senna. Schumacher is obviously one of the 4,5 best ever, but Clark and Senna are my personal top 2.

    So Jim Clark it is.

  12. SennaNmbr1 (@)
    25th January 2011, 18:46

    No contest. Clark.

  13. just a clarifier:
    schumacher won his first title with a car as good as the williams, maybe even a tad worse (look at the 2nd driver’s results).
    he helped build ferrari to a competitive team, already in his first and second seasons, and the championships that followed are a consequence of his hard work.
    the title in 2000 was incredible, with him winning the last races to take the title from hakkinen.
    don’t say he had it easy, he worked for every bit of it.
    and senna was fast in qualifying, schumacher drove qualifying laps in races!

  14. I don’t like schumacher, but he is the best ever. So I voted for him.

    1. i feel similarly. i guess i like him a little more than you do. but i would vote schumacher over senna, and i’m brazilian.

  15. My first vote for Mr Schumi from Canada !!

  16. but i do agree that jim clark is a legend and should get to be in the semis… clark, schumi, senna and fangio…

  17. Jim Clark is in my opinion the greatest driver of all time. It’s unfortunate for Schumacher because apart from Clark I only rate Prost and Senna higher than him. Unfortunately with the draw one of them has to go out.

    Clark was an absolute one off, if his car didn’t let him down he nearly always finished on the podium and 25 wins from 70 odd starts is pretty unbelievable. He could drive anything and make it go fast. Having seen footage and documentaries, added to the fact that Stewart and Graham Hill both rated him as the best of that time (and they are both greats too) I feel he is a greater champion than Schumacher.

    To magon 4 and any others, this vote will become very boring very quickly if people who vote for Clark are accused of doing so because he is British and Schumacher is German. If this was done purely by stats then yes Schumacher would win but they do not tell the full story.

    Schumacher was by far the best of his era, but his competition was limited after Senna died and he arrived too late to compete against Prost, Mansell, Piquet etc. Then there is his incredibly questionable racing ethics and morals, which sure I’m most people will agree were simply not on. Three massive incidents in his career, and then Barrichello this season. Therefore I vote Clark.

    1. i agree with you, actually.
      but i do think that schumacher does not get the credit he deserves.
      if you look at schumachers and senna’s careers, you will see that the german is actually the greater driver because he achieved more with less.
      senna had 3 years of lotus, the number 3 car on the grid, but had to move to mclaren to become champion. schumacher started at benetton with the number 4 car and helped make it number 1 by 1995.
      when senna couldn’t win championships for mclaren anymore, he moved to williams.
      schumacher did the opposite and went to a struggling ferrari.
      i know this is not a senna x schumacher contest, i’m just using the example to show that the german has merits beyond driving – career choices and hard work with the team. it might sound strange, but the german is more a team worker than the brazilian.
      clark is fantastic, but the comparisons are strange, generally.

      1. It’s an interesting point you raise. In my opinion Schumacher’s best years were in the period you mentioned, winning his titles with Benetton and then slowly turning Ferrari into a contender again. That ’96 Ferrari was an absolute dog, I remember Irvine barely finishing a race and yet Schumacher won three times in it! In a sense those 5 straight titles were his reward for taking a massive chance and moving to Ferrari. You are probably correct that everyone got so bored of Schumacher winning everything in sight that they forget the massive risk and hard work he had to put in to get to that point.

        I think that Senna was in a sense very fortunate to have other fantastic drivers to compete against in his time, this only adds to his legacy that he went to Mclaren and beat the top man in Alain Prost. They brought out the best in each other.

        Schumacher never had an equal like that, like Clark didn’t and I’m not sure whether in the case of Schumacher if it is because because he was so much better than everyone else or that the competition was not as strong. Stewart, Hill and Brabham were all multiple champions and around in the time of Clark, and yet none of them could touch him when his car didn’t break. Therefore although I agree with what you are saying to some extent I still think Clark is slightly better.

  18. schumacher for me, thou clark is one of the greatest

  19. Both Legends of the Sport, Clark is up there for sure but I voted for Schumacher. Just looking at all the record in Formula 1 Schumacher holds about 70% of them.

    Murray Walker the voice of Formula 1.

  20. Champion of Champions…….hmmmm…..got to be Schumacher. If I were choosing the best ‘driver’, then it probably wouldn’t be either of them.

  21. Schumacher built up Ferrari from midfield runners back to the top of F1. Tyres, competiton and resources aside, that is no small achievement, and neither is 7 WDC’s. When the car was fast and reliable enough to go all the way, he took it all the way, and in the end, thats all you can do, even shining through with lesser machiery.

    However, as far as outright speed, the one and only person that can compare with Clark is Senna, and the guy was – in my opinion – the best driver in the history of the sport. Why? Schumacher had an equal in Hakkinnen, Senna’s peer was Prost. Nobody, absolutely nobody in Clark’s time could claim to be his equal, the one guy that could not make a mistake. He couldnt understand why everyone was so slow and nobody could explain just why he was so fast.

    Schumi’s 7 WDC’s seem like a trump card against Clark’s 2, but if you consider the rate at which Clark collected poles, and the fact that he won half the races he finished, its simply astonishing. Only beaten by the great Fangio who picked and choosed cars in his career, Clark could climb into any car and be fast. An Indy 500, 2nd in class at Le Mans and a BTCC championship testify to this. Even in his one NASCAR start Clark qualified 24th after a wheel came off and got to 12th in the race before the engine gave up on him.

    Speed TV also did an interesting extrapolation of Clarks results, making his career as long as Schumis (after 1st retirement). Clark had 7WDC’c, more poles and fastest laps. Schumacher won 4 or 5 more races, with a vastly superior reliabilty.

    Clark led every lap of the British GP over a four year period, amongst other amazing performances, and even in death, nobody even questioned that the car failed Jim, rather than the other way round. IN Jackie Stewart’s words – “not Jimmy, anyone but Jimmy”. No death ever left as large a hole in F1 until Imola 1994.

    And that is why Clark is a superior champion to Schumacher.

    1. This is the aformentioned Jim Clark tribute on Speed TV


  22. The best f1 driver ever to have lived is up there and i voted for him schumi all you have to look at is the 7 world championships.

  23. i think if you look at pure talent, clark is in front. He was also a more decent racer, but that has to do with the different era as well.
    On the other hand schumi was very close to him on talent, and his working method was better. But that’s just because the sport evolved a lot since the 60’s.
    The way he was able to put together a group of people at ferrari and the overwelming difference in numbers, pushes me towards the german.
    But like in precedent champions, i didn’t see clark race, so i didn’t have the chance to see his magic. And i saw schumacher since the begining. And even if i hated his dominance in the ferrari years, i must admit that he is in front. But very close.
    The top five i think it’s just a matter of feeling, and live experiences. They are all gods.

  24. Here’s a great film about Jim Clark…

    …and here’s one about Schumacher.

    1. Hey Bullfrog thanks, and what a contrast. Reinforces my vote for Clark.

    2. Pick the best of Clark and the worst of Schumacher, real fair, Bull.


    3. Ah Bullfrog, I see we are on the same page again. I hadn’t seen this comment, but i’d already posted the same link.

      Fantastic documentary, wonderfully filmed and great insight into who Clark was.

      (race you to posting the stewart one..!)

  25. My vote is for Clark, especially when you consider the caliber of drivers that he had to deal with…..Stewart, Surtees, Hill, and a man who unfortunaley never beacame a world champion, but the finest and best driver that America has produced….. Dan Gurney.

  26. Going to vote for Schumacher, as soon as I will retrieve my password.
    I still think that Schumacher uncorrect moves are…enlarged. I don’t think he’s been much worst than many other great champions.
    Vote for Schumi even if I consider Jim amongst the greatest four or five ever. He’s in Fangio, Senna, Stewart and Prost number…

  27. Separating these last 8 drivers is going to be a Herculean effort.

    Schumacher just gets the nod from me. The only reason I can see where Michael scores over Jim is regarding their team-mate. Both always had no.1 status over their team-mates. But Jim even had more than 4-5 team-mates in a calendar year. It seems that Jim’s WDC was more important than Lotus’s WCC. I don’t think that was ever the case with Michael.

  28. i voted for schumey mostly becasue i never saw clark race, but i expected this to be close but i dnt think i expected clark to be winning, itd be nice if he did tho, not a huge fan of schumey despite his dominance

  29. This is very difficult. I have to go for Schumacher though, he was the best driver in F1 for a whole decade

  30. Sorry Jim, a compatriot and a god, but…

    They say its hard to win back to back championships, but Schumacher did it twice, in fact he won a string of 5. Not only that, but he did it after helping develop 2 teams from midfield into winners, and dominators in Ferrari’s case.

    One of the best, if not THE best, drivers Jim Clark may be… but this is about champions.

  31. To make this comparison fair , one might have to consider how each other would have done in each others era. MS in a tube car ,fragile as they were , might have taken it to Clark. I wonder if it were the other way around would Clark have been good enough to challenge MS at his best?? I think it is easier to think that going back to the early days would yield somewhat better results with todays drivers. The modern driver is better fit, better trained and has access to many more forms of technology that can only enhance any particular drivers abilities. It is my opinion that Jim Clark racing today would not be able to match MS if he were able to somehow go forword in time. Sorry to Jim Clark . He was the best when I was a kid but Schumacher is still the better of the two overall. I have a feeling that MS will stun everybody in 2011. The parts to the puzzle seem to be falling into place…

    1. Dude, the things you say are TOTALLY irrelevant. We’are judging TALENT.

      If Clark drove today, he would’ve received the same training etc. Use some logic.

      1. Being a champion requires more than “talent”, otherwise Raikkonen and Montoya would be multiple world champions. It requires hard work and dedication, factors that Schumacher can’t be rivalled in.

        1. Jim Clark is a hell of a lot better than Raikkonen and Montoya.

          1. Anyone with sense can see that natural talent is not the only factor in becoming a Champion, which was quite clearly my point.

  32. Statistics alone, can never tell the full story. Clark was as dominant in the 60s as Schumacher was in the first half of the 00’s. I don’t like mental games, but he was very close to get 2 more championships in ’62 and ’64. In an era where Lotus was indeed the fastest but also the most fragile. His performances in Indy 500, something he had no experience before, really highlights the natural talent he possesed. It is just not fair we lost Clark before he could compete against Stewart, but there was no driver during his time that could be anything close in terms of skills and performance. There’s also Schumacher antics that prevented me from voting for him. Clark gets my vote.

    1. you’re being unfair to schumi in one point. his domination started in 94 (before that, he was the most promising newcomer; remember his first f1 weekend at spa?), and it went until 2006 inclusive.
      no one was better than him, not even alonso or mika, or kimi, or jacques.

      1. Damon Hill was no better than him and still made him sweat to win the WDC in 1994 … and then Alonso beat him fair and straight in 2006. But you are right stating that Shumacher had really no contest. I mean beating Barichello, Coulthard and Montoya really doesn’t say much about him, does it?

        1. Hill got close in 1994 thanks to the dubious penalties dished out to MSC. 1995 was clear proof of this. Schumacher had top class drivers to beat throughout his years, and often did so.

          1. Proof of Schumacher’s ability btw.

          2. That’s right, but he was also lucky not to be expelled from the 94′ championship with the rest of the Benetton team for what happened in Germany that unveiled that they were cheating when refuling, getting unfair advantage in pits. The top drivers you are mentioning, besides those that I have already highlighted were his brother Ralf, Button, Raikkonen and the one that finally beat him fair and straight: Alonso.

          3. There was also a 20 time race winner called Mika Hakkinen.

  33. Go shumi!!!!
    you are the best drive ever!!!
    Go Shumi!!!

  34. Close, but I went for Jimmy. Looking at the percentages, achieving that much in just 72 starts and still having 30% mechanical failure rate – incredible! But for me, the most fascinating thing about Clark has to be that he finished second in a F1 race just once his career.

  35. For all my respect for Clark, Schumacher is from another level.
    Unfortunately I expect Clarke to win because of his descent and his “James Dean” type of myth.

  36. Clark the best of all time. IMO.
    This could of easily been the final.
    But still Clark.

  37. Holy God it’s even after I voted for Clark. :D

  38. Its really difficult to judge… both were the best in their era. But I will vote for schummi just because of his constantly good results through more than 10 seasons, in bad and good cars.

  39. wow they’re 100-101 now! XD

  40. Schumacher.

  41. This is so close – as evidenced by the current scores (106 each).

    Went for Clark in the end. Agree with the comments about how much he achieved in just 72 races, plus the success at Indy, and the raw speed he displayed in so many different categories.

  42. A lot of people will say Clark even though they never saw him race and probably say something about the standard of drivers and the difficulties of driving the cars in those days, etc.

    Valid points. But does no-one ever stop to consider in these comparison that (in this case) Schumacher might have been just as good or better, were he born in the same era? Or that Clark wouldn’t have been able to work the complications of modern machinery as well? For instance, Schumacher was a master at adjusting brake bias, doing it several times a lap sometimes to get the absolute maximum.

    By the way, Graham Hill, so good Keith named him twice? ;-)

    1. It’s pretty irrelevant to mention Clark not being able to handle modern machinery, just as much as we will never know how Schumacher would have done in the ’60’s. You can only look at how they did against their contemporaries in their respective eras, and decide from there.

  43. Shumi leads by 1

  44. I see two things that make it extremely difficult to compare the two drivers:

    1) Length of career.
    2) Era.

    Clark was definitely dominant, but his career was sadly cut short. Would he have been able to continue the dominance? We can’t know. Schumacher had/has a very lengthy career. He dominated nearly all of it (aside from last year of course).

    It is always tough to compare different eras. How do you gauge relative competition, different rules, etc.? Very tough.

    For me, I voted for Schumacher, but just. This matchup could easily have been the final, or at least a semi-final, in my opinion.

  45. % car failures2 29.17
    Modern points per finish 16.45

    Finished on the podium in every race where his car didn’t break down over the next three seasons.

    I had to find some justification.

  46. This is the final in my eyes. The two drivers i have always rated above the rest in F1 history. Schumacher has it by a nose. Took me a hell of alot of thinking to vote against my fellow Scot Jimmy Clark who was a gem of a driver. Dont get bigger complements than Graham Hill and Jackie Stewart sayingg you were the best ever. But the 8 time champ wins it for me. To me its a crime this is the 3rd round, these two should NEVER have met before the semi finals. Not many people would consider either of these guys outside there top 4 of all time

    1. You have rated them above the rest in history, including Senna?
      Come on.

      1. He’s entitled to his opinion, whichis shared by plenty of other people.

      2. Schumi’s not quite an 8-time champ (not yet, anyway), but I see where mrgrieves is coming from. My dream matchup would probably be Fangio vs. Schumacher, though.

        And yes, I rate both of them above Senna.

  47. I never liked Schumacher and I never will. But he is the greatest, and I tell you why:
    For a start. Schumacher won 4 out of his 7 WC’s in 2nd or 3rd best cars. Do you remember 1994, 1995, 2000, or perhaps in most recent memory 2003?
    When Schumacher won the WDC in 1995, he left to Ferrari. I thought this was a huge mistake. He easily could’ve won another WDC or two. But he took the on challenge. He won 3 GP’s in a car Ivrine couldn’t score points with. In 1997 Williams had a car in wcich I could become a champion. The fact that Schumacher easily beat frentzen and nearly Villeneuve amazes me. Stupid rule changes caused Mclaren domination in 1998 while previous to that. Schumacher was leading Hakkinen. In 1999, Ivrine nearly beat Hakkinen, if it wasn’t for the broken leg. Michael would almost certainly won the title.
    Michael never had a teammate that could take him (regardless Rosberg). He was occassionally more then a second per lap faster then Herbert, Ivrine, Barichello or even Massa (see china). His greatest Victory is China 2006 IMO. Why? Becuase the Bridgestones were some 3-4 seconds per lap slower than Mchelin. He was at one point 25 seconds behind Alonso. Did he ever give up? I’d never thought he would win until he passed Fisi. Showing he is the one and only true rainmaster.

    Sorry Jim, I you were a great man. This should’ve been the final :(

    1. From what I remember the 2000 Mclaren and Ferrari were pretty evenly matched, the same going for ’03 too. And in my opinion the ’94 Benetton was a stronger overall package than the Williams, and of course there’s the continual rumours they were cheating and using traction control.

      In ’95 I’m a bit undecided as to whether Hill and Coulthard did a rubbish job with an excellent car, but don’t forget Herbert won more races than DC that year (albeit after Hill had taken Schumacher out both times) so the Benetton was still a very good car, particularly as it had the same Renault V10 as the Williams.

      1. In 2003. The Mclaren and Ferrari were even.
        But if I remember correctly. BMW-Williams was faster then both Mclaren or Ferrari. Ralf and Juahno lost the tittle because of they’re own mistakes.
        1995 IMO the Williams was slightly better. It came down to drivers skill. And Schumacher vs Hill is no real contest :)

  48. It’s not aonly a question of how many wins, but the manner in which the wins were achieved. Clark had more grace and talent than Schu could ever hope to possess. Also Clark won in everything he drove, F1, Indy car, Tasman, salons and did it with quite still and grace. For those who are not aware of hoe great a talent Clark was please to a little research- I think you will find there is so much more to a champion than just wins.

  49. Clark… They are both pretty similar on terms of skill and driving ability… But Jimmy was a much better sporting person, not tainted unlike Schumacher

  50. that`s a good one! go Jim

  51. Got to be Schumi!!! Registered just to vote for this as it’s going to be aclose one! Whilst Clark was undoubtedly a genius his early death didn’t allow him to fulfil that potential and you can’t be certain that his next ten seasons (if he’d had them) would have been as impressive asthe races ge did get. Whereas Schumi dominated the sport the entire time he raced (forgetting 2010 of course!). I appreciate people saying that Schumacher had no greats to prove himself against but that is more of a reflection on his ability than the skills of his competitors. If Schumacher hadn’t been so dominant we might rate hill, villeneuve, hakkinen et al more highly. Finally whilst Schumacher may have had some luck in getting a great team behind him and some great cars to drive so did most of the other champions under consideration here. It’s rarely about just the driver, but always about the driver the car and the team working with them. Conversely, how many mediocre drivers have excelled in a great car but faded when faced with a dog the next year? Schumacher has driven and won in both good and bad cars…. Anyway rant over!!!

  52. My very first vote against absolute stats (points per start/points per finish) no matter how I feel about the drivers involved. Tough choice between these two. But it has to be Clark. The very best don’t have to resort to dodgy tactics (parking it on the very last lap of quali at Monaco; squeezing rivals up against the wall). I’m not old enough to have seen Clark race, but I wish I was.

    1. Maybe you havent noticed, but the points per finish favour Clark.

    2. What, like Prost/Senna in Japan? I don’t mean to be harsh, but in your view neither Senna or Schumacher count as part of the very best F1 has ever seen? Come on, this is the difference between a winner and an also ran. DC has said it himself many times (and Martin Brundle too) they were too nice to be WDCs, they didn’t have that killer streak that would push them to do things that pushed at the boundaries of the sport.

  53. There might be a case to say that Schumacher’s opposition wasn’t as close to him in ability as Clark’s. But was it ability that was lacking from the drivers on track with him?

    I don’t think so. I think the perceived difference between him and his adversaries, was the result of his level of involvement in the actual development of his car. Schumacher was not the first driver to be very clear on what he wanted from his car and trying to steer his team in that direction. But in the kind of environment where going off and setting up your own team is not really a financially viable option, he is probably the first to get himself so ingrained in the very foundations of the team as to become effectively a policy maker. Not just a driver who gives feedback on how to make the car provided as fast as it goes, but an actual decision maker on how that car was designed. Schumacher made sure he had the car to do the best he could do, while everyone else tried to do the best they could with what the car they had. It is no coincidence that it is Alonso who had taken note, who successfully challenged him and is now hailed by Ferrari as the true successor to Schumacher.

    My vote goes to Schumacher, who showed that hard work goes beyond just driving and giving feedback and doing some fitness training. And that if you are willing to put in the work for the team, everyone else is willing to work for you and the rewards are yours to reap.

  54. Mark in Florida
    25th January 2011, 23:02

    I thought this was a vote for the best F1 driver regardless of likes or dislikes.Michael will never win a popularity contest he is too polarizing to most people.However if you look objectively at it Schumacher is simply the best driver that has been in F1.People do not deserve our votes based on who they are but on what they have accomplished.

    1. Look up about Jim Clark. Then you might understand why people have voted for him. He was a genius.

      1. And look up at Ral’s comment, to see that Schumacher was another truely groundbreaking genius.

        1. I’ve read the comment and it still doesn’t change my opinion about the standard of Schumacher’s contemporaries, regarding their levels of talent. Schumacher was more talented and more hard working than any of them, which combined to make him so dominant.

          Schumacher’s competitors for titles and consistent race wins over his career were Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Coulthard, Montoya, Raikkonen, Barrichello and Alonso. How many of them would get into a top 10 of all time? None in my book. Alonso possibly top 15-20 and Hakkinen at a push maybe top 20. Then we have Raikkonen somewhere outside that, and the rest are nowhere in the grand scheme of things.

          Don’t tell me as some people on here have tried to reason that without Schumacher being around these guys would be considered all time greats because they simply wouldn’t. The amount of mistakes drivers like Hill, Villeneuve and even Hakkinen (Imola and Monza ’99 anyone) made means despite being quick and world champions they are not true greats of the sport.

          Schumacher’s dominance of course counts for something and that is why rate him in my top 5 but it is not the whole story.

          1. I agree that they are regarded as greats of the sport. However, the impression that they lacked talent is created by the fact that Schumacher dominated F1. So actually, without Schumacher making them look poor, they would have been fiercely competing for the world championships that MSC did win. Their all-time status would have bee elevated from what it actually is.

            People like Hakkinen made mistakes, but who is to say that drivers of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s didn’t make similar errors that are merely overlooked?

        2. It won’t let me reply below so I’ve replied up here again.

          I’m sorry but I still don’t buy it. If Schumacher raced in the era of Senna, Prost, Mansell, Lauda and Piquet or Clark, Stewart and Hill he would not have won seven world titles.

          If any of the above mentioned were in Schumacher’s era I could see similar levels of dominance by all except perhaps Piquet and Mansell.

          If Schumacher were not present in my opinion it would have been a bit like the period in the late 70’s to early 80’s where a lot of good but not great drivers took the title such as Hunt, Scheckter, Jones, Rosberg, maybe even Piquet to a certain extent, with no single person dominating year after year. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one :)

  55. First I thought it would be tough… But, statistics don’t like, 72 races, 25 wins, 32 podiums, 32 poles. OK, then take in to consideration 5 starts at Indy 500, 3 finishes – 1 win and 2 2nd places.

    Even though Schumacher is one of the best ever, he can’t beat Clark.

  56. Now come the tough choices for me. It wasn’t that long ago that Schumacher finally broke into my top five. I even have two non-WDC’s in my top ten.

    Clark won the Indy 500 the year I graduated from high school. 1964, 65, and ’66 he caught my attention in the U.S. mainly because of the Indy 500. Like most of us in the U.S., we were into American muscle cars. I didn’t start turning my attention to F1 and Chapman’s Lotuses, until news of Clark’s death hit the States.

    Schumacher hit F1 about the time I was transferred to England. With a cast of superstars which included Brawn and Byrne they started to kick butt and take names at Benetton. Then when the whole lot of them went to Ferrari, I rooted for them for a few years till I got fed up with them altogether.

    Still, I rate Schumacher higher than Clark – but just.

  57. deadlocked at 181 each! This should have been the final…

    1. Halfcolours (@)
      25th January 2011, 23:45

      182 a piece now! this one has really provoked some thought.

  58. HA! its tied.

  59. Clark’s taken the lead for the first time

  60. Clark, generally regarded by his very impressive peers as the best of the best, a life and career sadly cut short. We’ll never know what further heights he might have reached.
    Schumacher has amassed stats (and we’re lucky enough to watch him race still) that will probably never be equaled. Tough choice, and the closest race so far. I had to go for Clark.

    1. Btw … for the last few rounds, I was otherwise logged in, but for some reason I couldn’t post my vote. I generated a new password to get in on this one. So close! Jimmy by 2 at the moment!

  61. Michael Schumacher :)

  62. 1998-199 OMFG.

    When does this poll close?

  63. Wow… close! I voted for Jim Clark… partially on the strength of Jackie Stewarts comments about him.

  64. The battle of the Top 8 will be epic, I feel that Clark should have been paired with Senna. Still Clark have a good record given the time he was & he have a good percentage over Schumacher & had greater number of car faliure. & Who know where he would have ended his career if he didn’t had that tragic accident?Interestingly The Times recently placed Clark at the top of a list of the greatest Formula One drivers.

  65. OOOOH tie vote!

  66. jsw11984 (@jarred-walmsley)
    26th January 2011, 3:32

    Right now, 4:31pm Wednesday NZ time (3:31am England time) the score is 225 – Schumacher and 226 – Clark.

    I think this will be the closest yet

  67. 226-227, that’s mighty close!

  68. I think that anyone who votes for Schumacher is simply too young to have seen Clark drive. Schumacher is hands down the hardest working driver to win a WDC, but the best or most talented? No, Not close. Sorry.

  69. In addition, Clark was a quiet, self-effacing gentleman who would never have taken anyone off the road to win. MS has no class what so ever.

    1. Same can be said for Senna.

      1. Hey let’s put the record straight.
        Schumachers honesty and german naivness has stamped him arrogant since the very beginning… but actually, he was just to dumb to be political and answered journalist’s questions just straight forward.
        The move against Hill in 94 was the cleanest dirty move in history, Hill champion in 94 would have totally discredited F1.
        The move on Villeneuve in 97 was horrible and ruined a fantastic season for him. But that’s about it.
        The move against Barichello was at the limit, but, as he said, “thats racing”.

        1. You can defend his actions all you like and say Hill wouldn’t have deserved the title, which is probably correct. However there is absolutely no excuse for what he did, just as there isn’t for Senna in 1990.

          The fact remains that if Damon Hill had finished ahead of Schumacher in Adelaide he would have been world champion and Schumacher drove into him to prevent that happening. How is that clean?

          The move on Villeneuve was a disgrace,
          you’re also forgetting Monaco ’06 when he decided to park it at Rascasse to stop Alonso’s lap, and that move on Barrichello was way over what is now acceptable in F1.

          They’re not exactly one off incidents either.

  70. This was the hardest vote for me yet. Clark was brilliant in everything he drove. And as long as the car held together, he finished higher than 3rd on average. However all said and done, Clark drove for Lotus during one of their most dominant periods, while Schumacher was partly responsible for bringing Ferrari back to a dominant position.

    It has to be Schumacher for me. He defined the modern F1 driver.

  71. A extremely tough decision The great driver of my youth against the thinking calculated superior race driver. How I wish this was the final 2 and not still round 3

  72. in general, people tend to forget the numerous legendary drives schumacher has had, and reduce him to a good car, no competition and good pit stop strategy.
    Spa 1995, Barcelona 1996, Nurburgring (I don’t remember the year); even his qualifying performance in Spa 91, his first race with a really crappy car, was simply astonishing. not to mention his many spa and monaco wins, which are really drivers circuits.
    Even his “last” race in 2006, in Interlagos, was an incredible tribute to his talent.
    Alonso did beat him in 2005 and 2006, but he also had the better car. And I do think Alonso is a Top Ten of all time driver.
    Just another quick comment: I don’t think there has been so much quantity in quality as today. Rosberg, Sutil, Vettel, Hamilton, Button (great with tyres), Alonso, Schumacher, Kubica… and the list goes on. Give me any other season with this quantity of high talent!

  73. Clark

    “Finished on the podium in every race where his car didn’t break down over the next three seasons”

    Thats enough .

    1. if you think about it, rabbit, this would be unthinkable today. and you know why? because at the time, if you were rich and had connections, you could be a f1 driver. in other words, only a handful were really great drivers.
      if anyone were to always get to the podium in this era (something that schumacher was able to do for some years), we would say it’s because of the car, never the driver.
      again: clark had some good competition, but most of all crap competition.
      clark was a genius, no doubt, a Top 4 for me. but the argument with the podiums just shows how different times were.

      1. Indeed. Also, Schumacher finished on the podium in every race in 2002. Full stop.

      2. Having read some of your previous comments on this thread Magon4 and concluded that you’re a Schumi fanboy who knows nothing about the history of the sport, I find this comment unsurprising. Mostly crap competition??? How do you dare saying that about G.Hill, Brabham,P.Hill, Surtees, Stewart, Rindt,Hulme, Gurney, Amon, Ginther, Siffert, P. Rodriguez, Bandini, Ickx, Mclaren, Bonnier, Beltoise?(and I apologize to any hero I forgot).

        Do you consider 2002 field better Journeyer? Who are better? Coulthard? Barrichello? Is it the same as having G.Hill as team-mate? Montoya and Raikkonen were the only worthy competition that season in a team that could at least give some small fight to f2002 superiority. That was definetely not the case in Clark’s era. Times change don’t you think, magon4?

  74. Oh Keith, man, this is a wicked pairing. I couldn’t decide for a long time, but I voted for Clark, because he was an immensely fast, incredibly talented racing driver and also a humble man.

    Statistically, Schumacher is leagues ahead, and his role in lifting the Ferrari team back to title-contention proves his greatness as a team leader.

    But for all that, Jim was a better sportsman, and I think a better driver as well. Some of his drives, like Monza ’67 and Spa ’63 were beyond comparison.

  75. Keith, I don’t know if you’re reading all the posts, but you need to start recording votes by login as opposed to IP+cookies. I read at home and at work, and can vote from both locations as if I’ve never voted before. Unless you value my opinion so much as to give me two votes to everyone else’s one of course, in which case I’m not complaining ;)

  76. It is important for such votes whether one has seen the driver racing or not. Most of the people on this forum have seen only Schumacher (me included) and hence we can’t imagine how good Clark was.
    I tried to abstract myself from what I’ve seen from Schumacher and really compare apples to apples. The facts are the stats and that Clark got killed and could not continue racing. If we imagine Schumacher in a similar situation they are very close, but Clark stands out by a few inches.

    Winning every 3rd race with a 3 times less reliable car – this is really great.

    1. the “seen” and “not seen” factor goes both ways. to make schumachers wins seem common and romanticize clark’s achievements…
      i mean, i’m a huge clark fan.
      if schumacher had won his 7 titles in the 60s, he’d be a legend too. but because his feat is so recent, people prefer to look at other things rather than pure achievements.
      the gutsiest decision ever by any f1 driver was to leave a benetton team he transformed into a winning car to go to the ferrari, at that time just an old myth.

  77. While it’s arguable whose achievements were greatest there can be no argument about the way they went about them.

    A lot of people vote for Schumacher because they don’t know any better. A lot for Clark because they do.

    It’s a shame that these votes don’t come with documentary previews (e.g. JIM CLARK: THE QUIET CHAMPION) so that more people get to know the man they are voting for/against.

    1. A lot of people vote for Schumacher because they don’t know any better. A lot for Clark because they do.

      Oh, please. People don’t agree with you so they don’t know better? Or maybe some of them watched the videos posted about Clark, researched about him before deciding to vote for Schumacher because they felt he was greater?

  78. Which was the better world champion driver?

    Looking quantitatively at the stats Schumacher.
    Looking qualitatively I would say Clark… I can’t imagine him wanting to win by parking at Monaco for example.

    Clark was the ‘better’ world champion driver, in my subjective opinion.

  79. well the voting started like any race in the 60’s, with clark pulling in front, and the rest behind. But after a few hours, with a little strategy and the overwhelming ferrari might( schumacher numbers) he got in front to win the race by a small marging.
    I think is understandable that schumacher won. When a person is killed you not only take what he’s got, but what he’s ever going to get.

    1. I don’t think the poll is closed yet, is it? If it’s still open, this is still anyone’s race to win.

  80. Only SCHUMI!!!!

  81. Hi all,

    I’ve been a regular site reader for a number of years but felt compelled to register so I can vote on this one.

    It was the death of Ayrton Senna that got me in to Formula 1 and since then have seen almost every race. Some of the performances MSC pulled off were simply incredible, whether it was wet weather or somehow pulling out an extra 1.5 seconds a lap on demand to make a strategy work.

    I was always a fan of Hill / Hakkinen / Raikkonen etc over Michael but you have to respect his talent.

    I’m only 28 so my interest in 60s racing came about through playing Grand Prix Legends for several years. Whenever the AI cars were racing it would always be Clark in his Lotus 49 followed by Hill, Gurney, Brabham etc until about half distance when both Lotuses (Lotii?) would drop out. The archive footage and Clarks finishing stats seem to suggest this was common.

    The Italian GP 1967 sums up Clark’s career for me:

    After suffering a puncture early on and having to pit Clark was lapped. He rejoined the race in 16th and set about unlapping himself. He did. Then he set about taking the lead. He did. Clark was first going into the final lap but bad luck struck again and he ran out of fuel. He had to settle for third but the performance alone was worthy of the top step on the podium.

    To choose between these two is tough, both dominated an era though the drivers of Clark’s era were possibly more highly regarded. Schumacher undoubtedly achieved more but had a longer career.

    In the end I had to go with Clark. He was almost universally respected by his peers and only his untimely death in 1968 robbed us of seeing Clark and Stewart going toe to toe in top cars over the following few years. I suspect Clark would have ended up matching Schumacher’s haul of titles had he lived.


    1. That feat shows how poor the competition must have been in those days, it would be completely impossible for any driver to do that nowadays.

  82. whilst not a huge Schumacher fan kr a Clark idoliser, I caanotnunderstabd the reasoning behind either not potentially going as far as Lewis hamilton in this competition.

    If he beats brabham, surely the competition would be somewhat devalued?


    1. Is that poll still open? Doesn’t Brabham already have that one won?

      Anyway, CofC is a contest decided by those who vote in it. It’s by no means a definitive answer to who is the #1 driver today. As much as I disagree with Lewis being better than Jack, it shouldn’t take away from the competition as a whole – if it were to happen.

  83. i voted for jim clark. the tale of the tape is where it’s at. clark had to race against his other competitors & team mates. admittedly, MS dragged ferrari from being also rans into title winners, however he never had in-team competition, making his championships that much easier.

    for JC to win just under half of the races where the car was classified as a finisher (72 races, 25 wins, 21 dnf’s) says it all.

    for the record, i was not a fan of MS during his ferrari stint, however i’ve approached this vote the same as the others…..objectively.

  84. In statics Schumacher is better, as a Driver Jim Clark is way better than Schumacher, Remember this, Schumacher didn’t have the caliber of rivals that Clark had back in those days, and we talking about more competitive drivers, and Schumacher always had the best car on the grid…

    1. Schumacher always having the best car is a myth. He only had that in 2001, 2 and 4…

  85. Jim Clark, because Schumacher is a cock.

    1. clock********

      Hmm… I’d delete that comment if I was able to….

      1. No, you leave it up there so I can laugh whenever I see your username :P

  86. As much as I have benn a fan of Schumacher up until 2006 I went for Clark.

    Like Martin I played and play a lot of GPL today and read a lot about the ’60s.

    I won’t start to compare them because it’s a far too complex question but anyone could set up a model based on results, car failures (like F1Fanatic) and add his own subjective components like respect of other drivers, big drives, personality, ability to perform on the limit, controversies, ability to build a team, sheer speed, etc.

    It’s all subjective. Without amassing that lot of data I just have a gut instinct that Clark is better by a hundredth of a second to be allusional.

    I also think that this is more about who’s gonna pair up Senna in the final because I can see the winner here own Prost/Lauda and the other half of the remaining field is even more obvious.

    1. I dunno. Fangio vs Senna will be a tough semi-final match.

  87. Don’t understand if the poll is already closed or not. May be somebody gets the software fail…another devilish trick by the bad one??? :-)

    1. No it’s not closed, just a brief glitch.

  88. Now it really does start to get difficult., Clark or Schumacher.

    I think I have to go with Clark just.

  89. Does a great champion crash into a rival on purpose or parks his car to block others from qualifying? Is that sportsmanship?

    I was also in Hungary and saw Schumachers stupid Nail-Barichello-to-pitwall-maneuvre. Too many drivers do the crazy I-go-to-the-side-and-hope-my-rival-veers-away-or-break-or-we-will-both-be-taken-out-in-Vettel-Webber-Turkey-2010-style-maneuvre.

    When I see that kind of behaviour I lose my respect for a driver. Not even Shumachers astounding statistics can save him from sinking low on the champion of champions scale.

    Humility is one of the traits that distinguishes a great champion and man. Jim Clark wins.

  90. This is getting very difficult…I froze my blood and voted for MSC… If I’d voted my heart I’d have picked Clark. Hell, I’d have punched the button for Clark over Fangio.

    Is Stewart going up against Senna next? Ouch Ouch Ouch!

  91. This vote being one of the closest yet, I really wanted to get a vote. I have registered 2x and have not received a password.
    Let’s be realistic , to judge the worth of a driver from a video game is rediculous. Although from totally different eras it’s hard to make comparisons. People complain of Schumachers aggresiveness. In today’s vehicles the safety exists to get away with that. In Clark’s era you die. What was acceptible and what is acceptible now are 2 different things. Watch a gp2 race and you’ll see what is accepted today. Go to a karting race and watch. Aggresive driving is what wins races. You have to be when all the vehicles are so equal. In Clark’s era there was such a large margin in performance of the vehicles, not so true today. The top ten on the grid are most likely under 1 second in lap time, which will require a mistake by the driver ahead or an aggresive attack from behind.

    I would have voted for Schumacher, if I could have

  92. I don’t know who to vote! Clark, who dominated ‘back in the day’ for Lotus and scored maximum points both times he won the title or Schumacher who helped Ferrari come back to winning ways like a phoenix from the ashes and then dominated.

    1. From looking at sportsmanship I’ve made up my mind. Jimmy Clark is the better world champion, but comparing the skills and talents of 2 drivers from 2 vastly different eras of motor racing is just impossible. We may never know which of these 2 drivers is better at racing itself.

  93. If Schumacher died in a car crash he would be 10 times better than Senna and Clark combined. It is funny how people mix emotions and reason when it comes to racing. I don’t wanna dispute Sennas talent, or Clarks perfection, but when it comes to combination of skills Schumacher is the most complete driver of all time.

  94. michael is a good driver

  95. This is very difficult and nigh on impossible to make a direct comparison. The problem is that we’re dealing with competitors that raced over two decades between each other. So much had changed by the time MS got into an F1 car.

    As far as the Stats go, MS is the most successful driver in F1 history (Note:- I didn’t say greatest as that would open up a whole new argument). We can only go by individual favourite and both are/were very skilled.

    It’s an interesting note that Jackie Stewart (a very close friend on Jimmy’s) said that Jimmy was planning to retire after a couple of years (he was talking about the 1967 season).

    My personal favourites are Jim Clark and Ayrton Senna but I cannot say they were the greatest. After all, what is greatest?

    1. Schumacher is the most successful driver absolutely (most victories, most points, etc.), but when you compare drivers relatively (per race) Schumacher isn’t the most sucessful. Then it is Fangio, who comes out the best in wins, poles, points and fastest laps.

  96. It looks like Clark is closing the gap. In the morning it was 29 votes in between during the day it came down to only 23. Still I think he won’t make it in time if at all.

  97. Both drivers are in my personal top 5, neither are first.

    Although I think Clark is the faster driver, Schumacher is probably the more complete driver. Who knows what more Clark could have won had he not died in a Formula 2 race in ’68? But since that didn’t happen my vote goes to Schumacher.

  98. Schumacher is the greatest hype in F1 history…promoted only for one reason…expansion of F1 in Germany in the 90s, and as member of Ferrari team in Asia from 2000 to 2004…

    Schumacher drove 2 seasons in a team without having a contract for number one driver …he lost both of them…
    1991 vs Piquet – 2010 vs Rosberg

    Irvine shouldnt win the title in 1999 because Ferrari had already fired him and he would probably take sponsors with him.

    thats why Schumacher made the slowest start in F1 history in Suzuka 1999..watch the start of the race
    they made only enough points to get the constructors championship and nothing more

    Tyres and the Rory Byrne innovative front nose design made him champion in the 90s

    in 1992-1995 he was driving a new generation car while all the others still had to deal with the 80s designs

    don’t believe the hype

    Jim Clark is the man.

    1. thats why Schumacher made the slowest start in F1 history in Suzuka 1999..watch the start of the race

      Wow, he loses one place and it’s “the slowest start in F1 history”. Webber lost 5, three times this season. Don’t even get me started on Barrichello in 2009 or Malaysia this year. Or the thousands of instances where a driver lost a place off the grid.

      Irvine didn’t win in 1999 because he just wasn’t fast enough. Schumacher took pole by 9 tenths of a second and had to slow down and let him through for the lead twice despite only just coming back from a broken leg.

      I won’t begrudge you for voting Clark, since he was an all time great. However anyone who knew a thing about F1 would know that in 1992 and 1993 Williams had by far the fastest car.

      1. well if Williams was the better DESIGNED car why did they loose the advantage as soon as fia banned the electronics in 1994?

        the active suspension plus the Renault V10 made the car better , not the design

        why every single car since 1996 has a lifted nose?

        i hate repeating myself…

        Schumacher IS an average driver, by todays stadards almost a full second slower than the top drivers and the most overrated man in human history.

        1. The active suspension is part of guess what? The design!

          Williams built a car regarded by most as the best in the 1995 season, yet Schumacher outdrove Hill and Coulthard to win the title.

          There are many, many people around here who don’t like Schumacher, but almost all of them are at least intelligent enough to know that he was not an “average driver”. You don’t dominate the pinnacle of motorsport for 5 years running by being average.

          1. i do not know your age but if you are old enough and your best argument is that the active suspension is part of the aerodynamic design of the car then consider this as my last answer to your posts.

            you are too blind to admit the obvious

            as i said many times b4..live your myth of the German King

            btw…Schumacher IS way below average in 2010

          2. I didn’t even say that the suspension is part of the aerodynamic design! I said it was part of the car’s overall design.

            I also never said Schumacher did particularly well in 2010. However any rational person knows that 15 seasons at the top far outweighs 1 bad season at the age of 41 after three years out of a constantly eveolving sport. All you do is come up with anything at all to claim that Schumacher and Prost weren’t good drivers. Now if that you don’t consider that to be blindness, then you are living on another planet.

            Seriously, all of your posts are utterly ridiculous and by far, the worst on this site, which has plenty of opinions I don’t agree with, but are usually presented in a fair and respectable manner.

            My patience with Manu the Clown has finally run out.

        2. Yes, we agree Ralf is an average driver.

      2. Even Salo had to pull over for Irvine. And, if Eddie thought that he had been screwed out of a championship by Schumacher and Ferrari he, of all people, would have said so. Loudly.

    2. Schumacher drove 2 seasons in a team without having a contract for number one driver …he lost both of them…
      1991 vs Piquet – 2010 vs Rosberg

      Schumacher was in his rookie season in 1991, he only drove 6 races that season after jumping in straight from sportscars. His teammate was a 3 time WDC

      Last season he came back from a 3 year sabbatical, to an ill-handling car that didn’t suit his driving. And if you assume a 41 year old should have the reflexes to beat a 26 year old from the get go, you are very mistaken.

      Irvine shouldnt win the title in 1999 because Ferrari had already fired him and he would probably take sponsors with him.

      thats why Schumacher made the slowest start in F1 history in Suzuka 1999..watch the start of the race
      they made only enough points to get the constructors championship and nothing more

      Right, that’s why he led Irvine to a 1-2 finish. It’s only the constructor’s championship that matters. Oh wait…

      Tyres and the Rory Byrne innovative front nose design made him champion in the 90s in 1992-1995 he was driving a new generation car while all the others still had to deal with the 80s designs

      So why couldn’t he win the championship against Mansell or Prost in ’92/93? Was the Williams team cheating by running a “new generation” car as well? Did the FIA force them to go back to an ’80s design for 1994/1995?

      Btw, everybody was on Goodyears from 1992-1996. And the F310 of 1996 didn’t have a raised nose. Did Ferrari not get the message that year?

      We get it, you don’t like MSC. Making up “facts” to support your “case” is just pathetic.

      1. Gah, even typing out the block quote tags didn’t help. What happened to the tag buttons Keith?

  99. Thanks to those of you who brought to my attention claims by a user that they had created multiple accounts to rig the result of the poll. I have taken appropriate action.

    1. Keith isnt there a way to check this even without the user claiming it?Is there someway to stop making multiple accounts?

      1. Using the IP, it should be possible I guess.

        Think about this, 10 years from now we still will be having this dicussion – who is the greatest? There is no definite answer. Here, we have someone who has all the time on earth to create 35 profiles.. silly

        1. there is a pretty clear top five, and the way you put them is a matter of personal preference.
          Mine is:
          But may be tomorrow that will change.
          The top five on the other hand, i think is a closed club. It will be too hard to get in, and bump one of them.

          1. I agree, I guess it is because Clark won two titles which actually is the least of all the remaining drivers that he was seeded against Schumacer but as mentioned one of those top five great unfortunately wouldn’t make the semi finals. My top five for what its worth:


            followed by Stewart and Lauda and after that I would need to have a proper think as to who comes next.

      2. Yes there is.

  100. I can’t believe that Schumacher is ahead of Clark in this poll!! Obviously the results are being skewed by the fact that too many here are too young to remember or appreciate Jim Clark and what he did. They vote for Schumacher based on his number of wins and championships and the fact that he is still around and they know who he is. Yet they don’t realize that Clark was by far the better champion. Had he lived he would have won many more races and championships. Also, Clark was always a true gentleman and sportsman on the track; he NEVER resorted to “dirty tricks” and driving his competitors of the road to win. He also didn’t need his team to maneuver things for him so that his team mates would slow and let him by to win. All of those things that Schumacher is famous for. Most of his team mates don’t have much good to say about Schumacher, yet Clarks’ team mates held him in high esteem.

    A drivers’ overall character and they way he conducted himself on and off the track are just as important as statistics on a page.

    I’m not saying that Schumacher wasn’t good, but he is not in the same league as Clark!!

    I wish I could vote again on this; I hope that some will “see the light” and vote accordingly.

    1. You forgot many of Micaels great drifts and only mention his downfalls. Some of his drifts, such as Belguim 1995, Spain 1996, Belguim 1998 before DC ruined it, USA 2003, ect… Are some of the reasons why he is the ‘Kaizer’. Yes he pulled of some dirty tricks, and Jerez 1997 was unacceptable. But so did Senna and Prost. Funny how nobody blames them, isn’t it? To bad Schumacher is all to often refered as the ‘devil’ of F1 by many of his haters.

      I’m not saying that Schumacher wasn’t good, but he is not in the same league as Clark!!

      Not everyone has similar opinion like you. Why not accept it? I have seen many of Clark’s races. He was very fast and incredibly boring to watch. I voted Michael not because of his stats, but because I think he was the greatest. No fanboyism. But I think he is the best. That simple.

      Obviously the results are being skewed by the fact that too many here are too young to remember or appreciate Jim Clark and what he did.

      Nope, the other way around. It’s young people voted Clark because dislike Schumacher. All what they’ve heard from many sources. is how Clark dominated his era. Then I often ask them, And Schumacher didn’t do this? I’ve seen many of Clark’s races. No faster or better then Schumacher IMO

      1. I hate when someone writes this. By doing so he undervalues his (Senna, Clark) success while being alive. And if Schumacher died in an accident, he would be better than Senna and Clark together.

        1. Had he ran in Clark’s era, he would have died when he crashed in ’99 and what would have he accomplished. Surprisingly enough, the same 2 titles Clark won. What If? Don’t bother it just didn’t happen.

          1. If Schumacher died in 1999, he might’ve been considered superior than he is today. It’s called rose-tinted specs, used by religouis people.

            *Sorry for the very late response*

  101. Had he lived he would have won many more races and championships.

  102. i’ve never seen clark drive, but heard and read alot of good about him. How he managed to drive any car he got on and over the limit etc.
    Anyway i go for schumacher, for the following reasons: 1) he also drove the car on the limit and over it (hungary 98 i think is a good example of this)
    2) he did whatever he could to win, like other great champions but he is hated for it (ok i confess the monaco crap was real real bad).
    3) Alot of champions looked for the fastest car to win more championships (fangio, senna) which isn’t strange by the way. Schumacher though went to ferrari after his two titles to build that team up. YEs i know it was worse then he expected but that doesnt change the fact that he took a step back.
    4) he accomplished this goal, made the team his and dominated
    5) from the beginning of his career he defeated all his teammates psychologically and off course with speed, and yes they weren’t champion teammates, BUT alot of the other great champions had problems driving with other greats (for example senna vetoed warwick from joining lotus, yes he went to mclaren with prost but he wanted a better car and this was the way, later prost didnt want senna at williams, mansell didn’t want to drive with prost etc). To sum up the champions want to be the number 1 driver and have the (best) team working only for them, i see nothing wrong with that,
    6) Because of him alot of rules changed to stop his dominance. If im correct the same sort of thing happened when senna drove.
    7) ah imma stop, if a person is hated that much by a certain group of people and fellow colleagues you know he is alive and one of the best. Even now that he has returned people had/have high expectations and still bash him every chance they get.

    1. Justin Bieber is also hated by millions ,in fact is the only person more controversial than Michael Schumacher on this planet, personally i do not really rate him as one of the greatest artists ,maybe you do…who knows.

      1. So because you think MSC isn’t good, you compare him to Justin Beiber? Tell you what, keep your music analogies out of an F1 poll and go easy on the hate speech. Maybe we’ll take you seriously then.

  103. Im not disputing Clark’s talents as a racing driver, because everyone knows he was really good, but in a view already echoed by a few people on this site, too many people are mixing emotions with stats.

    It’s all well and good to say that had clark lived he would have won X amount more titles, but the fact is he didnt, so nobody knows for certain.

    You could also say that had schumacher not retired at the end of ’06, that he would’ve probably won the championship in ’07, and perhaps even ’08… but the simple fact remains we’re talking about hypotheticals, and you can’t judge a driver’s skill level based upon hypotheticals.

  104. Hi, I made a mistake and viewed the results. Then decided to create account to place a vote. Is there any way that I can participate?


  105. Michael Schumacher eliminated Jim Clark ;)

    1. Video killed a Radio start …

  106. Definitely Clark! I still remember Schumacher parking his car at Rascasse corner to block Alonso – nuff said.

  107. Oh my God after spending days with 30 votes behind, Clark now only needs 13 more.

  108. A user had created multiple accounts to try to influence the result of the poll. Their votes have been deleted.

    1. That’s quite pathetic and sad.

      I mean it’s just a poll really.

      Sorry to hear that.

    2. Does that explain why Jim Clark suddenly fell 20 votes behind in a few seconds? Must’ve been a true Schumacher-hater.

  109. Clark was one of a kind. The greatest hands down. Watch Jim Clark: The Quiet Champion, it’ll explain more than can be explained here. Unfortunately, many of the voters will have never seen Clark drive, and so cannot comprehend his gift. The best in so many ways.

  110. Sorry i ackknowledge Schumacher as being statistically the greatest driver ever however you have to look deeper. I never saw Jim Clark race yet i grew up suporting Schumacher and always did until 2006. now i first read about clark and how he was a master at the wheel and how nearly everytime he failed would be due to problems with the car. Clark was one of the most amazing drivers f1 had seen and probably will. he dominated 63 and 65 and in 62 he had lost out in the final race. He once went a lap down over a pit stop(had problems) then overtook the cars that lapped him then gained first position only to be robbed off first as lotus were just short of enough fuel. Then in sopa he had lapped every car except Bruce mclaren but he was over 5 minutes behind him in foggy conditions. I know Clark wont win this as few ever saw him race or fail to acknowledge his carrer as mmuch as schumacher but i feel Clark is the better driver.

    1. I voted for Clark too but I want to come up with a few arguments for your consideration.

      Clark often had the dominant force in terms of technics as well as Schumacher. And Schumacher also had memorable races as well as Clark’s Monza 1967. For example Spa 1995 or Hungaroring 1998. Later these heroics became less frequent – maybe because he had the dominant car later on. But Interlagos 2006 stands out for me nevertheless.

      I voted for Clark because even his greatest opponents acknowledged his skills and admired him and because he dominated almost every race he finished – in case of Schumacher this was not the case.

      Another reason is that Senna got the best out of Schumacher in Interlagos and Imola in 1994 with a clearly inferior car. So for me Senna > Schumacher but I’m not so sure about Senna-Clark…

  111. Brownsugar42 (@)
    28th January 2011, 12:20

    Schumacher’s 7 titles don’t really mean much…his car was so dominant, and he raced during a time when F1 was short on star talent. I think people should give Ross Brawn and Jean Todt just as much props as they give Schumi. For example 13 wins in 2004, and 0 in 2005…Schumacher is a great driver, but his cars, the fact that he didn’t have to fight a worthy team mate, and the lack of competition, are a huge reason for his success.

    I’d still give him a slight edge over Clark though.

    1. Thing is, I think Schumi would have even more titles if he didn’t break his leg/move to Ferrari in ’96, and I know people go on about the ‘Dominant’ car he had, but it wasn’t a case of picking and choosing the best cars like some champions, he went there and took Ferrari from midtable strugglers back to their very best, and this seems to be forgotten by most here. Show me a driver who can revolutionise a sport and I will show you a true legend, Nicklaus, Lara, Ali, Pele, Schumacher, Sampras, Johnson, and that is why, despite the heroics of Clark etc. I have to vote for Schumi

      1. What seems to be fotgotten is Schumacher’s oft demonstrated lack of concern for the safety of his fellow drivers…the fact that he knowingly and intentionally placed the lives of his fellow drivers in danger time and time again.

        1. f o r g o t t e n

        2. It certainly isn’t forgotten, in fact, it’s often given more of a mention than sam’s point about Schumacher going to Ferrari instead of a dominant team like Williams and building them up. That’s why so many people are still convinced that Schumacher only won when he had the best car.

  112. Well said sam3110

  113. So did Senna…sometimes some people just exaggerate a thing like the drama queen Rubens Barrichello, noone injured at that time. Great champions always push to the limit this is racing not “reality show”. Vote for Schumi

    1. What does Senna have to do with this? Nothing. But that’s the standard reply when Schumi fans are confronted with his cheating. “Senna did it, too.” Is that supposed to be some kind of justification?

      One of the greatest drivers who ever lived just got voted out in favor of a cheater. Oh well…on to the next round…

      1. I meant to say “dangerous cheater”.

        1. lol and thats standard reply for Schumi hater…suit yourself. Schumacher is the greatest

      2. “Senna did it, too.” Is that supposed to be some kind of justification?

        Some people clearly do think it is. They are wrong however.

        But Senna’s dark side is undeniably undermentioned especially when compared to Schumacher.

        One of the greatest drivers who ever lived just got voted out in favor of a cheater.

        Perhaps, but Michael Schumacher is certainly still one of the greatest drivers who ever lived, and far more than just a “dangerous cheater”.

        1. In my book dangerous cheater is all there is…cancels out everything else. I know I’m in the minority (of one, maybe).

          1. fortunately your unreasonable book of hate is in the minority like you said :D

          2. “Hate” is a strong word, Dave. I don’t hate anyone. I just don’t like cheaters.

          3. And I’m not a minority of one. Stirling Moss agrees with me. That’s pretty good company.

          4. Yeahh right..For you a cheater and yes among the minority of Schumi hater but for most, Schumacher is one of the greatest Niki Lauda, Murray Walker agree. They are even better company

  114. I voted for Jim. I didn’t vote for him because he’s British, as I am Swiss. I voted for him, because of his awesome driving ability.
    Furthermore, Schumi started in F1 in 1991, and retired in 2006, only to make a comeback in 2010.
    That’s about 15 or 16 seasons in F1. Clark had 8 or 9, and the Lotuses he drove were notoriously unreliable, yet he still managed to dominate in them. For example, South Africa, 1963: Clark had a 30 second lead after 50 laps or so. Then a bolt fell out of his distributer drive, and all the oil drained away.
    If he hadn’t had any of the unreliability problems, he would have been an easy 5-time champion, and had he not died, he could have been a 10 time champ, purely because of his driving skill.

    1. There’s no way of knowing what Clark would have done had he lived. He did talk of retirement from time to time, but he’d been doing that since 1966. He would have been the man to beat in 1968…if he had won the WDC that year that may have motivated him to stay on for a few more years. Hill, Stewart, Rindt, Andretti, Fittipaldi, Peterson, Cevert…and Clark- that would have been something to see.

  115. SennaTheG.O.A.T
    1st February 2011, 2:14

    Really why this site made polls when most of the voters are 20 years old and vote for Schumacher?
    It’s ridiculous compare Schumacher to Clark.
    Clark was Senna before Senna.The 2 biggest talents this sport has ever..
    People(kids) continue to overrate Schumacher……………..

    1. then Murray Walker and Niki Lauda are a kid too

Comments are closed.