planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:53 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6813
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

Pole position comes from cars AND drivers. Did you not watch that season? Did you not see how closely matched the Ferrari was? Did you miss how at races such as Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia the Ferrari was simply faster?

By the way Bottas (who you have decided to write off as a nobody) was superior to Felipe massa during their time as teammates (which by extension pegs him above Raikkonen). Bottas is no slouch and the fact that Vettel beat him in both qualifying and the races that year tells you something. If the car was dominant, Bottas would have beaten Vettel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:45 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:50 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
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 also got 13 poles this year, 11 for Hamilton, maybe the old metric of when driver A gets pole it's the car and when driver B gets pole it's the driver?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:59 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
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

What's a valid benchmark for Ferrari, Kimi?

Vettel out qualified Bottas at a ratio of about 2:1 which I would expect in cars that are reasonably well matched, if it was level then that's a good case for the Mercedes being better, if Bottas was actually beating Vettel then you're getting into the realms of the Mercedes perhaps being dominant.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:00 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Paolo_Lasardi 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.


You were absolutely right! :thumbup: :lol:

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

Then the driver is a genius.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:03 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
sandman1347 wrote:
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

Pole position comes from cars AND drivers. Did you not watch that season? Did you not see how closely matched the Ferrari was? Did you miss how at races such as Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia the Ferrari was simply faster?

By the way Bottas (who you have decided to write off as a nobody) was superior to Felipe massa during their time as teammates (which by extension pegs him above Raikkonen). Bottas is no slouch and the fact that Vettel beat him in both qualifying and the races that year tells you something. If the car was dominant, Bottas would have beaten Vettel.

Yeah I've just posted similar, be warned though that cross driver references are somewhat frowned upon, each season starts with a clean slate.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?

well to be fair a metric is being applied to devalue the drivers Schumacher raced against :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7637
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:02 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?

well to be fair a metric is being applied to devalue the drivers Schumacher raced against :-P

You see the likes of Damon Hill and Jacques Villenueve as being stand out talents?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:21 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

It's the period of time when the opposition was questionable, Damon Hill was second best to the likes of Prost and Senna, and Prost was 38, winning multiple titles doesn't get the likes of Jack Brabham on the all time list.

I don't understand the measurement of being a good driver, are you saying that today's champions are not beating good drivers, the likes of Hulkenberg are not good drivers?

Schumacher explaining his reason for retiring does he also stress that it caused him to drive worse than he might have done, Rosberg was burnt out after he won his title, was this causing him to drive worse?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6813
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7637
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

It's the period of time when the opposition was questionable, Damon Hill was second best to the likes of Prost and Senna, and Prost was 38, winning multiple titles doesn't get the likes of Jack Brabham on the all time list.

I don't understand the measurement of being a good driver, are you saying that today's champions are not beating good drivers, the likes of Hulkenberg are not good drivers?

Schumacher explaining his reason for retiring does he also stress that it caused him to drive worse than he might have done, Rosberg was burnt out after he won his title, was this causing him to drive worse?


Oh yeah, how could Hill, in his first couple of years, be slower than Prost and Senna? Come on Poker, get serious.

I did not say that today's drivers are worse, no idea why you are saying this. Only that the drivers of that era as not as bad as you present them maybe.

Your last part makes absolutely zero sense to me, I'm not sure what you are saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?

well to be fair a metric is being applied to devalue the drivers Schumacher raced against :-P

You see the likes of Damon Hill and Jacques Villenueve as being stand out talents?

I think Hakkinen was, yes, while JV was both a Champ Car and F1 champion, so wasn't all that shabby. And Hill beat him, so..

I think Hill's main issue was he couldn't drive around sub-par machinery in the way that e.g. Senna could, but he looked to have the speed. I don't see any of them any worse than e.g. Rosberg.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7637
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.


I do not mind at all Sandman, this is the whole point of a forum, to chat. I do that to your posts, to others, etc. As long as we all keep it civil I do not consider it as barging in, more like adding to the conversation!

Now I do not think that it makes much difference. It is semantics. Schumacher was the hot rod straight away when he joined, nabbed after only a race. You say 1994, but he had produced many good races before that and showed his craft way before that. And as for 2005, arguable, again if it wasn't for the wooden tyres the Ferrari would have been a very good car that year. Not trying to downgrade Alonso, he came alive from that year and the Renault was a fine car. But the impairment of the Ferrari added to that.

I agree that back then we did get a lot of drivers getting in F1 because of money, but this can also hold true now. Money always talked in this sport and even today they need all the sponsorship they can get to go through all the entry levels to graduate to F1.

But the idea I am rejecting is this: you have one driver a head above the rest. Why is it that the rest of them are all crap instead that he is just so much better than the others? You can argue it both ways, but the reality is that we just do not have any solid way of comparing the drivers then and the drivers now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.

BIB: don' think that's quite true. From Wikipedia:

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6813
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.


I do not mind at all Sandman, this is the whole point of a forum, to chat. I do that to your posts, to others, etc. As long as we all keep it civil I do not consider it as barging in, more like adding to the conversation!

Now I do not think that it makes much difference. It is semantics. Schumacher was the hot rod straight away when he joined, nabbed after only a race. You say 1994, but he had produced many good races before that and showed his craft way before that. And as for 2005, arguable, again if it wasn't for the wooden tyres the Ferrari would have been a very good car that year. Not trying to downgrade Alonso, he came alive from that year and the Renault was a fine car. But the impairment of the Ferrari added to that.

I agree that back then we did get a lot of drivers getting in F1 because of money, but this can also hold true now. Money always talked in this sport and even today they need all the sponsorship they can get to go through all the entry levels to graduate to F1.

But the idea I am rejecting is this: you have one driver a head above the rest. Why is it that the rest of them are all crap instead that he is just so much better than the others? You can argue it both ways, but the reality is that we just do not have any solid way of comparing the drivers then and the drivers now.

In a vacuum, your statement here is logically sound. If there is one outlier performer one would logically assume that performer to be the anomaly and not the entire field of competition that he's competing against. That said; we are not in a vacuum. We have the context to make a much deeper analysis and that analysis bares out that the top drivers Michael competed against during his era wouldn't even be top 5-6 on the grid today. To say that we don't have a solid way of comparing the drivers then to the drivers now is something I totally disagree with. There are many ways to connect the drivers from that time to today's drivers. Many of them raced against the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Button and Vettel before their careers were over and even Michael himself came back for a bit during the modern era. JV, DC, JPM; all of these guys were exposed as the next generation started to come in.

Let me ask you this; who in the field besides Michael from 1995-2004 was comparable to Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Ricciardo, Verstappen, etc.? For me the answer is very clearly "no one". If I had to peg Hakkinen; I'd say he's probably about on par with the likes of Rosberg or Button and Mika was by far the best driver that Michael competed against between Senna's death and Alono's emergence. For me, the field was objectively weak and the pay-driver thing is actually overblown today. We have maybe 2 or 3 guys on the grid each season who might not be there if not for financial backing, connections, etc. For the most part, the grid is filled with the best talent available. Back then, there were substantially more drivers on the grid for those reasons and substantially less programs in place to support drivers who did not have the resources from a young age. I think the field is a LOT stronger now talent-wise than it was back then. It's interesting how few people seem to realize what has happened to the motorsports landscape over the last 20-30 years.

I guess my view of Michael is that he was clearly the best of his era but that it was a weaker era in terms of driver talent and that he never had to compete against a strong teammate until he came back at age 41 to race alongside Nico Rosberg (and lost 3 years running). Now he can't be blamed for the depth of talent in the field during his time and he was arguably past his prime when he came back to race for Mercedes but my overall point is that I don't put Michael up on a pedestal as some kind of untouchable model of perfection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7637
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.


I do not mind at all Sandman, this is the whole point of a forum, to chat. I do that to your posts, to others, etc. As long as we all keep it civil I do not consider it as barging in, more like adding to the conversation!

Now I do not think that it makes much difference. It is semantics. Schumacher was the hot rod straight away when he joined, nabbed after only a race. You say 1994, but he had produced many good races before that and showed his craft way before that. And as for 2005, arguable, again if it wasn't for the wooden tyres the Ferrari would have been a very good car that year. Not trying to downgrade Alonso, he came alive from that year and the Renault was a fine car. But the impairment of the Ferrari added to that.

I agree that back then we did get a lot of drivers getting in F1 because of money, but this can also hold true now. Money always talked in this sport and even today they need all the sponsorship they can get to go through all the entry levels to graduate to F1.

But the idea I am rejecting is this: you have one driver a head above the rest. Why is it that the rest of them are all crap instead that he is just so much better than the others? You can argue it both ways, but the reality is that we just do not have any solid way of comparing the drivers then and the drivers now.

In a vacuum, your statement here is logically sound. If there is one outlier performer one would logically assume that performer to be the anomaly and not the entire field of competition that he's competing against. That said; we are not in a vacuum. We have the context to make a much deeper analysis and that analysis bares out that the top drivers Michael competed against during his era wouldn't even be top 5-6 on the grid today. To say that we don't have a solid way of comparing the drivers then to the drivers now is something I totally disagree with. There are many ways to connect the drivers from that time to today's drivers. Many of them raced against the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Button and Vettel before their careers were over and even Michael himself came back for a bit during the modern era. JV, DC, JPM; all of these guys were exposed as the next generation started to come in.

Let me ask you this; who in the field besides Michael from 1995-2004 was comparable to Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Ricciardo, Verstappen, etc.? For me the answer is very clearly "no one". If I had to peg Hakkinen; I'd say he's probably about on par with the likes of Rosberg or Button and Mika was by far the best driver that Michael competed against between Senna's death and Alono's emergence. For me, the field was objectively weak and the pay-driver thing is actually overblown today. We have maybe 2 or 3 guys on the grid each season who might not be there if not for financial backing, connections, etc. For the most part, the grid is filled with the best talent available. Back then, there were substantially more drivers on the grid for those reasons and substantially less programs in place to support drivers who did not have the resources from a young age. I think the field is a LOT stronger now talent-wise than it was back then. It's interesting how few people seem to realize what has happened to the motorsports landscape over the last 20-30 years.

I guess my view of Michael is that he was clearly the best of his era but that it was a weaker era in terms of driver talent and that he never had to compete against a strong teammate until he came back at age 41 to race alongside Nico Rosberg (and lost 3 years running). Now he can't be blamed for the depth of talent in the field during his time and he was arguably past his prime when he came back to race for Mercedes but my overall point is that I don't put Michael up on a pedestal as some kind of untouchable model of perfection.


Some of the drivers overlapped, but I can't seriously compare - for example - a 39 year old Rubens against a young Hulk (who he still beat in the same car). I'd want to compare drivers in their prime and this is difficult to do, that is why there can't be a solid, end of discussion type of comparison in my view. I am not saying that mine is a perfect theory, but drivers have ups and downs in different seasons, take Hamilton in that dreadful 2012 season and now, or in high contrast Vettel. It is not easy to just compare them between different eras like that.

As for the depth of the field, you make a good point, but the creme always rises to the top, the best drivers normally manage to get sponsorship and find their way into the top one way or another. I can remember very few big names tooted to end up in F1 that never made it, like the guy that beat Senna in karts, etc., but even that reeks of romanticism. What you mention above is what we are trying to distinguish; the best field available at the time. So how do you weigh this between two different eras? It is not easy, it was the best available at the time; but was the 90's best better than 00's best or not? I can't say with certainty that it was. Drivers overlap, but the field continuously changes and even drivers' performances change from one year to the next. There is no definite way to measure this. The only one thing we tell for sure is that the breadth of the field seems to have widened.

As for the last part, no one is doing that. Michael's negatives are well documented, how he sometimes crumbled under pressure or how he could be a hindrance instead of help in the car development, etc. I can't recall anyone here that put him on a pedestal, unlike other drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:58 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?

well to be fair a metric is being applied to devalue the drivers Schumacher raced against :-P

You see the likes of Damon Hill and Jacques Villenueve as being stand out talents?

I think Hakkinen was, yes, while JV was both a Champ Car and F1 champion, so wasn't all that shabby. And Hill beat him, so..

I think Hill's main issue was he couldn't drive around sub-par machinery in the way that e.g. Senna could, but he looked to have the speed. I don't see any of them any worse than e.g. Rosberg.

There are quite a few drivers that you would rate better than Rosberg in todays grid, Hill would have been close to Senna if not for the car?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


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

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?

well to be fair a metric is being applied to devalue the drivers Schumacher raced against :-P

You see the likes of Damon Hill and Jacques Villenueve as being stand out talents?

I think Hakkinen was, yes, while JV was both a Champ Car and F1 champion, so wasn't all that shabby. And Hill beat him, so..

I think Hill's main issue was he couldn't drive around sub-par machinery in the way that e.g. Senna could, but he looked to have the speed. I don't see any of them any worse than e.g. Rosberg.

There are quite a few drivers that you would rate better than Rosberg in todays grid, Hill would have been close to Senna if not for the car?

I think he would have been closer, certainly. But Senna's the fastest driver I've ever seen, so not being as fast as him doesn't necessarily mean a driver is not that good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
There are quite a few drivers that you would rate better than Rosberg in todays grid, Hill would have been close to Senna if not for the car?

Personally, I'd say Hakkinen was roughly a Rosberg-level driver. Nobody else from the 1990s apart from Michael. I see Hill and JV as both weaker than Rosberg.

_________________
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: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:20 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
well to be fair a metric is being applied to devalue the drivers Schumacher raced against :-P

You see the likes of Damon Hill and Jacques Villenueve as being stand out talents?

I think Hakkinen was, yes, while JV was both a Champ Car and F1 champion, so wasn't all that shabby. And Hill beat him, so..

I think Hill's main issue was he couldn't drive around sub-par machinery in the way that e.g. Senna could, but he looked to have the speed. I don't see any of them any worse than e.g. Rosberg.

There are quite a few drivers that you would rate better than Rosberg in todays grid, Hill would have been close to Senna if not for the car?

I think he would have been closer, certainly. But Senna's the fastest driver I've ever seen, so not being as fast as him doesn't necessarily mean a driver is not that good.

That's just pure supposition by you though.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:22 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
There are quite a few drivers that you would rate better than Rosberg in todays grid, Hill would have been close to Senna if not for the car?

Personally, I'd say Hakkinen was roughly a Rosberg-level driver. Nobody else from the 1990s apart from Michael. I see Hill and JV as both weaker than Rosberg.

That would be my take as well.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
You see the likes of Damon Hill and Jacques Villenueve as being stand out talents?

I think Hakkinen was, yes, while JV was both a Champ Car and F1 champion, so wasn't all that shabby. And Hill beat him, so..

I think Hill's main issue was he couldn't drive around sub-par machinery in the way that e.g. Senna could, but he looked to have the speed. I don't see any of them any worse than e.g. Rosberg.

There are quite a few drivers that you would rate better than Rosberg in todays grid, Hill would have been close to Senna if not for the car?

I think he would have been closer, certainly. But Senna's the fastest driver I've ever seen, so not being as fast as him doesn't necessarily mean a driver is not that good.

That's just pure supposition by you though.
Isn't that true of anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6813
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

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.

10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.

BIB: don' think that's quite true. From Wikipedia:

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:35 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think Hakkinen was, yes, while JV was both a Champ Car and F1 champion, so wasn't all that shabby. And Hill beat him, so..

I think Hill's main issue was he couldn't drive around sub-par machinery in the way that e.g. Senna could, but he looked to have the speed. I don't see any of them any worse than e.g. Rosberg.

There are quite a few drivers that you would rate better than Rosberg in todays grid, Hill would have been close to Senna if not for the car?

I think he would have been closer, certainly. But Senna's the fastest driver I've ever seen, so not being as fast as him doesn't necessarily mean a driver is not that good.

That's just pure supposition by you though.
Isn't that true of anyone?

Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

_________________
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: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
There are quite a few drivers that you would rate better than Rosberg in todays grid, Hill would have been close to Senna if not for the car?

I think he would have been closer, certainly. But Senna's the fastest driver I've ever seen, so not being as fast as him doesn't necessarily mean a driver is not that good.

That's just pure supposition by you though.
Isn't that true of anyone?

Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

you agreed with a post above saying Hakkinen was roughly at Rosberg's level, while Hill and JV were both weaker. Irrespective of the actual position taken, isn't that supposition too?

And by the way I stated i think he would have been closer. Practically by definition that's supposition. I'm not trying to claim any superior knowledge here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:43 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:55 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think he would have been closer, certainly. But Senna's the fastest driver I've ever seen, so not being as fast as him doesn't necessarily mean a driver is not that good.

That's just pure supposition by you though.
Isn't that true of anyone?

Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

you agreed with a post above saying Hakkinen was roughly at Rosberg's level, while Hill and JV were both weaker. Irrespective of the actual position taken, isn't that supposition too?

And by the way I stated i think he would have been closer. Practically by definition that's supposition. I'm not trying to claim any superior knowledge here

That is clearly supposition on my part with no actual reference points they drove in different eras after all, however it's not actually witnessing one driver being quicker than another driver and then saying if they had continued as teammates the slower driver would have improved, I often say this about giving drivers credit for things they've not actually done.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years, some of these drivers were second best to drivers that had gone before and drivers that came later so they would have not have been seen as all time greats as also explained by sandman I believe?

Impaired just means a driver that is seen as not able to give of his best, with Schumacher his age is given as an excuse, you bring forward the notion he was mentally tired.

2006 set a high parameter going forward in the guise of Alonso I would say for many people but now it appears a metric is being applied to devalue the standing of todays drivers?



pokerman wrote:
10 years not 15 years

Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.

BIB: don' think that's quite true. From Wikipedia:

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6813
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:

BIB: don' think that's quite true. From Wikipedia:

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

Let me help you with that. Hakkinen above Rosberg is not absurd. I think you'd find people who agree with that. Personally I peg them as about equal overall but it's not ridiculous to say that Hakkinen was better. Hill and JV are a different story though. Damon Hill raced some top drivers in the same car. He raced people like Mansell, Prost and Senna in the same car and he was never a threat to any of them. He simply wasn't on that level. Hill was not a top-shelf driver. Honestly I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Hill was on par with Rosberg. As for JV; he wasn't even on par with Hill...He teamed with Button later in his career and was demolished comprehensively. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he's better than Rosberg. Rosberg kept Hamilton honest for 4 years and he bested an older Michael Schumacher for three years. You may not want to give him the respect he's earned but his track record speaks for itself.

By the way, my claims are not "unsupported". It is a fact that the number of participants in motor sport has risen almost exponentially over the last 30-40 years. In addition to the larger number of participants; you have people competing from a younger and younger age. This basically guarantees that you will end up with superior talent/skill at the top levels as is evident when you look at the grid these last few years. Your "factual example" refers to only one man and is totally irrelevant from a logical standpoint when assessing the landscape of an entire sport. No one said it was impossible for someone to make it if they weren't wealthy; only that the likelihood was much more slim. Producing a single example (an example of literally the best driver of the era) does not somehow disprove that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

No. I said I don't think either one is factual. There are no facts about how well Hill would have compared to Senna, because they simply weren't teammates for a sufficient stretch of time. There's more and less probable guesses - I think Hill would have remained notable slower, but not by the margin he started the year - but none of it is factual.

_________________
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: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:

BIB: don' think that's quite true. From Wikipedia:

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

Let me help you with that. Hakkinen above Rosberg is not absurd. I think you'd find people who agree with that. Personally I peg them as about equal overall but it's not ridiculous to say that Hakkinen was better. Hill and JV are a different story though. Damon Hill raced some top drivers in the same car. He raced people like Mansell, Prost and Senna in the same car and he was never a threat to any of them. He simply wasn't on that level. Hill was not a top-shelf driver. Honestly I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Hill was on par with Rosberg. As for JV; he wasn't even on par with Hill...He teamed with Button later in his career and was demolished comprehensively. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he's better than Rosberg. Rosberg kept Hamilton honest for 4 years and he bested an older Michael Schumacher for three years. You may not want to give him the respect he's earned but his track record speaks for itself.

By the way, my claims are not "unsupported". It is a fact that the number of participants in motor sport has risen almost exponentially over the last 30-40 years. In addition to the larger number of participants; you have people competing from a younger and younger age. This basically guarantees that you will end up with superior talent/skill at the top levels as is evident when you look at the grid these last few years. Your "factual example" refers to only one man and is totally irrelevant from a logical standpoint when assessing the landscape of an entire sport. No one said it was impossible for someone to make it if they weren't wealthy; only that the likelihood was much more slim. Producing a single example (an example of literally the best driver of the era) does not somehow disprove that.

It can never be proven or disproven, since it's wholly conjecture in the first place. But the example given does raise questions about how accurate it is. And, by the way, Hill also struggled with financing and had to fight for recognition, as did Mansell, who famously mortgaged his house just so that he could compete. You're making a blanket statement but you don't really have anything to base it on beyond simple speculation. That's all I'm highlighting.

As for the rest...fair comments. I don't personally agree but can see the logic. I don't think being beaten by Prost shows he's poor and it's not like Hill scored terribly. We're talking his first proper season and he managed several wins. Not sure I understand what you mean about never being a threat to Mansell, though. For starters, they only raced together on three occasions and Hill outqualified Mansell on two of them (and finished ahead of him both times). And in the final race, Hill was already ahead of Mansell when Schumacher turned into him, so had beaten him there. I'd say that qualified as him being a threat. I think he was a pretty decent driver and certainly in terms of racecraft I'd have him above Rosberg any day of the week. JV is a bit more controversial I guess, although people seem to forget he had an almost identical debut to Hamilton, finishing 2nd in his first year and clinching the title in his second. He was more mercurial I'd agree but I'd still rate him above Rosberg. Point is that's very much subjective, not objective as you tried to say earlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:55 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Really? That's the issue? From 92 when the old guard was retiring to 2006 that someone actually emerged as a serious contender, but we can argue that number; it won't make a difference really, it is semantics.

No one talked about the drivers of that era being all time greats. But if you had Mika a 4xWDC, Hill a 3xWDC, etc. you'd be crazy not to think of them as good drivers, saying that the depth of the field was "shallow"... Talk about devaluing!

As for Schumacher, he mentioned it himself many times;

"Schumacher's voice broke with emotion as he revealed he would retire, but he insisted the decision to once again leave the sport is the right one, confessing he is "empty"."

"It's not painful. It is a relief to me, I have done so much in this sport but when the battery is going low the first time, and then it is doing so again, and I am older, it is something I am looking forward to."

I'll leave out all the politics with Kimi and Monti. This is what he said himself. Take it with a pinch of salt, but I did not just come up with this.

Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.

BIB: don' think that's quite true. From Wikipedia:

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

So you basically rate JV and Hill at a similar level to Hamilton?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Not to jump in the middle here but 92' and 93' were both years where Schumacher was NOT the top performer in F1. I'd say 94' is the earliest year you could say that he was and that year is clouded in shame for Michael. For a lot of people it's 95' that stands out as the year Michael became the top driver in the sport as Senna had died the year before, Mansell's comeback had come to an end, Prost had retired at the end of 93' and it was basically Schumacher vs. Hill for the title (a rivalry that I'm sure Hamilton, Vettel or Alonso would take in a heartbeat).

Also it's 2005 where a legitimate threat emerged; not 2006. You could argue that Kimi and Fernando first really became involved up front in 2003 but I'd say 2005 was the year where they truly arrived. So it really is a lot more like 10 years than 15.

I think you have to consider the ways in which the landscape of the sport has evolved over the years. There is just a far more competitive landscape nowadays than in the past. The 90's was when a lot of the young driver programs first went into place and so you had a lot more young kart racers being sponsored and supported on their way through the ranks if they showed a high level of talent. This was a game-changer as it made the potential talent pool MUCH deeper than it was before. People like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would likely not have made it into F1 had they been born 20 years earlier due simply to economics.

Anyway, I think it's objectively evident that the field of drivers today is far more talented than the field circa 1995-2004.

BIB: don' think that's quite true. From Wikipedia:

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

So you basically rate JV and Hill at a similar level to Hamilton?

No I'd put Hamilton higher


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:01 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

The Williams car itself became much more competitive.

How fast was Senna?

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:11 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32646
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: don' think that's quite true. From Wikipedia:

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

So you basically rate JV and Hill at a similar level to Hamilton?

No I'd put Hamilton higher

Rosberg was respectively competitive with Hamilton.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 26th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

So you basically rate JV and Hill at a similar level to Hamilton?

No I'd put Hamilton higher

Rosberg was respectively competitive with Hamilton.

He was indeed. But I'd still put Hamilton higher. Wouldn't you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

The Williams car itself became much more competitive.

How fast was Senna?

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

http://www.f1network.net/boards/report/s107.htm?110,14555646

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW16

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had


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: pokerman 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