planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:19 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
Lt. Drebin wrote:
I still think we can not compare drivers of the different era, and the hazy lines between them makes it even harder to do so. Then, there is also a period of a driver in his prime and out of his prime. One can thin of many other factors. Also, who can deny that, for example Lecler wasn't driving on absolute human and physical limits and the limit of his car? Why won't he be then regarded as the best driver? Just because he was driving mediocre car? Or we just rate high drivers that had luck to sit in a few best cars?

So may parameters to consider.

The exceptional drivers will find themselves in the best teams hence Leclerc is now at Ferrari, ultimately then we see how good he is when competing against the best drivers.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
Zoue wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Sutton wrote:
Not alot wrong with anything he says tbh


Not so sure;

1) I think the quality of the field that Schumacher faced compared to now is debateable.
2) Rosberg might like a quiet word with him about nobody ever outscoring Michael over 2 season (he did it over 3)
3) And the points between Button/Hamilton is a very poor metric and needs to be put into context (much like my point 2).



1) I largely agree with. Hakkinen was top class, but aside from him the amount of other great drivers on the grid was pretty negligable at times between 1995 until Alonso came thorough. Honorable mention for Kimi of course.

2) I think Irvine refers to Michael's peak years. Between 2010-2012 Schumacher had clearly lost a fair chunk of pace.

3) I agree, he made that remark without adding crucial context. I don't want to belittle Button as his 2011 performance was the best of his career IMO. But 2012 would have been a monstrous drubbing without the reliability factor.

BIB: True, but even that wasn't really representative as Button was struggling with his car setup. It's not like he suddenly forgot how to drive and that represented the true gap between them

I won't reply specifically to this and derail the thread but in respect to Schumacher if Button had struggled like that then he would have been subjected to #2 status given that Hamilton was leading the WDC.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Sutton wrote:
Not alot wrong with anything he says tbh


Not so sure;

1) I think the quality of the field that Schumacher faced compared to now is debateable.
2) Rosberg might like a quiet word with him about nobody ever outscoring Michael over 2 season (he did it over 3)
3) And the points between Button/Hamilton is a very poor metric and needs to be put into context (much like my point 2).



1) I largely agree with. Hakkinen was top class, but aside from him the amount of other great drivers on the grid was pretty negligable at times between 1995 until Alonso came thorough. Honorable mention for Kimi of course.

2) I think Irvine refers to Michael's peak years. Between 2010-2012 Schumacher had clearly lost a fair chunk of pace.

3) I agree, he made that remark without adding crucial context. I don't want to belittle Button as his 2011 performance was the best of his career IMO. But 2012 would have been a monstrous drubbing without the reliability factor.

BIB: True, but even that wasn't really representative as Button was struggling with his car setup. It's not like he suddenly forgot how to drive and that represented the true gap between them

I won't reply specifically to this and derail the thread but in respect to Schumacher if Button had struggled like that then he would have been subjected to #2 status given that Hamilton was leading the WDC.

sure, but was Button ever in a position where that would have come into effect?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2411
Lt. Drebin wrote:
I still think we can not compare drivers of the different era, and the hazy lines between them makes it even harder to do so. Then, there is also a period of a driver in his prime and out of his prime. One can thin of many other factors. Also, who can deny that, for example Lecler wasn't driving on absolute human and physical limits and the limit of his car? Why won't he be then regarded as the best driver? Just because he was driving mediocre car? Or we just rate high drivers that had luck to sit in a few best cars?

So may parameters to consider.


Different eras reward different kinds of drivers..

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Miami, Florida
pokerman wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
I still think we can not compare drivers of the different era, and the hazy lines between them makes it even harder to do so. Then, there is also a period of a driver in his prime and out of his prime. One can thin of many other factors. Also, who can deny that, for example Lecler wasn't driving on absolute human and physical limits and the limit of his car? Why won't he be then regarded as the best driver? Just because he was driving mediocre car? Or we just rate high drivers that had luck to sit in a few best cars?

So may parameters to consider.

The exceptional drivers will find themselves in the best teams hence Leclerc is now at Ferrari, ultimately then we see how good he is when competing against the best drivers.

The same kind of bold assumptions were made of Palmer, then Vandoorne, and to some extent Gasly.

Why can’t we just wait until we see them in action against proven commodities before anything of the sort is said about them? Although every once in a while these assumptions turn out to be true, the odds are massively NOT in their favor and more often than not they end up like Vandoorne and Palmer and usually, in this day and age overwhelming expectations expressed by the media and fans place these young men under excessive pressure and that pressure also befalls on the teams themselves, in that if a driver isn’t a xceptional right out of the gate, they are immediately placed under even harsher scrutiny. As a result, drivers whom don’t look exceptional, regardless of wrestling with poor performing cars, are given a “sell by” date and regardless of where the fault belies, the drivers are the ones who pay the price.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7441
Location: Michigan, USA
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The same kind of bold assumptions were made of Palmer, then Vandoorne, and to some extent Gasly.

Sorry, but nobody assumed that Palmer would be a top level talent when he got to F1. All I can remember hearing about was how long it took him to win GP2.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7831
Location: Belgium
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The same kind of bold assumptions were made of Palmer, then Vandoorne, and to some extent Gasly.

Sorry, but nobody assumed that Palmer would be a top level talent when he got to F1. All I can remember hearing about was how long it took him to win GP2.
Not that it's important, but I remember my elder brother telling me about how impressed he was with Palmer in F2. Whether the qualities shown in that or similar categories are used or developed in F1, isn't necessarily in their own hands. Rather the opposite, I'm inclined to think. Stoffel being a prime example of that sad fact.

My memory may be playing tricks, but it seems to me back in those days, the expectations were more often along the correct lines than they are now. Having said that, who would have put money on Alesi ending up with only 1 lucky win?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7441
Location: Michigan, USA
Fiki wrote:
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The same kind of bold assumptions were made of Palmer, then Vandoorne, and to some extent Gasly.

Sorry, but nobody assumed that Palmer would be a top level talent when he got to F1. All I can remember hearing about was how long it took him to win GP2.

Not that it's important, but I remember my elder brother telling me about how impressed he was with Palmer in F2. Whether the qualities shown in that or similar categories are used or developed in F1, isn't necessarily in their own hands. Rather the opposite, I'm inclined to think. Stoffel being a prime example of that sad fact.

My memory may be playing tricks, but it seems to me back in those days, the expectations were more often along the correct lines than they are now. Having said that, who would have put money on Alesi ending up with only 1 lucky win?

Are we talking about Jolyon, or Jonathan?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7831
Location: Belgium
Exediron wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The same kind of bold assumptions were made of Palmer, then Vandoorne, and to some extent Gasly.

Sorry, but nobody assumed that Palmer would be a top level talent when he got to F1. All I can remember hearing about was how long it took him to win GP2.

Not that it's important, but I remember my elder brother telling me about how impressed he was with Palmer in F2. Whether the qualities shown in that or similar categories are used or developed in F1, isn't necessarily in their own hands. Rather the opposite, I'm inclined to think. Stoffel being a prime example of that sad fact.

My memory may be playing tricks, but it seems to me back in those days, the expectations were more often along the correct lines than they are now. Having said that, who would have put money on Alesi ending up with only 1 lucky win?

Are we talking about Jolyon, or Jonathan?
Touché! I was talking of Jonathan. I'm annoyed with myself, because a year and a half ago, I was sitting in the Francorchamps grandstand feeling very pleased about Jolyon's performance on Friday morning. And now I seem to have forgotten about him. And Jonathan was in F2, not GP2...
Sorry!

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
I still think we can not compare drivers of the different era, and the hazy lines between them makes it even harder to do so. Then, there is also a period of a driver in his prime and out of his prime. One can thin of many other factors. Also, who can deny that, for example Lecler wasn't driving on absolute human and physical limits and the limit of his car? Why won't he be then regarded as the best driver? Just because he was driving mediocre car? Or we just rate high drivers that had luck to sit in a few best cars?

So may parameters to consider.

The exceptional drivers will find themselves in the best teams hence Leclerc is now at Ferrari, ultimately then we see how good he is when competing against the best drivers.

The same kind of bold assumptions were made of Palmer, then Vandoorne, and to some extent Gasly.

Why can’t we just wait until we see them in action against proven commodities before anything of the sort is said about them? Although every once in a while these assumptions turn out to be true, the odds are massively NOT in their favor and more often than not they end up like Vandoorne and Palmer and usually, in this day and age overwhelming expectations expressed by the media and fans place these young men under excessive pressure and that pressure also befalls on the teams themselves, in that if a driver isn’t a xceptional right out of the gate, they are immediately placed under even harsher scrutiny. As a result, drivers whom don’t look exceptional, regardless of wrestling with poor performing cars, are given a “sell by” date and regardless of where the fault belies, the drivers are the ones who pay the price.

I meant if they look exceptionally good in F1 which the likes of Palmer and Vandoorne failed to do, Gasly has got the chance without exactly looking exceptionally good but that was due to fortunate circumstances.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6753
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Miami, Florida
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The same kind of bold assumptions were made of Palmer, then Vandoorne, and to some extent Gasly.

Sorry, but nobody assumed that Palmer would be a top level talent when he got to F1. All I can remember hearing about was how long it took him to win GP2.

Sorry but this forum as well as many others had threads where members spoke of how well they expected Jolyan Palmer to do once in F1. The time he took to win GP2 was also spoken of, but it was said that perhaps that was a good thing because it allowed him to mature and develop as a driver as opposed to other youngsters who were promoted prematurely which likely led to them not being ready for F1.

I don't think anyone was as hyped up as Vandoorne was, several, including Palmer were, and the only one in recent years to have met expectations has been Verstappen, but that also depends on whom you ask, myself included.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

I don't view the current era through rose tinted glasses at all. If anything, I view the 80s that way as that was when I started watching and when I was still a kid. I've seen every race of Michael Schumacher's career and I've seen every race of both Hamilton's and Vettel's careers. That's the perspective I'm looking at this from.

The idea that Michael dominated because he made great drivers look poor is simply unsupported by facts. When Senna and Prost were still in F1, they were generally beating him. Once Alonso emerged, he was beating him. The big gap in between where he faced the likes of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Villeneuve and Hill was where he did most of his damage. The bottom line is that Hill, JV and DC have all been exposed by strong teammates over their careers. This is a fact. We know that they are not truly top shelf. Hakkinen is a different story but his time competing at the front lasted only about 3-4 years. Compare that to Hamilton and Vettel who have spent their careers battling each other, Alonso, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Button, Ricciardo, Verstappen and more. The current era is MUCH stronger than Michael's. It's not even close.

You're welcome to your own opinion that Schumacher in his prime was better than Hamilton or Vettel. That's a valid and defensible opinion and I don't have any problem with it. Eddie Irvine, however, went quite a bit further than you in expressing his view. He essentially wrote off Vettel's whole career; calling him a one-trick-pony. He then claimed that Hamilton is the best driver in the world currently but "not in the same league" as Michael. So he first takes a driver in Vettel who is way beyond Eddie's own level of ability or accomplishment and just totally denigrates his whole career. He then takes a driver who is likely a couple of years away from replacing Michael atop all of the record books and claims that he's not in the same league...I think it's just silly and I've seen it many times before. Drivers from the past will almost always claim that their era was superior to the ones before and since. Listen to Jackie Stewart talk about his day or Nigel Mansell talk about his time and they sound the same. It's always about how "drivers today have no idea what it was like" or "No one today could even compete with us with the way things were back then". It's ridiculous. Vettel is a legitimate 4-time champion and as for Hamilton; there isn't a driver in the history of F1 who is out of Hamilton's league. There's no one you can say that about (much like there is no driver in history you can claim is out of Michael's league).

And I get that you have decided that Michael's career at Mercedes should not count but not everyone sees it that way. I know all Schumacher fans want to assume that he was past his prime and declining and not himself but the fact is that his performance in his third year back was better than in his first year back. But of course we have to ignore his results during that time; otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that he was no match for Rosberg (himself no match for Hamilton).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:11 pm
Posts: 249
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

I don't view the current era through rose tinted glasses at all. If anything, I view the 80s that way as that was when I started watching and when I was still a kid. I've seen every race of Michael Schumacher's career and I've seen every race of both Hamilton's and Vettel's careers. That's the perspective I'm looking at this from.

The idea that Michael dominated because he made great drivers look poor is simply unsupported by facts. When Senna and Prost were still in F1, they were generally beating him. Once Alonso emerged, he was beating him. The big gap in between where he faced the likes of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Villeneuve and Hill was where he did most of his damage. The bottom line is that Hill, JV and DC have all been exposed by strong teammates over their careers. This is a fact. We know that they are not truly top shelf. Hakkinen is a different story but his time competing at the front lasted only about 3-4 years. Compare that to Hamilton and Vettel who have spent their careers battling each other, Alonso, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Button, Ricciardo, Verstappen and more. The current era is MUCH stronger than Michael's. It's not even close.

You're welcome to your own opinion that Schumacher in his prime was better than Hamilton or Vettel. That's a valid and defensible opinion and I don't have any problem with it. Eddie Irvine, however, went quite a bit further than you in expressing his view. He essentially wrote off Vettel's whole career; calling him a one-trick-pony. He then claimed that Hamilton is the best driver in the world currently but "not in the same league" as Michael. So he first takes a driver in Vettel who is way beyond Eddie's own level of ability or accomplishment and just totally denigrates his whole career. He then takes a driver who is likely a couple of years away from replacing Michael atop all of the record books and claims that he's not in the same league...I think it's just silly and I've seen it many times before. Drivers from the past will almost always claim that their era was superior to the ones before and since. Listen to Jackie Stewart talk about his day or Nigel Mansell talk about his time and they sound the same. It's always about how "drivers today have no idea what it was like" or "No one today could even compete with us with the way things were back then". It's ridiculous. Vettel is a legitimate 4-time champion and as for Hamilton; there isn't a driver in the history of F1 who is out of Hamilton's league. There's no one you can say that about (much like there is no driver in history you can claim is out of Michael's league).

And I get that you have decided that Michael's career at Mercedes should not count but not everyone sees it that way. I know all Schumacher fans want to assume that he was past his prime and declining and not himself but the fact is that his performance in his third year back was better than in his first year back. But of course we have to ignore his results during that time; otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that he was no match for Rosberg (himself no match for Hamilton).


Their head to head would suggest otherwise
https://maxf1.net/en/hamilton-vs-rosber ... -78-races/
The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were almost head to head in qualifying shows the raw pace of Rosberg..Schumi matched Rosberg in quali in 2012 .. I don't think anybody would argue that a 20 something Schumacher would beat a 40+ Schumacher comfortably by a margin
Also your argument of Hamilton having a higher quality of rivals is moot because of the huge performance margin Hamilton has enjoyed for 100+ races now..Its unprecedented...Even if all the F1 greats raced in the same era it wouldnt mean much with Hamilton in the Mercedes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

Well Damon Hill for starters was 7 tenths slower than Senna, that's the level of competition that Schumacher had in the years soon after Senna's death, Hakkinen is generally well respected and then after that Kimi was very much Schumacher's top competiton, this a driver I would say not in the same league as Vettel at Ferrari who Irvine thinks is an overrated champion.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 1:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

I don't view the current era through rose tinted glasses at all. If anything, I view the 80s that way as that was when I started watching and when I was still a kid. I've seen every race of Michael Schumacher's career and I've seen every race of both Hamilton's and Vettel's careers. That's the perspective I'm looking at this from.

The idea that Michael dominated because he made great drivers look poor is simply unsupported by facts. When Senna and Prost were still in F1, they were generally beating him. Once Alonso emerged, he was beating him. The big gap in between where he faced the likes of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Villeneuve and Hill was where he did most of his damage. The bottom line is that Hill, JV and DC have all been exposed by strong teammates over their careers. This is a fact. We know that they are not truly top shelf. Hakkinen is a different story but his time competing at the front lasted only about 3-4 years. Compare that to Hamilton and Vettel who have spent their careers battling each other, Alonso, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Button, Ricciardo, Verstappen and more. The current era is MUCH stronger than Michael's. It's not even close.

You're welcome to your own opinion that Schumacher in his prime was better than Hamilton or Vettel. That's a valid and defensible opinion and I don't have any problem with it. Eddie Irvine, however, went quite a bit further than you in expressing his view. He essentially wrote off Vettel's whole career; calling him a one-trick-pony. He then claimed that Hamilton is the best driver in the world currently but "not in the same league" as Michael. So he first takes a driver in Vettel who is way beyond Eddie's own level of ability or accomplishment and just totally denigrates his whole career. He then takes a driver who is likely a couple of years away from replacing Michael atop all of the record books and claims that he's not in the same league...I think it's just silly and I've seen it many times before. Drivers from the past will almost always claim that their era was superior to the ones before and since. Listen to Jackie Stewart talk about his day or Nigel Mansell talk about his time and they sound the same. It's always about how "drivers today have no idea what it was like" or "No one today could even compete with us with the way things were back then". It's ridiculous. Vettel is a legitimate 4-time champion and as for Hamilton; there isn't a driver in the history of F1 who is out of Hamilton's league. There's no one you can say that about (much like there is no driver in history you can claim is out of Michael's league).

And I get that you have decided that Michael's career at Mercedes should not count but not everyone sees it that way. I know all Schumacher fans want to assume that he was past his prime and declining and not himself but the fact is that his performance in his third year back was better than in his first year back. But of course we have to ignore his results during that time; otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that he was no match for Rosberg (himself no match for Hamilton).


Their head to head would suggest otherwise
https://maxf1.net/en/hamilton-vs-rosber ... -78-races/
The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were almost head to head in qualifying shows the raw pace of Rosberg..Schumi matched Rosberg in quali in 2012 .. I don't think anybody would argue that a 20 something Schumacher would beat a 40+ Schumacher comfortably by a margin
Also your argument of Hamilton having a higher quality of rivals is moot because of the huge performance margin Hamilton has enjoyed for 100+ races now..Its unprecedented...Even if all the F1 greats raced in the same era it wouldnt mean much with Hamilton in the Mercedes

Hamilton decisively beats Rosberg in their head to head while Schumacher decisively loses to Rosberg in their head to head. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but Hamilton and Rosberg were not at all evenly matched and neither were Rosberg and Schumacher. Looking only at 2012 (the one year where Michael held his own in the matchup) while ignoring 2010 and 2011 is something that doesn't make sense (unless you're a Schumacher fan apparently).

As for the point about Hamilton having a machinery advantage for 100 races; that's simply false. The truth is that he had a massive machinery advantage for about 60 races from 2014-2016 but he had to compete against the aforementioned Rosberg that whole time in the same car. In 2017 and 2018, Mercedes has been closely matched with Ferrari and, at times, Red Bull so by no means can these seasons be classified as having a huge performance margin. Michael Schumacher also had multiple seasons with a huge car advantage. Certainly years like 2002 and 2004 were years where no other car could compete with the Ferrari. The major difference is that Michael's teammate was not permitted to compete with him either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 1:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

I don't view the current era through rose tinted glasses at all. If anything, I view the 80s that way as that was when I started watching and when I was still a kid. I've seen every race of Michael Schumacher's career and I've seen every race of both Hamilton's and Vettel's careers. That's the perspective I'm looking at this from.

The idea that Michael dominated because he made great drivers look poor is simply unsupported by facts. When Senna and Prost were still in F1, they were generally beating him. Once Alonso emerged, he was beating him. The big gap in between where he faced the likes of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Villeneuve and Hill was where he did most of his damage. The bottom line is that Hill, JV and DC have all been exposed by strong teammates over their careers. This is a fact. We know that they are not truly top shelf. Hakkinen is a different story but his time competing at the front lasted only about 3-4 years. Compare that to Hamilton and Vettel who have spent their careers battling each other, Alonso, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Button, Ricciardo, Verstappen and more. The current era is MUCH stronger than Michael's. It's not even close.

You're welcome to your own opinion that Schumacher in his prime was better than Hamilton or Vettel. That's a valid and defensible opinion and I don't have any problem with it. Eddie Irvine, however, went quite a bit further than you in expressing his view. He essentially wrote off Vettel's whole career; calling him a one-trick-pony. He then claimed that Hamilton is the best driver in the world currently but "not in the same league" as Michael. So he first takes a driver in Vettel who is way beyond Eddie's own level of ability or accomplishment and just totally denigrates his whole career. He then takes a driver who is likely a couple of years away from replacing Michael atop all of the record books and claims that he's not in the same league...I think it's just silly and I've seen it many times before. Drivers from the past will almost always claim that their era was superior to the ones before and since. Listen to Jackie Stewart talk about his day or Nigel Mansell talk about his time and they sound the same. It's always about how "drivers today have no idea what it was like" or "No one today could even compete with us with the way things were back then". It's ridiculous. Vettel is a legitimate 4-time champion and as for Hamilton; there isn't a driver in the history of F1 who is out of Hamilton's league. There's no one you can say that about (much like there is no driver in history you can claim is out of Michael's league).

And I get that you have decided that Michael's career at Mercedes should not count but not everyone sees it that way. I know all Schumacher fans want to assume that he was past his prime and declining and not himself but the fact is that his performance in his third year back was better than in his first year back. But of course we have to ignore his results during that time; otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that he was no match for Rosberg (himself no match for Hamilton).


Their head to head would suggest otherwise
https://maxf1.net/en/hamilton-vs-rosber ... -78-races/
The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were almost head to head in qualifying shows the raw pace of Rosberg..Schumi matched Rosberg in quali in 2012 .. I don't think anybody would argue that a 20 something Schumacher would beat a 40+ Schumacher comfortably by a margin
Also your argument of Hamilton having a higher quality of rivals is moot because of the huge performance margin Hamilton has enjoyed for 100+ races now..Its unprecedented...Even if all the F1 greats raced in the same era it wouldnt mean much with Hamilton in the Mercedes

Those stats include all the qualifying sessions Hamilton was unable to take part in, I can think of quite a few in 2014 and 2016.

Instead of just using 2012 why not use all 3 years in regards to Rosberg and Schumacher it's like 2010 and 2011 never happened, also when talking about Hamilton it's like 2007 never happened, whilst some people that thought Vettel was better than Hamilton even up to the first half of 2017 seem to have had to adjust their positions these past 2 seasons, only Verstappen has not had fair chance against Hamilton thus far of the elite drivers.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Last edited by pokerman on Sun Jan 27, 2019 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 1:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

Well Damon Hill for starters was 7 tenths slower than Senna, that's the level of competition that Schumacher had in the years soon after Senna's death, Hakkinen is generally well respected and then after that Kimi was very much Schumacher's top competiton, this a driver I would say not in the same league as Vettel at Ferrari who Irvine thinks is an overrated champion.

Hill was half a second slower than Senna in a car that pretty much everyone said was a handful to drive. I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that the gap would have remained constant if the car hadn't been such a handful. Three races is a little difficult to form any definite conclusions from and Hill's performance against e.g. Schumacher improved considerably once the B spec car was introduced.

People seem to gloss over the fact that Schumacher had a good couple of years competing against Senna and Prost and was immediately recognised as a contender. He beat Piquet despite joining towards the end of the season and that was no mean feat. In 1993 he was the only driver to finish on the podium every race, a feat his team mate only managed twice. And he beat Senna in the early 1994 races, managing to beat Hill despite having to sit out four races. He didn't only look good against mediocre opposition and there's a strong argument to say he made that opposition look weaker than they were.

Having said that, I think saying he was out of Hamilton's league is probably just a touch of hyperbole. Hamilton has shown himself to be arguably the best of his generation and although I'd rate Schumacher higher I doubt the differences would be that big. There's doubtless a bit of rose-coloured glass viewing but at the same time Schumacher did put in some breathtaking performances to justify it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

Well Damon Hill for starters was 7 tenths slower than Senna, that's the level of competition that Schumacher had in the years soon after Senna's death, Hakkinen is generally well respected and then after that Kimi was very much Schumacher's top competiton, this a driver I would say not in the same league as Vettel at Ferrari who Irvine thinks is an overrated champion.

Hill was half a second slower than Senna in a car that pretty much everyone said was a handful to drive. I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that the gap would have remained constant if the car hadn't been such a handful. Three races is a little difficult to form any definite conclusions from and Hill's performance against e.g. Schumacher improved considerably once the B spec car was introduced.

People seem to gloss over the fact that Schumacher had a good couple of years competing against Senna and Prost and was immediately recognised as a contender. He beat Piquet despite joining towards the end of the season and that was no mean feat. In 1993 he was the only driver to finish on the podium every race, a feat his team mate only managed twice. And he beat Senna in the early 1994 races, managing to beat Hill despite having to sit out four races. He didn't only look good against mediocre opposition and there's a strong argument to say he made that opposition look weaker than they were.

Having said that, I think saying he was out of Hamilton's league is probably just a touch of hyperbole. Hamilton has shown himself to be arguably the best of his generation and although I'd rate Schumacher higher I doubt the differences would be that big. There's doubtless a bit of rose-coloured glass viewing but at the same time Schumacher did put in some breathtaking performances to justify it.

Looking to give a driver credit for things Hill never achieved, Senna was new to the team not Hill and Hill was no match for Senna and that was Schumacher's level of competition.

Who needs to defended who here, It's not Schumacher being called a much lesser driver, like I've said before I've no problem with people saying that Schumacher was better, I'm not impressed by the put down on todays drivers and that has to include Alonso as well, did 2006 never happen?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

Well Damon Hill for starters was 7 tenths slower than Senna, that's the level of competition that Schumacher had in the years soon after Senna's death, Hakkinen is generally well respected and then after that Kimi was very much Schumacher's top competiton, this a driver I would say not in the same league as Vettel at Ferrari who Irvine thinks is an overrated champion.

Hill was half a second slower than Senna in a car that pretty much everyone said was a handful to drive. I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that the gap would have remained constant if the car hadn't been such a handful. Three races is a little difficult to form any definite conclusions from and Hill's performance against e.g. Schumacher improved considerably once the B spec car was introduced.

People seem to gloss over the fact that Schumacher had a good couple of years competing against Senna and Prost and was immediately recognised as a contender. He beat Piquet despite joining towards the end of the season and that was no mean feat. In 1993 he was the only driver to finish on the podium every race, a feat his team mate only managed twice. And he beat Senna in the early 1994 races, managing to beat Hill despite having to sit out four races. He didn't only look good against mediocre opposition and there's a strong argument to say he made that opposition look weaker than they were.

Having said that, I think saying he was out of Hamilton's league is probably just a touch of hyperbole. Hamilton has shown himself to be arguably the best of his generation and although I'd rate Schumacher higher I doubt the differences would be that big. There's doubtless a bit of rose-coloured glass viewing but at the same time Schumacher did put in some breathtaking performances to justify it.

Looking to give a driver credit for things Hill never achieved, Senna was new to the team not Hill and Hill was no match for Senna and that was Schumacher's level of competition.

Who needs to defended who here, It's not Schumacher being called a much lesser driver, like I've said before I've no problem with people saying that Schumacher was better, I'm not impressed by the put down on todays drivers and that has to include Alonso as well, did 2006 never happen?

Looking to give what credit? Don't really get what you're saying here

Not sure what you mean by 2006, either. What are you trying to say, exactly?

I think you're reading too much into it. So Irvine thinks Schumacher was the best ever. Big deal. He raced against him so was clearly in awe of him and that's not likely to diminish over time. I think people are getting upset over nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 2:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

Well Damon Hill for starters was 7 tenths slower than Senna, that's the level of competition that Schumacher had in the years soon after Senna's death, Hakkinen is generally well respected and then after that Kimi was very much Schumacher's top competiton, this a driver I would say not in the same league as Vettel at Ferrari who Irvine thinks is an overrated champion.

Hill was half a second slower than Senna in a car that pretty much everyone said was a handful to drive. I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that the gap would have remained constant if the car hadn't been such a handful. Three races is a little difficult to form any definite conclusions from and Hill's performance against e.g. Schumacher improved considerably once the B spec car was introduced.

People seem to gloss over the fact that Schumacher had a good couple of years competing against Senna and Prost and was immediately recognised as a contender. He beat Piquet despite joining towards the end of the season and that was no mean feat. In 1993 he was the only driver to finish on the podium every race, a feat his team mate only managed twice. And he beat Senna in the early 1994 races, managing to beat Hill despite having to sit out four races. He didn't only look good against mediocre opposition and there's a strong argument to say he made that opposition look weaker than they were.

Having said that, I think saying he was out of Hamilton's league is probably just a touch of hyperbole. Hamilton has shown himself to be arguably the best of his generation and although I'd rate Schumacher higher I doubt the differences would be that big. There's doubtless a bit of rose-coloured glass viewing but at the same time Schumacher did put in some breathtaking performances to justify it.

Looking to give a driver credit for things Hill never achieved, Senna was new to the team not Hill and Hill was no match for Senna and that was Schumacher's level of competition.

Who needs to defended who here, It's not Schumacher being called a much lesser driver, like I've said before I've no problem with people saying that Schumacher was better, I'm not impressed by the put down on todays drivers and that has to include Alonso as well, did 2006 never happen?

Looking to give what credit? Don't really get what you're saying here

Not sure what you mean by 2006, either. What are you trying to say, exactly?

I think you're reading too much into it. So Irvine thinks Schumacher was the best ever. Big deal. He raced against him so was clearly in awe of him and that's not likely to diminish over time. I think people are getting upset over nothing

I was just saying there's no mention of Alonso who went toe to toe with Schumacher in 2006.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7441
Location: Michigan, USA
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
The same kind of bold assumptions were made of Palmer, then Vandoorne, and to some extent Gasly.

Sorry, but nobody assumed that Palmer would be a top level talent when he got to F1. All I can remember hearing about was how long it took him to win GP2.

Sorry but this forum as well as many others had threads where members spoke of how well they expected Jolyan Palmer to do once in F1. The time he took to win GP2 was also spoken of, but it was said that perhaps that was a good thing because it allowed him to mature and develop as a driver as opposed to other youngsters who were promoted prematurely which likely led to them not being ready for F1.

I spent about ten minutes trying to find threads like that, and came up with nothing. I was on this forum in 2015, and I don't remember any of them. I don't suppose you can point me to one of these threads?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16306
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.


But Blake, when the competition Schumacher faced throughout the bulk of his career came up against the knew wave of drivers they all looked inferior to them. Coulthard V Kimi, Barrichello V Button, Villeneuve V Button, Fissichella V Alonso etc. If not for that I would agree with you that it could just have been Schumacher's excellence that made them look average. I don't think the limited evidence we have points that way at all.

Saying that I still think of Schumacher has the greatest. It's not his fault his competition was limited.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:11 pm
Posts: 249
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is just another example of an ex-pro sportsman claiming that their era was somehow better than any other. To claim that Hamilton and Vettel are not in Schumacher's league is very dubious considering the fact that we saw quite conclusively that Eddie wasn't in Michael's league. We then saw that after his comeback Michael wasn't able to keep up with Nico Rosberg for 3 years, who himself was unable to keep up with Hamilton for 4 years. So I'm really not sure what exactly Eddie is basing his comments on other than his own emotional preference.

To say that Vettel is overrated is not that unusual these days but to simply write off all of his achievements is shameful IMO. For me, Michael competed in a much easier era than Hamilton or Vettel. He did his damage mostly after Senna and Prost were out of the sport and, aside from Hakkinen for a brief time, Michael didn't have another rival of top caliber until Alonso came of age in 2005-2006. Michael did most of his damage against the likes of Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard. He also never had an internal challenge from a teammate until he was older and faced Rosberg at Mercedes (and lost 3 years running). This may sound like I'm criticizing Michael but I'm not. I'm just pointing out the severely rose tinted glasses that Eddie seems to be looking at that era through. Michael was the best of his era without question but to claim that he's in a different league from Hamilton is something I cannot agree with on any level.


In what way does Eddie not being in Schumi's league negate his opinion that Lewis and Seb are not in Schumi's league either??? He is much more qualified to have such an opinion than a Hamilton, or Vettel fan who is an F1 forum member sitting at a desk.

You again have chosen to denigrate the competition that Schumi faced, while not taking into account that Schumi's own excellence made it much tougher for drivers of his era to run up fancy career numbers. When one driver wins the WDC in half of the years he competed in up to '95, that doesn't leave many for other drivers. As I have argued many times before how differently might we view some of those drivers of recent past it they had a WDC or multiple WDCs behind their names?

You have accused Eddie of viewing his era through "severely rose tinted glasses", however one could argue that you do the same with the current era and Lewis. I, for one, using my own glasses, whatever color they might be, to say that, in my opinion, neither Lewis not Seb are as good as Schumi was in his pre initial retirement years. As for the three year return from retirement, I am constantly amused when members try to use that to "dirty" Schumi's legendary status.

I don't view the current era through rose tinted glasses at all. If anything, I view the 80s that way as that was when I started watching and when I was still a kid. I've seen every race of Michael Schumacher's career and I've seen every race of both Hamilton's and Vettel's careers. That's the perspective I'm looking at this from.

The idea that Michael dominated because he made great drivers look poor is simply unsupported by facts. When Senna and Prost were still in F1, they were generally beating him. Once Alonso emerged, he was beating him. The big gap in between where he faced the likes of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Villeneuve and Hill was where he did most of his damage. The bottom line is that Hill, JV and DC have all been exposed by strong teammates over their careers. This is a fact. We know that they are not truly top shelf. Hakkinen is a different story but his time competing at the front lasted only about 3-4 years. Compare that to Hamilton and Vettel who have spent their careers battling each other, Alonso, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Button, Ricciardo, Verstappen and more. The current era is MUCH stronger than Michael's. It's not even close.

You're welcome to your own opinion that Schumacher in his prime was better than Hamilton or Vettel. That's a valid and defensible opinion and I don't have any problem with it. Eddie Irvine, however, went quite a bit further than you in expressing his view. He essentially wrote off Vettel's whole career; calling him a one-trick-pony. He then claimed that Hamilton is the best driver in the world currently but "not in the same league" as Michael. So he first takes a driver in Vettel who is way beyond Eddie's own level of ability or accomplishment and just totally denigrates his whole career. He then takes a driver who is likely a couple of years away from replacing Michael atop all of the record books and claims that he's not in the same league...I think it's just silly and I've seen it many times before. Drivers from the past will almost always claim that their era was superior to the ones before and since. Listen to Jackie Stewart talk about his day or Nigel Mansell talk about his time and they sound the same. It's always about how "drivers today have no idea what it was like" or "No one today could even compete with us with the way things were back then". It's ridiculous. Vettel is a legitimate 4-time champion and as for Hamilton; there isn't a driver in the history of F1 who is out of Hamilton's league. There's no one you can say that about (much like there is no driver in history you can claim is out of Michael's league).

And I get that you have decided that Michael's career at Mercedes should not count but not everyone sees it that way. I know all Schumacher fans want to assume that he was past his prime and declining and not himself but the fact is that his performance in his third year back was better than in his first year back. But of course we have to ignore his results during that time; otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that he was no match for Rosberg (himself no match for Hamilton).


Their head to head would suggest otherwise
https://maxf1.net/en/hamilton-vs-rosber ... -78-races/
The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were almost head to head in qualifying shows the raw pace of Rosberg..Schumi matched Rosberg in quali in 2012 .. I don't think anybody would argue that a 20 something Schumacher would beat a 40+ Schumacher comfortably by a margin
Also your argument of Hamilton having a higher quality of rivals is moot because of the huge performance margin Hamilton has enjoyed for 100+ races now..Its unprecedented...Even if all the F1 greats raced in the same era it wouldnt mean much with Hamilton in the Mercedes

Hamilton decisively beats Rosberg in their head to head while Schumacher decisively loses to Rosberg in their head to head. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but Hamilton and Rosberg were not at all evenly matched and neither were Rosberg and Schumacher. Looking only at 2012 (the one year where Michael held his own in the matchup) while ignoring 2010 and 2011 is something that doesn't make sense (unless you're a Schumacher fan apparently).

As for the point about Hamilton having a machinery advantage for 100 races; that's simply false. The truth is that he had a massive machinery advantage for about 60 races from 2014-2016 but he had to compete against the aforementioned Rosberg that whole time in the same car. In 2017 and 2018, Mercedes has been closely matched with Ferrari and, at times, Red Bull so by no means can these seasons be classified as having a huge performance margin. Michael Schumacher also had multiple seasons with a huge car advantage. Certainly years like 2002 and 2004 were years where no other car could compete with the Ferrari. The major difference is that Michael's teammate was not permitted to compete with him either.


Read the head to head again and not sure how a quali head to head of 42-36 over 78 races is a decisive victory??? Hamilton scored 10% more points than Rosberg over 4 seasons and nearly 80 races together.. I will give you that in the wins front it was a comprehensive beating but everything else was as evenly matched as it could be..
Also, with regards to analyzing Schumacher's return, ofcourse I'm allowed to ignore 2010 given the special circumstances of his return and limited testing that was possible..I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue against that..If you want to consider 2011, MS was already beating Rosberg comprehensively in the races although he wasn't quite there in qualifying, which he fixed in 2012...Hamilton's run of having dominant machinery where he had a chance at getting poles in more than 100 races is unprecedented..I think any top driver should be scoring 60-70 poles in that run


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I don't view the current era through rose tinted glasses at all. If anything, I view the 80s that way as that was when I started watching and when I was still a kid. I've seen every race of Michael Schumacher's career and I've seen every race of both Hamilton's and Vettel's careers. That's the perspective I'm looking at this from.

The idea that Michael dominated because he made great drivers look poor is simply unsupported by facts. When Senna and Prost were still in F1, they were generally beating him. Once Alonso emerged, he was beating him. The big gap in between where he faced the likes of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Villeneuve and Hill was where he did most of his damage. The bottom line is that Hill, JV and DC have all been exposed by strong teammates over their careers. This is a fact. We know that they are not truly top shelf. Hakkinen is a different story but his time competing at the front lasted only about 3-4 years. Compare that to Hamilton and Vettel who have spent their careers battling each other, Alonso, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Button, Ricciardo, Verstappen and more. The current era is MUCH stronger than Michael's. It's not even close.

You're welcome to your own opinion that Schumacher in his prime was better than Hamilton or Vettel. That's a valid and defensible opinion and I don't have any problem with it. Eddie Irvine, however, went quite a bit further than you in expressing his view. He essentially wrote off Vettel's whole career; calling him a one-trick-pony. He then claimed that Hamilton is the best driver in the world currently but "not in the same league" as Michael. So he first takes a driver in Vettel who is way beyond Eddie's own level of ability or accomplishment and just totally denigrates his whole career. He then takes a driver who is likely a couple of years away from replacing Michael atop all of the record books and claims that he's not in the same league...I think it's just silly and I've seen it many times before. Drivers from the past will almost always claim that their era was superior to the ones before and since. Listen to Jackie Stewart talk about his day or Nigel Mansell talk about his time and they sound the same. It's always about how "drivers today have no idea what it was like" or "No one today could even compete with us with the way things were back then". It's ridiculous. Vettel is a legitimate 4-time champion and as for Hamilton; there isn't a driver in the history of F1 who is out of Hamilton's league. There's no one you can say that about (much like there is no driver in history you can claim is out of Michael's league).

And I get that you have decided that Michael's career at Mercedes should not count but not everyone sees it that way. I know all Schumacher fans want to assume that he was past his prime and declining and not himself but the fact is that his performance in his third year back was better than in his first year back. But of course we have to ignore his results during that time; otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that he was no match for Rosberg (himself no match for Hamilton).


Their head to head would suggest otherwise
https://maxf1.net/en/hamilton-vs-rosber ... -78-races/
The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were almost head to head in qualifying shows the raw pace of Rosberg..Schumi matched Rosberg in quali in 2012 .. I don't think anybody would argue that a 20 something Schumacher would beat a 40+ Schumacher comfortably by a margin
Also your argument of Hamilton having a higher quality of rivals is moot because of the huge performance margin Hamilton has enjoyed for 100+ races now..Its unprecedented...Even if all the F1 greats raced in the same era it wouldnt mean much with Hamilton in the Mercedes

Hamilton decisively beats Rosberg in their head to head while Schumacher decisively loses to Rosberg in their head to head. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but Hamilton and Rosberg were not at all evenly matched and neither were Rosberg and Schumacher. Looking only at 2012 (the one year where Michael held his own in the matchup) while ignoring 2010 and 2011 is something that doesn't make sense (unless you're a Schumacher fan apparently).

As for the point about Hamilton having a machinery advantage for 100 races; that's simply false. The truth is that he had a massive machinery advantage for about 60 races from 2014-2016 but he had to compete against the aforementioned Rosberg that whole time in the same car. In 2017 and 2018, Mercedes has been closely matched with Ferrari and, at times, Red Bull so by no means can these seasons be classified as having a huge performance margin. Michael Schumacher also had multiple seasons with a huge car advantage. Certainly years like 2002 and 2004 were years where no other car could compete with the Ferrari. The major difference is that Michael's teammate was not permitted to compete with him either.


Read the head to head again and not sure how a quali head to head of 42-36 over 78 races is a decisive victory??? Hamilton scored 10% more points than Rosberg over 4 seasons and nearly 80 races together.. I will give you that in the wins front it was a comprehensive beating but everything else was as evenly matched as it could be..
Also, with regards to analyzing Schumacher's return, ofcourse I'm allowed to ignore 2010 given the special circumstances of his return and limited testing that was possible..I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue against that..If you want to consider 2011, MS was already beating Rosberg comprehensively in the races although he wasn't quite there in qualifying, which he fixed in 2012...Hamilton's run of having dominant machinery where he had a chance at getting poles in more than 100 races is unprecedented..I think any top driver should be scoring 60-70 poles in that run

Now you're all over the place. First of all; if you exclude qualifying sessions where either Hamilton or Rosberg suffered mechanical failures or did not participate for some other reason; the qualifying battle is even more decisively in Hamilton's favor. Hamilton secured substantially more wins, poles and podiums finishes than Rosberg over their time as teammates as well as beating Rosberg in the points 3 years out of 4 (his only points loss being in 2016 by 5 points and largely due to reliability). They were not "as evenly matched as could be". Not at all. In fact the points were artificially close because of how strong the car was and how Rosberg could almost always finish in second with ease even when Hamilton won.

Secondly; I love how Schumacher fans characterize him as beating Rosberg comprehensively in years where he lost to Rosberg convincingly. Rosberg dominated Schumacher in 2011 and in fact throughout their time as teammates but Schumi fans would have you think that it was all luck. Schumi fans want to point out his every stroke of bad luck and make every excuse while totally ignoring Rosberg's bad luck and mechanical problems over that time. Bottom line is that Rosberg beat Michael all three years where they were teammates. He did that despite Michael and Ross basically taking control of the team and the development direction for the car.

Lastly you seem not to know the meaning of the word "dominant". Dominant doesn't just mean you have a shot at pole position. It means that your car is faster than everyone else by a large enough margin that no one should be able to beat you without some kind of miracle or luck-based circumstance. Hamilton had a car of that caliber in 3 seasons (2014-2016) and had a very tough teammate to race in all three (the same guy who bested Michael in three straight years). Michael had at least 2 seasons like that (2002, 2004) and arguably 3 or 4 depending on how you look at things. He also did NOT have to compete against his teammate during his years in dominant machinery (nor during any point in his career until his comeback with Mercedes). If you want to talk about years where they just had a car that was at least capable of fighting for pole positions; I think Hamilton and Schumacher's careers are very similar and in general I would say that both have had very good cars throughout most of their careers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:11 pm
Posts: 249
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I don't view the current era through rose tinted glasses at all. If anything, I view the 80s that way as that was when I started watching and when I was still a kid. I've seen every race of Michael Schumacher's career and I've seen every race of both Hamilton's and Vettel's careers. That's the perspective I'm looking at this from.

The idea that Michael dominated because he made great drivers look poor is simply unsupported by facts. When Senna and Prost were still in F1, they were generally beating him. Once Alonso emerged, he was beating him. The big gap in between where he faced the likes of Hakkinen, Coulthard, Villeneuve and Hill was where he did most of his damage. The bottom line is that Hill, JV and DC have all been exposed by strong teammates over their careers. This is a fact. We know that they are not truly top shelf. Hakkinen is a different story but his time competing at the front lasted only about 3-4 years. Compare that to Hamilton and Vettel who have spent their careers battling each other, Alonso, Raikkonen, Rosberg, Button, Ricciardo, Verstappen and more. The current era is MUCH stronger than Michael's. It's not even close.

You're welcome to your own opinion that Schumacher in his prime was better than Hamilton or Vettel. That's a valid and defensible opinion and I don't have any problem with it. Eddie Irvine, however, went quite a bit further than you in expressing his view. He essentially wrote off Vettel's whole career; calling him a one-trick-pony. He then claimed that Hamilton is the best driver in the world currently but "not in the same league" as Michael. So he first takes a driver in Vettel who is way beyond Eddie's own level of ability or accomplishment and just totally denigrates his whole career. He then takes a driver who is likely a couple of years away from replacing Michael atop all of the record books and claims that he's not in the same league...I think it's just silly and I've seen it many times before. Drivers from the past will almost always claim that their era was superior to the ones before and since. Listen to Jackie Stewart talk about his day or Nigel Mansell talk about his time and they sound the same. It's always about how "drivers today have no idea what it was like" or "No one today could even compete with us with the way things were back then". It's ridiculous. Vettel is a legitimate 4-time champion and as for Hamilton; there isn't a driver in the history of F1 who is out of Hamilton's league. There's no one you can say that about (much like there is no driver in history you can claim is out of Michael's league).

And I get that you have decided that Michael's career at Mercedes should not count but not everyone sees it that way. I know all Schumacher fans want to assume that he was past his prime and declining and not himself but the fact is that his performance in his third year back was better than in his first year back. But of course we have to ignore his results during that time; otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that he was no match for Rosberg (himself no match for Hamilton).


Their head to head would suggest otherwise
https://maxf1.net/en/hamilton-vs-rosber ... -78-races/
The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were almost head to head in qualifying shows the raw pace of Rosberg..Schumi matched Rosberg in quali in 2012 .. I don't think anybody would argue that a 20 something Schumacher would beat a 40+ Schumacher comfortably by a margin
Also your argument of Hamilton having a higher quality of rivals is moot because of the huge performance margin Hamilton has enjoyed for 100+ races now..Its unprecedented...Even if all the F1 greats raced in the same era it wouldnt mean much with Hamilton in the Mercedes

Hamilton decisively beats Rosberg in their head to head while Schumacher decisively loses to Rosberg in their head to head. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but Hamilton and Rosberg were not at all evenly matched and neither were Rosberg and Schumacher. Looking only at 2012 (the one year where Michael held his own in the matchup) while ignoring 2010 and 2011 is something that doesn't make sense (unless you're a Schumacher fan apparently).

As for the point about Hamilton having a machinery advantage for 100 races; that's simply false. The truth is that he had a massive machinery advantage for about 60 races from 2014-2016 but he had to compete against the aforementioned Rosberg that whole time in the same car. In 2017 and 2018, Mercedes has been closely matched with Ferrari and, at times, Red Bull so by no means can these seasons be classified as having a huge performance margin. Michael Schumacher also had multiple seasons with a huge car advantage. Certainly years like 2002 and 2004 were years where no other car could compete with the Ferrari. The major difference is that Michael's teammate was not permitted to compete with him either.


Read the head to head again and not sure how a quali head to head of 42-36 over 78 races is a decisive victory??? Hamilton scored 10% more points than Rosberg over 4 seasons and nearly 80 races together.. I will give you that in the wins front it was a comprehensive beating but everything else was as evenly matched as it could be..
Also, with regards to analyzing Schumacher's return, ofcourse I'm allowed to ignore 2010 given the special circumstances of his return and limited testing that was possible..I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue against that..If you want to consider 2011, MS was already beating Rosberg comprehensively in the races although he wasn't quite there in qualifying, which he fixed in 2012...Hamilton's run of having dominant machinery where he had a chance at getting poles in more than 100 races is unprecedented..I think any top driver should be scoring 60-70 poles in that run

Now you're all over the place. First of all; if you exclude qualifying sessions where either Hamilton or Rosberg suffered mechanical failures or did not participate for some other reason; the qualifying battle is even more decisively in Hamilton's favor. Hamilton secured substantially more wins, poles and podiums finishes than Rosberg over their time as teammates as well as beating Rosberg in the points 3 years out of 4 (his only points loss being in 2016 by 5 points and largely due to reliability). They were not "as evenly matched as could be". Not at all. In fact the points were artificially close because of how strong the car was and how Rosberg could almost always finish in second with ease even when Hamilton won.

Secondly; I love how Schumacher fans characterize him as beating Rosberg comprehensively in years where he lost to Rosberg convincingly. Rosberg dominated Schumacher in 2011 and in fact throughout their time as teammates but Schumi fans would have you think that it was all luck. Schumi fans want to point out his every stroke of bad luck and make every excuse while totally ignoring Rosberg's bad luck and mechanical problems over that time. Bottom line is that Rosberg beat Michael all three years where they were teammates. He did that despite Michael and Ross basically taking control of the team and the development direction for the car.

Lastly you seem not to know the meaning of the word "dominant". Dominant doesn't just mean you have a shot at pole position. It means that your car is faster than everyone else by a large enough margin that no one should be able to beat you without some kind of miracle or luck-based circumstance. Hamilton had a car of that caliber in 3 seasons (2014-2016) and had a very tough teammate to race in all three (the same guy who bested Michael in three straight years). Michael had at least 2 seasons like that (2002, 2004) and arguably 3 or 4 depending on how you look at things. He also did NOT have to compete against his teammate during his years in dominant machinery (nor during any point in his career until his comeback with Mercedes). If you want to talk about years where they just had a car that was at least capable of fighting for pole positions; I think Hamilton and Schumacher's careers are very similar and in general I would say that both have had very good cars throughout most of their careers.


You're just spouting BS now...Hamilton has had a pole winning car by a mile for 4 seasons 2014-2017...the only season where he had any competition is 2018 and that too only in a few races...At this point Hamilton has had way more races with a car advantage than Schumacher ever had..
Re. 2011, you must be kidding me? Schumacher had Rosberg covered in races that season..The final points was 89-76 and that too the lead stretched in the last 2 rounds..Till the last few rounds anybody could have come out on top..This is inspite always starting a few places lower than him in the grid(all credit to Rosberg there but doesn't show his race pace in good light relative to MS)..Rosberg is the same driver to beat LH to a WDC over a season..To say he beat him comprehensively in 2011 is twisting facts which isn't supported by the points table


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7787
Underviewer wrote:
Michael Schumacher comprehensively beat Irvine when they were teammates at Ferrari. Since then, Irvine has claimed Schumacher was a 'god' who was unbeatable and in a different league to every other driver who ever and will ever compete in F1. And how dare Vettel win four championships when Irvine won zero. And F1 is child's play and boring now compared to when Irvine was in F1. A carbon copy of all interviews with Eddie Irvine.

You clearly haven't watched many Irvine interviews...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7787
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well Damon Hill for starters was 7 tenths slower than Senna, that's the level of competition that Schumacher had in the years soon after Senna's death, Hakkinen is generally well respected and then after that Kimi was very much Schumacher's top competiton, this a driver I would say not in the same league as Vettel at Ferrari who Irvine thinks is an overrated champion.

Hill was half a second slower than Senna in a car that pretty much everyone said was a handful to drive. I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that the gap would have remained constant if the car hadn't been such a handful. Three races is a little difficult to form any definite conclusions from and Hill's performance against e.g. Schumacher improved considerably once the B spec car was introduced.

People seem to gloss over the fact that Schumacher had a good couple of years competing against Senna and Prost and was immediately recognised as a contender. He beat Piquet despite joining towards the end of the season and that was no mean feat. In 1993 he was the only driver to finish on the podium every race, a feat his team mate only managed twice. And he beat Senna in the early 1994 races, managing to beat Hill despite having to sit out four races. He didn't only look good against mediocre opposition and there's a strong argument to say he made that opposition look weaker than they were.

Having said that, I think saying he was out of Hamilton's league is probably just a touch of hyperbole. Hamilton has shown himself to be arguably the best of his generation and although I'd rate Schumacher higher I doubt the differences would be that big. There's doubtless a bit of rose-coloured glass viewing but at the same time Schumacher did put in some breathtaking performances to justify it.

Looking to give a driver credit for things Hill never achieved, Senna was new to the team not Hill and Hill was no match for Senna and that was Schumacher's level of competition.

Who needs to defended who here, It's not Schumacher being called a much lesser driver, like I've said before I've no problem with people saying that Schumacher was better, I'm not impressed by the put down on todays drivers and that has to include Alonso as well, did 2006 never happen?

Looking to give what credit? Don't really get what you're saying here

Not sure what you mean by 2006, either. What are you trying to say, exactly?

I think you're reading too much into it. So Irvine thinks Schumacher was the best ever. Big deal. He raced against him so was clearly in awe of him and that's not likely to diminish over time. I think people are getting upset over nothing

I was just saying there's no mention of Alonso who went toe to toe with Schumacher in 2006.


Irvine has made this comment before, about two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y72zQaQYQI

And he does mention Alonso.

Irvine also has been critical of Schumacher, he is not his No1 fan. He called him an idiot after Hungary 2010, that he should be banned, he has criticised Schumacher's Achiles heel (crumbling under pressure), etc. He has also time and again said how much worse he was than MS, it is not a case of bigging MS up to make himself look better. So yeah, I think he was just giving credit where it's due.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
Their head to head would suggest otherwise
https://maxf1.net/en/hamilton-vs-rosber ... -78-races/
The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were almost head to head in qualifying shows the raw pace of Rosberg..Schumi matched Rosberg in quali in 2012 .. I don't think anybody would argue that a 20 something Schumacher would beat a 40+ Schumacher comfortably by a margin
Also your argument of Hamilton having a higher quality of rivals is moot because of the huge performance margin Hamilton has enjoyed for 100+ races now..Its unprecedented...Even if all the F1 greats raced in the same era it wouldnt mean much with Hamilton in the Mercedes

Hamilton decisively beats Rosberg in their head to head while Schumacher decisively loses to Rosberg in their head to head. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but Hamilton and Rosberg were not at all evenly matched and neither were Rosberg and Schumacher. Looking only at 2012 (the one year where Michael held his own in the matchup) while ignoring 2010 and 2011 is something that doesn't make sense (unless you're a Schumacher fan apparently).

As for the point about Hamilton having a machinery advantage for 100 races; that's simply false. The truth is that he had a massive machinery advantage for about 60 races from 2014-2016 but he had to compete against the aforementioned Rosberg that whole time in the same car. In 2017 and 2018, Mercedes has been closely matched with Ferrari and, at times, Red Bull so by no means can these seasons be classified as having a huge performance margin. Michael Schumacher also had multiple seasons with a huge car advantage. Certainly years like 2002 and 2004 were years where no other car could compete with the Ferrari. The major difference is that Michael's teammate was not permitted to compete with him either.


Read the head to head again and not sure how a quali head to head of 42-36 over 78 races is a decisive victory??? Hamilton scored 10% more points than Rosberg over 4 seasons and nearly 80 races together.. I will give you that in the wins front it was a comprehensive beating but everything else was as evenly matched as it could be..
Also, with regards to analyzing Schumacher's return, ofcourse I'm allowed to ignore 2010 given the special circumstances of his return and limited testing that was possible..I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue against that..If you want to consider 2011, MS was already beating Rosberg comprehensively in the races although he wasn't quite there in qualifying, which he fixed in 2012...Hamilton's run of having dominant machinery where he had a chance at getting poles in more than 100 races is unprecedented..I think any top driver should be scoring 60-70 poles in that run

Now you're all over the place. First of all; if you exclude qualifying sessions where either Hamilton or Rosberg suffered mechanical failures or did not participate for some other reason; the qualifying battle is even more decisively in Hamilton's favor. Hamilton secured substantially more wins, poles and podiums finishes than Rosberg over their time as teammates as well as beating Rosberg in the points 3 years out of 4 (his only points loss being in 2016 by 5 points and largely due to reliability). They were not "as evenly matched as could be". Not at all. In fact the points were artificially close because of how strong the car was and how Rosberg could almost always finish in second with ease even when Hamilton won.

Secondly; I love how Schumacher fans characterize him as beating Rosberg comprehensively in years where he lost to Rosberg convincingly. Rosberg dominated Schumacher in 2011 and in fact throughout their time as teammates but Schumi fans would have you think that it was all luck. Schumi fans want to point out his every stroke of bad luck and make every excuse while totally ignoring Rosberg's bad luck and mechanical problems over that time. Bottom line is that Rosberg beat Michael all three years where they were teammates. He did that despite Michael and Ross basically taking control of the team and the development direction for the car.

Lastly you seem not to know the meaning of the word "dominant". Dominant doesn't just mean you have a shot at pole position. It means that your car is faster than everyone else by a large enough margin that no one should be able to beat you without some kind of miracle or luck-based circumstance. Hamilton had a car of that caliber in 3 seasons (2014-2016) and had a very tough teammate to race in all three (the same guy who bested Michael in three straight years). Michael had at least 2 seasons like that (2002, 2004) and arguably 3 or 4 depending on how you look at things. He also did NOT have to compete against his teammate during his years in dominant machinery (nor during any point in his career until his comeback with Mercedes). If you want to talk about years where they just had a car that was at least capable of fighting for pole positions; I think Hamilton and Schumacher's careers are very similar and in general I would say that both have had very good cars throughout most of their careers.


You're just spouting BS now...Hamilton has had a pole winning car by a mile for 4 seasons 2014-2017...the only season where he had any competition is 2018 and that too only in a few races...At this point Hamilton has had way more races with a car advantage than Schumacher ever had..
Re. 2011, you must be kidding me? Schumacher had Rosberg covered in races that season..The final points was 89-76 and that too the lead stretched in the last 2 rounds..Till the last few rounds anybody could have come out on top..This is inspite always starting a few places lower than him in the grid(all credit to Rosberg there but doesn't show his race pace in good light relative to MS)..Rosberg is the same driver to beat LH to a WDC over a season..To say he beat him comprehensively in 2011 is twisting facts which isn't supported by the points table

Hamilton only had competition for a few races in 2018 and that's a reasoned opinion?

Also you seem to be arguing that Schumacher was as impressive against Rosberg than what Hamilton was, we can largely ignore what actually happened I guess because of all the bad luck Schumacher had but then Rosberg straight beat Hamilton in 2016 and again that's reasoned opinion?

Anyway what actually happened:-

WDC
Rosberg 3 - 0 Schumacher
Hamilton 3 - 1 Rosberg

Qualifying
Rosberg 2 - 0 Schumacher (1 drawn)
Hamilton 3 - 1 Rosberg

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:

Their head to head would suggest otherwise
https://maxf1.net/en/hamilton-vs-rosber ... -78-races/
The fact that Rosberg and Hamilton were almost head to head in qualifying shows the raw pace of Rosberg..Schumi matched Rosberg in quali in 2012 .. I don't think anybody would argue that a 20 something Schumacher would beat a 40+ Schumacher comfortably by a margin
Also your argument of Hamilton having a higher quality of rivals is moot because of the huge performance margin Hamilton has enjoyed for 100+ races now..Its unprecedented...Even if all the F1 greats raced in the same era it wouldnt mean much with Hamilton in the Mercedes

Hamilton decisively beats Rosberg in their head to head while Schumacher decisively loses to Rosberg in their head to head. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but Hamilton and Rosberg were not at all evenly matched and neither were Rosberg and Schumacher. Looking only at 2012 (the one year where Michael held his own in the matchup) while ignoring 2010 and 2011 is something that doesn't make sense (unless you're a Schumacher fan apparently).

As for the point about Hamilton having a machinery advantage for 100 races; that's simply false. The truth is that he had a massive machinery advantage for about 60 races from 2014-2016 but he had to compete against the aforementioned Rosberg that whole time in the same car. In 2017 and 2018, Mercedes has been closely matched with Ferrari and, at times, Red Bull so by no means can these seasons be classified as having a huge performance margin. Michael Schumacher also had multiple seasons with a huge car advantage. Certainly years like 2002 and 2004 were years where no other car could compete with the Ferrari. The major difference is that Michael's teammate was not permitted to compete with him either.


Read the head to head again and not sure how a quali head to head of 42-36 over 78 races is a decisive victory??? Hamilton scored 10% more points than Rosberg over 4 seasons and nearly 80 races together.. I will give you that in the wins front it was a comprehensive beating but everything else was as evenly matched as it could be..
Also, with regards to analyzing Schumacher's return, ofcourse I'm allowed to ignore 2010 given the special circumstances of his return and limited testing that was possible..I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue against that..If you want to consider 2011, MS was already beating Rosberg comprehensively in the races although he wasn't quite there in qualifying, which he fixed in 2012...Hamilton's run of having dominant machinery where he had a chance at getting poles in more than 100 races is unprecedented..I think any top driver should be scoring 60-70 poles in that run

Now you're all over the place. First of all; if you exclude qualifying sessions where either Hamilton or Rosberg suffered mechanical failures or did not participate for some other reason; the qualifying battle is even more decisively in Hamilton's favor. Hamilton secured substantially more wins, poles and podiums finishes than Rosberg over their time as teammates as well as beating Rosberg in the points 3 years out of 4 (his only points loss being in 2016 by 5 points and largely due to reliability). They were not "as evenly matched as could be". Not at all. In fact the points were artificially close because of how strong the car was and how Rosberg could almost always finish in second with ease even when Hamilton won.

Secondly; I love how Schumacher fans characterize him as beating Rosberg comprehensively in years where he lost to Rosberg convincingly. Rosberg dominated Schumacher in 2011 and in fact throughout their time as teammates but Schumi fans would have you think that it was all luck. Schumi fans want to point out his every stroke of bad luck and make every excuse while totally ignoring Rosberg's bad luck and mechanical problems over that time. Bottom line is that Rosberg beat Michael all three years where they were teammates. He did that despite Michael and Ross basically taking control of the team and the development direction for the car.

Lastly you seem not to know the meaning of the word "dominant". Dominant doesn't just mean you have a shot at pole position. It means that your car is faster than everyone else by a large enough margin that no one should be able to beat you without some kind of miracle or luck-based circumstance. Hamilton had a car of that caliber in 3 seasons (2014-2016) and had a very tough teammate to race in all three (the same guy who bested Michael in three straight years). Michael had at least 2 seasons like that (2002, 2004) and arguably 3 or 4 depending on how you look at things. He also did NOT have to compete against his teammate during his years in dominant machinery (nor during any point in his career until his comeback with Mercedes). If you want to talk about years where they just had a car that was at least capable of fighting for pole positions; I think Hamilton and Schumacher's careers are very similar and in general I would say that both have had very good cars throughout most of their careers.


You're just spouting BS now...Hamilton has had a pole winning car by a mile for 4 seasons 2014-2017...the only season where he had any competition is 2018 and that too only in a few races...At this point Hamilton has had way more races with a car advantage than Schumacher ever had..
Re. 2011, you must be kidding me? Schumacher had Rosberg covered in races that season..The final points was 89-76 and that too the lead stretched in the last 2 rounds..Till the last few rounds anybody could have come out on top..This is inspite always starting a few places lower than him in the grid(all credit to Rosberg there but doesn't show his race pace in good light relative to MS)..Rosberg is the same driver to beat LH to a WDC over a season..To say he beat him comprehensively in 2011 is twisting facts which isn't supported by the points table

Too much nonsense to continue taking you seriously. The Ferrari was VERY closely matched with the Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. The Ferrari was only slightly inferior in 2017 and was actually slightly superior to the Merc in 2018. You're characterization is so out of touch with reality that I can't continue the discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7787
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton decisively beats Rosberg in their head to head while Schumacher decisively loses to Rosberg in their head to head. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but Hamilton and Rosberg were not at all evenly matched and neither were Rosberg and Schumacher. Looking only at 2012 (the one year where Michael held his own in the matchup) while ignoring 2010 and 2011 is something that doesn't make sense (unless you're a Schumacher fan apparently).

As for the point about Hamilton having a machinery advantage for 100 races; that's simply false. The truth is that he had a massive machinery advantage for about 60 races from 2014-2016 but he had to compete against the aforementioned Rosberg that whole time in the same car. In 2017 and 2018, Mercedes has been closely matched with Ferrari and, at times, Red Bull so by no means can these seasons be classified as having a huge performance margin. Michael Schumacher also had multiple seasons with a huge car advantage. Certainly years like 2002 and 2004 were years where no other car could compete with the Ferrari. The major difference is that Michael's teammate was not permitted to compete with him either.


Read the head to head again and not sure how a quali head to head of 42-36 over 78 races is a decisive victory??? Hamilton scored 10% more points than Rosberg over 4 seasons and nearly 80 races together.. I will give you that in the wins front it was a comprehensive beating but everything else was as evenly matched as it could be..
Also, with regards to analyzing Schumacher's return, ofcourse I'm allowed to ignore 2010 given the special circumstances of his return and limited testing that was possible..I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue against that..If you want to consider 2011, MS was already beating Rosberg comprehensively in the races although he wasn't quite there in qualifying, which he fixed in 2012...Hamilton's run of having dominant machinery where he had a chance at getting poles in more than 100 races is unprecedented..I think any top driver should be scoring 60-70 poles in that run

Now you're all over the place. First of all; if you exclude qualifying sessions where either Hamilton or Rosberg suffered mechanical failures or did not participate for some other reason; the qualifying battle is even more decisively in Hamilton's favor. Hamilton secured substantially more wins, poles and podiums finishes than Rosberg over their time as teammates as well as beating Rosberg in the points 3 years out of 4 (his only points loss being in 2016 by 5 points and largely due to reliability). They were not "as evenly matched as could be". Not at all. In fact the points were artificially close because of how strong the car was and how Rosberg could almost always finish in second with ease even when Hamilton won.

Secondly; I love how Schumacher fans characterize him as beating Rosberg comprehensively in years where he lost to Rosberg convincingly. Rosberg dominated Schumacher in 2011 and in fact throughout their time as teammates but Schumi fans would have you think that it was all luck. Schumi fans want to point out his every stroke of bad luck and make every excuse while totally ignoring Rosberg's bad luck and mechanical problems over that time. Bottom line is that Rosberg beat Michael all three years where they were teammates. He did that despite Michael and Ross basically taking control of the team and the development direction for the car.

Lastly you seem not to know the meaning of the word "dominant". Dominant doesn't just mean you have a shot at pole position. It means that your car is faster than everyone else by a large enough margin that no one should be able to beat you without some kind of miracle or luck-based circumstance. Hamilton had a car of that caliber in 3 seasons (2014-2016) and had a very tough teammate to race in all three (the same guy who bested Michael in three straight years). Michael had at least 2 seasons like that (2002, 2004) and arguably 3 or 4 depending on how you look at things. He also did NOT have to compete against his teammate during his years in dominant machinery (nor during any point in his career until his comeback with Mercedes). If you want to talk about years where they just had a car that was at least capable of fighting for pole positions; I think Hamilton and Schumacher's careers are very similar and in general I would say that both have had very good cars throughout most of their careers.


You're just spouting BS now...Hamilton has had a pole winning car by a mile for 4 seasons 2014-2017...the only season where he had any competition is 2018 and that too only in a few races...At this point Hamilton has had way more races with a car advantage than Schumacher ever had..
Re. 2011, you must be kidding me? Schumacher had Rosberg covered in races that season..The final points was 89-76 and that too the lead stretched in the last 2 rounds..Till the last few rounds anybody could have come out on top..This is inspite always starting a few places lower than him in the grid(all credit to Rosberg there but doesn't show his race pace in good light relative to MS)..Rosberg is the same driver to beat LH to a WDC over a season..To say he beat him comprehensively in 2011 is twisting facts which isn't supported by the points table

Too much nonsense to continue taking you seriously. The Ferrari was VERY closely matched with the Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. The Ferrari was only slightly inferior in 2017 and was actually slightly superior to the Merc in 2018. You're characterization is so out of touch with reality that I can't continue the discussion.

Yeah, agreed. To include 2017 and 18 in the Merc domination years is a bit rich. Finally another team caught up and even surpassed them at times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33184
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Hill was half a second slower than Senna in a car that pretty much everyone said was a handful to drive. I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that the gap would have remained constant if the car hadn't been such a handful. Three races is a little difficult to form any definite conclusions from and Hill's performance against e.g. Schumacher improved considerably once the B spec car was introduced.

People seem to gloss over the fact that Schumacher had a good couple of years competing against Senna and Prost and was immediately recognised as a contender. He beat Piquet despite joining towards the end of the season and that was no mean feat. In 1993 he was the only driver to finish on the podium every race, a feat his team mate only managed twice. And he beat Senna in the early 1994 races, managing to beat Hill despite having to sit out four races. He didn't only look good against mediocre opposition and there's a strong argument to say he made that opposition look weaker than they were.

Having said that, I think saying he was out of Hamilton's league is probably just a touch of hyperbole. Hamilton has shown himself to be arguably the best of his generation and although I'd rate Schumacher higher I doubt the differences would be that big. There's doubtless a bit of rose-coloured glass viewing but at the same time Schumacher did put in some breathtaking performances to justify it.

Looking to give a driver credit for things Hill never achieved, Senna was new to the team not Hill and Hill was no match for Senna and that was Schumacher's level of competition.

Who needs to defended who here, It's not Schumacher being called a much lesser driver, like I've said before I've no problem with people saying that Schumacher was better, I'm not impressed by the put down on todays drivers and that has to include Alonso as well, did 2006 never happen?

Looking to give what credit? Don't really get what you're saying here

Not sure what you mean by 2006, either. What are you trying to say, exactly?

I think you're reading too much into it. So Irvine thinks Schumacher was the best ever. Big deal. He raced against him so was clearly in awe of him and that's not likely to diminish over time. I think people are getting upset over nothing

I was just saying there's no mention of Alonso who went toe to toe with Schumacher in 2006.


Irvine has made this comment before, about two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y72zQaQYQI

And he does mention Alonso.

Irvine also has been critical of Schumacher, he is not his No1 fan. He called him an idiot after Hungary 2010, that he should be banned, he has criticised Schumacher's Achiles heel (crumbling under pressure), etc. He has also time and again said how much worse he was than MS, it is not a case of bigging MS up to make himself look better. So yeah, I think he was just giving credit where it's due.

I have not got much of a problem with that interview, he actually says a lot of what some of us have been saying, after Senna's death Schumacher was a level above everyone else, Hakkinen was next but still not as good as Schumacher.

His argument then for Schumacher being better than todays drivers is because not one of them stands out as being the best between Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel so neither are a level above the rest, that's kind of an argument for best of all time drivers were we can't compare drivers from different eras so we look to see who dominated their era the most.

Explaining how Schumacher got beat fair and square in 2006 by Alonso however for me is a bit of a cop out, at 37 Schumacher was too old whilst Alonso was young and hungry, well Alonso is now 37 years old does he look impaired?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7787
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Looking to give a driver credit for things Hill never achieved, Senna was new to the team not Hill and Hill was no match for Senna and that was Schumacher's level of competition.

Who needs to defended who here, It's not Schumacher being called a much lesser driver, like I've said before I've no problem with people saying that Schumacher was better, I'm not impressed by the put down on todays drivers and that has to include Alonso as well, did 2006 never happen?

Looking to give what credit? Don't really get what you're saying here

Not sure what you mean by 2006, either. What are you trying to say, exactly?

I think you're reading too much into it. So Irvine thinks Schumacher was the best ever. Big deal. He raced against him so was clearly in awe of him and that's not likely to diminish over time. I think people are getting upset over nothing

I was just saying there's no mention of Alonso who went toe to toe with Schumacher in 2006.


Irvine has made this comment before, about two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y72zQaQYQI

And he does mention Alonso.

Irvine also has been critical of Schumacher, he is not his No1 fan. He called him an idiot after Hungary 2010, that he should be banned, he has criticised Schumacher's Achiles heel (crumbling under pressure), etc. He has also time and again said how much worse he was than MS, it is not a case of bigging MS up to make himself look better. So yeah, I think he was just giving credit where it's due.

I have not got much of a problem with that interview, he actually says a lot of what some of us have been saying, after Senna's death Schumacher was a level above everyone else, Hakkinen was next but still not as good as Schumacher.

His argument then for Schumacher being better than todays drivers is because not one of them stands out as being the best between Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel so neither are a level above the rest, that's kind of an argument for best of all time drivers were we can't compare drivers from different eras so we look to see who dominated their era the most.

Explaining how Schumacher got beat fair and square in 2006 by Alonso however for me is a bit of a cop out, at 37 Schumacher was too old whilst Alonso was young and hungry, well Alonso is now 37 years old does he look impaired?


This held true though for that era, didn't it? As mentioned before and as Blake touched in this thread, the driver pool didn't suddenly disappear for 15 years just to re-appear when Schumacher left... No, without MS we'd have 2-3 drivers being multi WDC, similar to the Alo-Vettel-Hamilton situation that Irvine described. Maybe MS being a level above made the rest look less than they would had he not been there. Why is that so far fetched?

And I did not mention anything about 2006. But impaired???

A bit strong worded there. I would not make excuses for 2006 personally, however it is well documented how Schumacher was drained in 2006, hugely demotivated especially with the politics behind the scenes. Kind of how Alonso was in his last year, making some mistakes when he ran out of f*cks to give... Still, MS took it to the wire, a good show overall in 2006. I'm not even using the mass damper as an excuse myself, Schumacher had won the last three races before it was even banned. No, he lost to a young hungry wolf as Irvine put it, just like most champions in most sports do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:11 pm
Posts: 249
sandman1347 wrote:
Too much nonsense to continue taking you seriously. The Ferrari was VERY closely matched with the Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. The Ferrari was only slightly inferior in 2017 and was actually slightly superior to the Merc in 2018. You're characterization is so out of touch with reality that I can't continue the discussion.


You're the one who is talking nonsense...Mercedes got 15 poles in 2017..Ya thats not a sign of domination..Hamilton is just head and shoulders above the field - not


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Too much nonsense to continue taking you seriously. The Ferrari was VERY closely matched with the Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. The Ferrari was only slightly inferior in 2017 and was actually slightly superior to the Merc in 2018. You're characterization is so out of touch with reality that I can't continue the discussion.


You're the one who is talking nonsense...Mercedes got 15 poles in 2017..Ya thats not a sign of domination..Hamilton is just head and shoulders above the field - not

Mercedes had the better qualifying car most of the time sure but in the races Ferrari was often quicker and the fact is that Hamilton DOES set pole positions without having the fastest car. He's done that numerous times (especially in 2018). That was back when the Q3 engine modes determined a lot anyway. In terms of which car was stronger overall in 2017; through the point where Hamilton sewed up the title it was neck and neck. Ironically it was the last few races of the season where Mercedes took the advantage on the year but by that point the championship was over.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:36 pm 
Online

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3304
Location: UK
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Too much nonsense to continue taking you seriously. The Ferrari was VERY closely matched with the Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. The Ferrari was only slightly inferior in 2017 and was actually slightly superior to the Merc in 2018. You're characterization is so out of touch with reality that I can't continue the discussion.


You're the one who is talking nonsense...Mercedes got 15 poles in 2017..Ya thats not a sign of domination..Hamilton is just head and shoulders above the field - not

Well of those 15 poles, 4 were for Bottas and 11 for Hamilton. Of Hamilton's 11 poles, Bottas qualified 2nd just once, in Japan. So if Mercedes had two Bottases, then they'd have had 5 poles that year. Surely an indication that the car was not that dominant as Mercedes required a top driver to deliver those pole positions?

Though I'm sure I can preempt the response here: that Bottas is so useless that he's a statistical irrelevance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:11 pm
Posts: 249
j man wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Too much nonsense to continue taking you seriously. The Ferrari was VERY closely matched with the Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. The Ferrari was only slightly inferior in 2017 and was actually slightly superior to the Merc in 2018. You're characterization is so out of touch with reality that I can't continue the discussion.


You're the one who is talking nonsense...Mercedes got 15 poles in 2017..Ya thats not a sign of domination..Hamilton is just head and shoulders above the field - not

Well of those 15 poles, 4 were for Bottas and 11 for Hamilton. Of Hamilton's 11 poles, Bottas qualified 2nd just once, in Japan. So if Mercedes had two Bottases, then they'd have had 5 poles that year. Surely an indication that the car was not that dominant as Mercedes required a top driver to deliver those pole positions?

Though I'm sure I can preempt the response here: that Bottas is so useless that he's a statistical irrelevance.


How do you describe a car that wins 15 of 20 poles available in a season? Unless the rest of the field were just useless i don't think you can characterize it in any other way than having a clear advantage..Perhaps not the ridiculous dominance of 2014-2016 but a significant advantage nonetheless..
I don't think it's a good idea using a driver who has lost his personal sponsor and will most likely get the boot at the end of the season as a valid benchmark


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2302
j man wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Too much nonsense to continue taking you seriously. The Ferrari was VERY closely matched with the Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. The Ferrari was only slightly inferior in 2017 and was actually slightly superior to the Merc in 2018. You're characterization is so out of touch with reality that I can't continue the discussion.


You're the one who is talking nonsense...Mercedes got 15 poles in 2017..Ya thats not a sign of domination..Hamilton is just head and shoulders above the field - not

Well of those 15 poles, 4 were for Bottas and 11 for Hamilton. Of Hamilton's 11 poles, Bottas qualified 2nd just once, in Japan. So if Mercedes had two Bottases, then they'd have had 5 poles that year. Surely an indication that the car was not that dominant as Mercedes required a top driver to deliver those pole positions?

Though I'm sure I can preempt the response here: that Bottas is so useless that he's a statistical irrelevance.


You were absolutely right! :thumbup: :lol:

I have the feeling that the goalposts would be shifting if it comes to Schumacher's teammates, though ...
;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16306
schumilegend wrote:
j man wrote:
schumilegend wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Too much nonsense to continue taking you seriously. The Ferrari was VERY closely matched with the Mercedes in 2017 and 2018. The Ferrari was only slightly inferior in 2017 and was actually slightly superior to the Merc in 2018. You're characterization is so out of touch with reality that I can't continue the discussion.


You're the one who is talking nonsense...Mercedes got 15 poles in 2017..Ya thats not a sign of domination..Hamilton is just head and shoulders above the field - not

Well of those 15 poles, 4 were for Bottas and 11 for Hamilton. Of Hamilton's 11 poles, Bottas qualified 2nd just once, in Japan. So if Mercedes had two Bottases, then they'd have had 5 poles that year. Surely an indication that the car was not that dominant as Mercedes required a top driver to deliver those pole positions?

Though I'm sure I can preempt the response here: that Bottas is so useless that he's a statistical irrelevance.


How do you describe a car that wins 15 of 20 poles available in a season? Unless the rest of the field were just useless i don't think you can characterize it in any other way than having a clear advantage..Perhaps not the ridiculous dominance of 2014-2016 but a significant advantage nonetheless..
I don't think it's a good idea using a driver who has lost his personal sponsor and will most likely get the boot at the end of the season as a valid benchmark


Surely Bottas as a middling driver is an ideal benchmark? He showed that the Mercedes was good but could be beaten by a good driver in a different car.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: j man and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group