Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?

[paulguitar]

I suspect Shuey's relative failure at Merc was a combination of being past his best along with missing all of the advantages he'd been able to put together in his main career.

[vdn]

paulguitar said:

I suspect Shuey's relative failure at Merc was a combination of being past his best along with missing all of the advantages he'd been able to put together in his main career.

That’s a safe bet.

[sparta6]

vdn said:

Fact is he came back to a field of better drivers

Younger drivers certainly.

Button in his prime was no prime Hakkinen.
No doubt that if Mika had also come out of retirement he would have also struggled.

Every dog has it's day

[NewUsername]

kiseca said:

He didn't win only on merit. Schumacher and Hill failed to finish, and being in the fastest car in the field, winning when the sister car with the faster driver was out of the way wasn't exactly a miracle.

Of course the McLaren performances matter. Or are we only to consider the performances that suit your point of view?

And Raikkonen has gone through two top teams and now at the age of 40 finds himself, having being outdriven by the not especially highly regarded Seb Vettel, in a midfield team. Also not a great example to predict greatness from Schumi, as he is, like Mansell, yet another driver who, at 40, is showing that his best speed and biggest successes are behind him.

Oh, and I agree that older drivers have shown they can be competitive in Indycar. I don't doubt Schumacher would have been successful there too, as Formula 1 drivers have frequently shown they can move to Indy and win, whereas Indy drivers seem more inclined to fail when they move to F1.

However, if they can succeed in Indy, why don't they succeed in Formula 1? It's a performance orientated sport. If they were getting rid of drivers too soon, then someone would pick it up, but they don't. It's not prejudice or marketing.

Edited by kiseca on Tuesday 22 October 14:37

He qualified on pole and was told to let Hill/Schumacher past.....again its well documented in interviews with frank, damon and nigel its irrelevant anyway, if you don't agree Nigel was competitive in F1 at the age of 41 with the qualy and finishes he had then you're frankly on crack, because that's competitive to anyone else, note i'm not saying the best, but he was there mixing it at the sharp end at 41 not plodding round on the fringes of the points while his team mate was taking podiums. Age is not the reason Shumacher failed at Mercedes

[kiseca]

NewUsername said:

He qualified on pole and was told to let Hill/Schumacher past.....again its well documented in interviews with frank, damon and nigel its irrelevant anyway, if you don't agree Nigel was competitive in F1 at the age of 41 with the qualy and finishes he had then you're frankly on crack, because that's competitive to anyone else, note i'm not saying the best, but he was there mixing it at the sharp end at 41 not plodding round on the fringes of the points while his team mate was taking podiums. Age is not the reason Shumacher failed at Mercedes

He was told to let Schumacher past? By whom?

[NewUsername]

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

He qualified on pole and was told to let Hill/Schumacher past.....again its well documented in interviews with frank, damon and nigel its irrelevant anyway, if you don't agree Nigel was competitive in F1 at the age of 41 with the qualy and finishes he had then you're frankly on crack, because that's competitive to anyone else, note i'm not saying the best, but he was there mixing it at the sharp end at 41 not plodding round on the fringes of the points while his team mate was taking podiums. Age is not the reason Shumacher failed at Mercedes

He was told to let Schumacher past? By whom?

He was told....as Nigel said at his talk a coupl eof weeks back to not interfere with the title fight, he fluffed the start and let MS past and by virtue of that had to let Damon past.
Lets not forget MS had a heavy crash on the friday chasing NM's provisional pole time which he was unable to eclipse.

Still as you say NM was uncompetitive at 41 so none of the above really happened

[kiseca]

NewUsername said:

Still as you say NM was uncompetitive at 41 so none of the above really happened

[TobyTR]

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

NewUsername said:

kiseca said:

EDIT: Those comparing Mansell to Schumacher through age, have a look through Formula 1's "Oldest" records. Schumacher appears on them repeatedly, setting age records not matched since 1970 in some cases. Mansell does not.

Edited by kiseca on Tuesday 22 October 09:05

Largely irrelevant, as we know the record books show JB scored more points then LH over 3 seasons etc etc

Fact is Mansell was plenty competitive at that age ( against his team mate also ) after two seasons driving vastly different cars, this is not a mansell fanboy post but merely a case study in age/performance/comeback, so using MS age as an excuse doesn't hold true with me, especially as its claimed he was in such fine shape and he had tested extensively in his time away.

He wasn't. He won a pole position, which is good, but so did Schumacher - in a car that wasn't the class of the field, and two years older. Mansell also won a race, but only after the sister car, driven by Hill, and Schumacher himself, were out. He didn't do enough to secure his seat from Coulthard. He wasn't as fast as Hill in race trim. He managed two races with McLaren the next season before throwing in the towel.

If you look at 1994 he was competitive, in 3 races he Qualified 3,4, 1 and finished 3rd and 1st.... if that's not competitive i don't know what is particularly when you look at who was engineering who's car and team orders about interfering with the champoinship. Coulthard was signed on age and budget, not performance.

Anyway, you can attempt to divert from the core of the discussion but the fact is age at 41 is not a barrier especially someone in peak condition like MS and yet he was thrashed by NR for 3 years in a row because he wasn't in his negotiated bubble like previously

If Mansell was showing signs of his prime, then he would've been re-signed by a team to a full-time F1 drive in 1995. He wasn't, because he was past it. SHow us another 43-year-old F1 driver that achieved the same or better as Schumacher after over three years out...

And then paulguitar tries to bring in Fangio... - yeah, because physical fitness and speed was the same back in the 1950s and 1960s as modern F1...... good grief. Why do some clowns on here still think F1 drivers are operating the same in their 40s as in their prime? Zero common sense.

[paulguitar]

TobyTR said:

And then paulguitar tries to bring in Fangio... - yeah, because physical fitness and speed was the same back in the 1950s and 1960s as modern F1...... good grief. Why do some clowns on here still think F1 drivers are operating the same in their 40s as in their prime? Zero common sense.

I was being a little bit cheeky with the Fangio mention, but I see it was perhaps too subtle.

[TobyTR]

vdn said:

I’ve watched F1 since being a young pup. And lower formulae also. I’ve even raced karts and single seaters.

Hamilton is the greatest F1 driver in history IMO and his career isn’t even over yet.

Every great car he’s landed in; he’s earnt. People seem to forget...

He dominated in everything from being child to modern day. Never has their been a driver so good over such a period of time.

Team Principals anonymously vote him their best driver every year; even the year he lost to Rosberg. Alonso says that Hamilton is in another league.

But let’s let PH armchair experts attempt to say otherwise

2009-2013 says no. On that basis, he can't be the greatest ever because Senna and Schumacher 1992-2006 were great every year

And what about the team principals who say Michael or Senna is the greatest of all time? Not just the best that particular year in the current field.

Edited by TobyTR on Tuesday 22 October 21:53

[TobyTR]

NewUsername said:

Coulthard was signed on age because the sponsors wanted a young long term prospect not a short term one, and Nigel was also very expensive...does that help, its in Franks book, we are talking physical barriers to perfomance anyway so a massively irrelevant point, as both nigel and Michael drove at 41

The 95 season isnt worth noting, Nigel didn't perform because he couldn't test pre season and the car wasn't ready for him till race three, he was signed late and if you know anything McLarens aero philosphy at the time you'll know why the car didn't fit, motivation was therefore zero and he walked away, you don't go from winning in November to being useless a few months later ......

Age is still not a barrier......Raikkonen will be 40 shortly if not already......go across the Atlantic and look at Indycar, historically they run drivers way older, their cars have higher top speeds, high lateral G and run on road circuits and ovals......plenty of over 40's win/have won there. Age is not a barrier to motorsports, F1 has limited seats so using historic examples there are few examples to choose.

Oh lord, just do us all a favour and give up now. Are you seriously suggesting Raikkonen is the same driver as 2002-2007?

[TobyTR]

sparta6 said:

Younger drivers certainly.

Button in his prime was no prime Hakkinen.
No doubt that if Mika had also come out of retirement he would have also struggled.

Every dog has it's day

Funnily enough, Mika Hakkinen did try and come out of retirement when he tested for McLaren in 2004. But after over two years away and at the age of 37 he was well off the pace of Coulthard. Ah, but age and time away from F1 means nothing apparently... and that must mean Coulthard was better than Hakkinen, much like the argument Rosberg is somehow better than M.Schumacher(!)

It's like boxing - the moment an ageing boxer has a period of significant inactivity they are done.

Edited by TobyTR on Tuesday 22 October 22:06

[E34-3.2]

TobyTR said:

sparta6 said:

Younger drivers certainly.

Button in his prime was no prime Hakkinen.
No doubt that if Mika had also come out of retirement he would have also struggled.

Every dog has it's day

Funnily enough, Mika Hakkinen did try and come out of retirement when he tested for McLaren in 2004. But after over two years away and at the age of 37 he was well off the pace of Coulthard. Ah, but age and time away from F1 means nothing apparently... and that must mean Coulthard was better than Hakkinen, much like the argument Rosberg is somehow better than M.Schumacher(!)

It's like boxing - the moment an ageing boxer has a period of significant inactivity they are done.

Edited by TobyTR on Tuesday 22 October 22:06

Not sure how you can compare boxing to formula 1?

Well, explain to me about Prost. More than a year of retirement, comes back at the age of 37 and becomes world champion again. Can't apply your logic on every drivers.

[Kraken]

E34-3.2 said:

Not sure how you can compare boxing to formula 1?

Well, explain to me about Prost. More than a year of retirement, comes back at the age of 37 and becomes world champion again. Can't apply your logic on every drivers.

How many come back to a car that good though? F1 is massively more about the car than the driver.

[E34-3.2]

Kraken said:

E34-3.2 said:

Not sure how you can compare boxing to formula 1?

Well, explain to me about Prost. More than a year of retirement, comes back at the age of 37 and becomes world champion again. Can't apply your logic on every drivers.

How many come back to a car that good though? F1 is massively more about the car than the driver.

Where did Hill finished with the same car than Prost? Surely, Hill a much younger driver should have been better from what we are reading on here.

[NewUsername]

TobyTR said:

If Mansell was showing signs of his prime, then he would've been re-signed by a team to a full-time F1 drive in 1995. He wasn't, because he was past it. SHow us another 43-year-old F1 driver that achieved the same or better as Schumacher after over three years out...

He was....Mclaren lol

TobyTR said:

Why do some clowns on here still think F1 drivers are operating the same in their 40s as in their prime? Zero common sense.

Because the small sample of modern F1 drivers who've done it suggests its possible to be competitive.......the large sample of Indy suggests its totally possible

Why do some clowns ignore this in their blind belief Shumacher was god............he was either immensely fit and redefined driver condition in which case Age didn't really matter and he got hammered by NR for 3 years or he succumbed to age and wasn't as good as Nigel Mansell at 41......

Its one or the other really

[Kraken]

E34-3.2 said:

Where did Hill finished with the same car than Prost? Surely, Hill a much younger driver should have been better from what we are reading on here.

He wasn't that much younger. Prost was 37 and Hill was 33 at the time.

Of course there is more to it than just age but if you take two drivers with identical ability and experience at the time of the comeback the one that hasn't been out of the sport should always win but how often (if ever) do you get two drivers that match that criteria?

[HustleRussell]

Retirement speculation seems to start when a driver is in his late 30s and there seems to be a consensus that a driver at 40 is past his best. Any ex-driver will tell you that.

The human body is physically past it’s prime at 40. It is more difficult to keep weigh off. Injury is more likely and slower to recover from.

The brain is more plastic and slower to learn.

This knowledge can have a subconscious negative impact on motivation.

If the driver wants kids and doesn’t have them yet he has one eye on the door at around this age. If the driver has kids already, he is growing increasingly guilty about not being there to do normal Dad stuff.

An F1 driver at 40 has probably queued up a load of personal and business interests to guarantee his own sanity and the financial future of he and his family. These come with their own commitments and are a distraction to some extent.

Of course it’s possible for a driver to continue to compete at a decent level at 40+ but everything is a bit harder and his age is beginning to show on the timesheets in terms of outright speed. This is especially true in the modern era when the average age of the rest of the grid is around 30- and the emphasis on training is such that they are all especially fit these days.

ETA: and any years out exacerbate all of this because the technical race never stops, the cars are ever changing and at an older age the driver is slower to learn and adapt and instinctively more risk-averse.

Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 23 October 09:49

Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 23 October 09:52

[sparta6]

E34-3.2 said:

TobyTR said:

sparta6 said:

Younger drivers certainly.

Button in his prime was no prime Hakkinen.
No doubt that if Mika had also come out of retirement he would have also struggled.

Every dog has it's day

Funnily enough, Mika Hakkinen did try and come out of retirement when he tested for McLaren in 2004. But after over two years away and at the age of 37 he was well off the pace of Coulthard. Ah, but age and time away from F1 means nothing apparently... and that must mean Coulthard was better than Hakkinen, much like the argument Rosberg is somehow better than M.Schumacher(!)

It's like boxing - the moment an ageing boxer has a period of significant inactivity they are done.

Edited by TobyTR on Tuesday 22 October 22:06

Can't apply your logic on every drivers.

Exactly right.

The ageing process affects different people in different ways.

[angrymoby]

TobyTR said:

Oh lord, just do us all a favour and give up now. Are you seriously suggesting Raikkonen is the same driver as 2002-2007?

i don't think anyone is claiming that age doesn't have an effect

then again how well is the 25 year old Giovinazzi doing against Kimi?

& you still can't escape that Schumi's highest finishing position in 2011 was a 4th in Canada, which he could have easily been a win ...aged 42 (Nico's highest finish that season being 5th in Turkey & China)

& that he got a pole in 2012 before his grid drop (which would've been a nailed on win without the penalty) ...aged 43 (which would have equalled Nico's highest finish that year- a win in China)

Edited by angrymoby on Wednesday 23 October 11:33