Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?

[angrymoby]

TobyTR said:

We have established the Benetton was both faster and more reliable than the Ferrari F310B.

no ...& yet again, it was a fag paper faster than ONE of the Ferrari's in Quali

& yet again you're conflating a cars quali pace with race pace, we don't know about the other Ferrari's race pace- because Eddie crashed it & yet again, a difficult car doesn't necessitate a slow car

TobyTR said:

In the Autosport video I posted the Journalists said "the 96 and 97 Ferraris were the years he did his most amazing races" and "the 97 pace deficit was similar to the '96 Ferrari". They ranked the F310B 12th out of 20, just ahead of the Benetton B192 and Jordan 191, and behind the Benetton B193. That says it all.

"the 97 pace deficit was similar to the '96 Ferrari ...to the Williams" is what was actually said (no mention of the Benetton or McLaren's lol)

TobyTR said:

Now, what evidence are you going to supply us other than your opinion? Where are these quotes from the experts that the F310B was much improved? Still not seeing any evidence for "second-best" car.

clearly mine & yours idea of 'experts' differs somewhat ...as journalists are there to report news & give opinions (no disrespect to journalists ...but they put the Jordan 191 at 13th ...a car he raced once & had zero podiums all season & amassed a whopping 13pts by the end of the season fpmsl ...& i'd forgotten about the Benetton B191 & that Michael had a 39 year old (but x3 WDC) Piquet as a team mate)

race engineers, team principles, designers, drivers ...these are 'experts' imho

the F310 was a pig according to Eddie & not very good according to Barnard

now what was their opinion of the F310'B'? (a car that amassed 102 WCC points & 13 podiums, that's a podium more & just 1 point less than Michael's title winning B194- although the B194 probably was better when it was using traction control & launch control)

& clearly as it means a lot to you, you can have also have a from me

Edited by angrymoby on Sunday 3rd November 16:59

[E34-3.2]

TobyTR said:

On a biased British forum? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Funnily enough, the worldwide F1 forums I frequent too have it the opposite. But I thoroughly enjoy shooting down your opinions with evidence and you having no answer to them. It's fantastic seeing you lot try and come up with every excuse in the book and scrabbling for more excuses why Button managed runner-up in 2011 and Hamilton didn't. keep it coming

Are you another cretin comparing the old past-it Schumacher with a young Lewis Hamilton? If so that demonstrates your severe lack of intelligence. Good grief.

I'll leave this nugget here again: 91 wins from 246 races in less dominant machinery.

Sorry TobyTR but I'll have to call you out on that one.

I am French (mother tongue) and Spanish (pretty good at it) speaker and Shumacher must be one of the least liked world champion in both countries I can speak and interact on forums. His dirty driving and number 1 driver statue didn't go down well in the eye of the public.

A good article was published a few years ago on "l'equipe" news paper about Schumacher. It came out just after an interview of Hamilton I can't remember where but basically he said that he wasn't ready to win by being dirty like certain drivers and having number 1 statue in his team. As you can imagine some of the Ferrari fans went ballistic.
The article focused on how people and especially F1 drivers and staffs don't really speak openly about Schumacher due to his condition and tend to look at it with rose tinted glasses for the moment. Most of them know they would be slaughtered like the Italians have done to Hamilton for any bad remarks.

I'll try to find it. Not easy to explain in a few lines.

[vdn]

E34-3.2 said:

TobyTR said:

On a biased British forum? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Funnily enough, the worldwide F1 forums I frequent too have it the opposite. But I thoroughly enjoy shooting down your opinions with evidence and you having no answer to them. It's fantastic seeing you lot try and come up with every excuse in the book and scrabbling for more excuses why Button managed runner-up in 2011 and Hamilton didn't. keep it coming

Are you another cretin comparing the old past-it Schumacher with a young Lewis Hamilton? If so that demonstrates your severe lack of intelligence. Good grief.

I'll leave this nugget here again: 91 wins from 246 races in less dominant machinery.

Sorry TobyTR but I'll have to call you out on that one.

I am French (mother tongue) and Spanish (pretty good at it) speaker and Shumacher must be one of the least liked world champion in both countries I can speak and interact on forums. His dirty driving and number 1 driver statue didn't go down well in the eye of the public.

A good article was published a few years ago on "l'equipe" news paper about Schumacher. It came out just after an interview of Hamilton I can't remember where but basically he said that he wasn't ready to win by being dirty like certain drivers and having number 1 statue in his team. As you can imagine some of the Ferrari fans went ballistic.
The article focused on how people and especially F1 drivers and staffs don't really speak openly about Schumacher due to his condition and tend to look at it with rose tinted glasses for the moment. Most of them know they would be slaughtered like the Italians have done to Hamilton for any bad remarks.

I'll try to find it. Not easy to explain in a few lines.

Yes, Schumacher isn’t nearly as well regarded across the world as Toby would like to believe. Fantasy land.

[mattikake]

Funny. Google just alerted me this. It must be reading my ph posts.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/motorsport/10260236...

[KevinCamaroSS]

TobyTR said:

Did she work with Schumacher too? If not then it's a bit biased.

If you think that any track-side team do not have a clear idea of all the drivers various merits and skills you are seriously deluding yourself.

As for 2007 Hamilton should have won the WDC, and would have if not for the China incident. A rookie, making it all look so easy, even up against the reigning 2x WDC. The fact that he won in 2008 in a car that did not win the WCC also coincides with the last occasion that the WDC was not won in a car that won the WCC.

You compared Alonso and Schumacher in 2005-6 as having epic battles and therefore being quite similar in skill levels. Yet the rookie Hamilton beat Alonso in 2007, finishing 2nd in the WDC to Alonso in 3rd. Based on your own performance comparison Hamilton would also beat Schumacher. Also totally ignoring the fact that Hamilton has gone on to get better over the years (bar 1) and, right now, is on a level that is totally on another plane to anybody else.

[sparta6]

mattikake said:

Bring on George Russell and keep Britain as the king of F1!

Edited by mattikake on Saturday 2nd November 10:16

Don't worry - Brackley F1 will continue keeping Britain as F1 Kings.

Even though Germany tries to disguise as its own masterpiece

[DOCG]

The arguments of best drivers are never-ending and are only useful for displaying people's personal biases.

I am of the belief that the largest factor in determining the success or greatness of an F1 driver is the luck with regards to circumstances. Neither Schumacher nor Hamilton would be considered great if they didn't hit the jackpot of luck in being in the most dominant car for 5+ years. There are dozens of drivers throughout F1 history who would be considered great if they lucked their way into that situation. There is a reason why Hamilton gives all credit to the "guys at the factory" and talks about how "blessed" he is, because he like me understands that it is all a matter of circumstance.

[angrymoby]

angrymoby said:

TobyTR said:

A combination of sour grapes and some substance to be fair. But Schumacher was a level ahead of those teammates undoubtedly, it wasn't even close. Irvine, Massa and Brundle didn't have much problems with him.

And out of those teammates you've listed for Hamilton, only Kovalainen had a trouble-free harmonious time with Lewis, although you can also include Bottas in that currently too.

not interested in "trouble-free" or "harmonious" ...they're not there to be best buddies, so cite examples of what they feel was preferential treatment towards Lewis (in their actual words- & not your interpretation)

still waiting on this btw

[paulguitar]

DOCG said:

The arguments of best drivers are never-ending and are only useful for displaying people's personal biases.

I am of the belief that the largest factor in determining the success or greatness of an F1 driver is the luck with regards to circumstances. Neither Schumacher nor Hamilton would be considered great if they didn't hit the jackpot of luck in being in the most dominant car for 5+ years. There are dozens of drivers throughout F1 history who would be considered great if they lucked their way into that situation. There is a reason why Hamilton gives all credit to the "guys at the factory" and talks about how "blessed" he is, because he like me understands that it is all a matter of circumstance.

That is a pretty big oversimplification, it's a lot more than 'luck', but the best drivers do tend to end up in the best cars. Senna, Prost, Fangio, and Schumacher would have not done much had they not had decent machinery. We all know this and it doesn't add much to the discussion.

[angrymoby]

A44RON said:

that essentially sums it up. F1 page on facebook shows this in a moving timeline graph; Schumacher was still winning more races 1996-2000 than Hamilton was 2009-2013, despite Schumacher missing half of the 1999 season with a broken leg.

& this sums up the one-eye'ness of some of the Schumacher fans...

A44RON has included the 2000 / F1-2000- a WDC/ WCC winning car that had 21 podiums & rated as the 5th best car that Schumacher ever drove (according to the experts/ journalists at Autosport ...& 6 isn't half of 16 either)

Edited by angrymoby on Sunday 3rd November 17:31

[DOCG]

paulguitar said:

That is a pretty big oversimplification, it's a lot more than 'luck', but the best drivers do tend to end up in the best cars. Senna, Prost, Fangio, and Schumacher would have not done much had they not had decent machinery. We all know this and it doesn't add much to the discussion.

Whether it is luck or not is not essential to the argument. Circumstance plays a much bigger factor than the immeasurable differences in driver performance. All of the arguments people make about winning more races/titles in a certain time-span are far more dependent on the situation a driver finds himself in.

If Hamilton had stayed at McLaren he wouldn't even be in the discussion of being great, his legacy would be akin to Damon Hill's or Jacques Villeneuve.

[sparta6]

paulguitar said:

That is a pretty big oversimplification, it's a lot more than 'luck', but the best drivers do tend to end up in the best cars. Senna, Prost, Fangio, and Schumacher would have not done much had they not had decent machinery. We all know this and it doesn't add much to the discussion.

No doubt.
The difference with MSC: he was instrumental in developing that POS Ferrari into a WDC capable car. But it took 4 years. I doubt no other driver had either the patience or skillset to bring Ferrari out of that deep swamp.

[37chevy]

DOCG said:

If Hamilton had stayed at McLaren he wouldn't even be in the discussion of being great, his legacy would be akin to Damon Hill's or Jacques Villeneuve.

It’s amazing how many greats end up in the best cars though.....

....except it isn’t. Teams who invest lots of money and build the best cars, want the best drivers.

[paulguitar]

DOCG said:

If Hamilton had stayed at McLaren he wouldn't even be in the discussion of being great, his legacy would be akin to Damon Hill's or Jacques Villeneuve.

That's way wide of the mark. Take a look at the way Hamilton was looked at from way before F1. He was always known to be a freak talent.

[paulguitar]

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

That is a pretty big oversimplification, it's a lot more than 'luck', but the best drivers do tend to end up in the best cars. Senna, Prost, Fangio, and Schumacher would have not done much had they not had decent machinery. We all know this and it doesn't add much to the discussion.

No doubt.
The difference with MSC: he was instrumental in developing that POS Ferrari into a WDC capable car. But it took 4 years. I doubt no other driver had either the patience or skillset to bring Ferrari out of that deep swamp.

I agree that what MS did at Ferrari, along with Brawn and Byrne, was an extraordinary achievement.

[DOCG]

37chevy said:

It’s amazing how many greats end up in the best cars though.....

....except it isn’t. Teams who invest lots of money and build the best cars, want the best drivers.

You are assuming that the drivers considered as the "greats" are in fact the ones who who were the best drivers.

[37chevy]

DOCG said:

37chevy said:

It’s amazing how many greats end up in the best cars though.....

....except it isn’t. Teams who invest lots of money and build the best cars, want the best drivers.

You are assuming that the drivers considered as the "greats" are in fact the ones who who were the best drivers.

And you’re assuming they’re not? So fangio, Schumacher, Clark, Senna, Prost, Lauda, hamilton weren’t the best drivers of their generation?

The cream rises to the top...sure some like moss get unlucky, or drivers like cevert have their lives cut short before reaching their potential but more often than not the best drivers get the best cars, and become the greats

[DOCG]

37chevy said:

And you’re assuming they’re not? So fangio, Schumacher, Clark, Senna, Prost, Lauda, hamilton weren’t the best drivers of their generation?

The cream rises to the top...sure some like moss get unlucky, or drivers like cevert have their lives cut short before reaching their potential but more often than not the best drivers get the best cars, and become the greats

They may well have been the best, but it is also likely they were not substantially better than dozens of other drivers. Raikkonen, Alonso, Montoya, Hakkinen, just to name a few of the last 20 years.

[37chevy]

DOCG said:

They may well have been the best, but it is also likely they were not substantially better than dozens of other drivers. Raikkonen, Alonso, Montoya, Hakkinen, just to name a few of the last 20 years.

Right, so they were the best. F1 is about fine margins....you don’t have to be substantially better than the rest to be great...just enough to set you apart. If you get to F1 you’re no slouch....it’s the fine margins that separate the great from the good

[DOCG]

37chevy said:

Right, so they were the best. F1 is about fine margins....you don’t have to be substantially better than the rest to be great...just enough to set you apart. If you get to F1 you’re no slouch....it’s the fine margins that separate the great from the good

It is impossible to know whether they were the best drivers or not. All we know is that they had the best combination of driving talent and equipment. I am not not going to pointlessly say that driver X is better than driver Y because of more wins, championships, poles or any other statistic because it just isn't a representation of driver skill, it only proves the opportunity they had.