Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?

[37chevy]

DOCG said:

37chevy said:

Huh and guess who put himself in a position and works hard for his team and sponsors...ahhh yes that would be hamilton.

So....quick on the track and a corporate jizz fest...that’s how you become great.

The fact that you use such vulgar and disgusting words as "jizz fest" on a public forum really does make you look bad.

Haha better than the nonsensical dribble you’ve come out with on here...


Ok then il, rephrase (because you’re like 12 snowflake or something)....it’s hamilton that’s worked hard off track to make himself marketable....as well as working hard on it...that’s how you become a great.

Better?

Good.

[Graveworm]

DOCG said:

I'm not ignoring it, I don't believe it is true. The drivers of the best cars are only perceived to be the best, it doesn't mean that they really are.

Schumacher was past age 40 at that point, you can't expect someone to remain at their prior level at that age considering how athletic F1 drivers need to be.

They beat everyone in the equal machinery in the lower formula, your not believing it doesn't stop it being a fact. I am not sure how else you measure the better driver. They used to test them but they don't have as much latitude around that.

Only this weekend journeyman and way past his peak, Brundle was 3 seconds faster over 1 lap than Toto Wolff in the same car. Toto was a Formula ford and endurance champion so drivers skill can make a difference.. Even 1/1000th diffence would be 7 seconds at the end of a Grand Prix.

Fangio was 46 when he won his fifth WDC and you are the one saying the driver does not matter. Raikkonen aged 40 has almost 8 times the points of his 25 year old team mate..

Here is a view straight from this thread..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/formula1/50288385

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 4th November 22:35

[heebeegeetee]

DOCG said:

I'm not ignoring it, I don't believe it is true. The drivers of the best cars are only perceived to be the best, it doesn't mean that they really are.

So you really do believe that the team bosses are doing it wrong, and that their perceptions may be wrong.

Ok fine, but just out of curiosity, why do you think that you may know more than say, Ross Brawn and Niki Lauda, who both spent time luring Hamilton to Mercedes, including reported personal visits to Hamilton family homes?

Are you suggesting that it’s not possible to apply some science to this process?

I’ve seen a tweet from a former F1 driver who claims he saw the data at the time during one of Hamilton’s first F1 tests, and his immediate response was “Sh*t”!

Likewise I recall reading about the sheer effort Benneton went to to steal Schumacher from Jordan, with countless lawyers involved.

Clearly you believe that these very experienced people who have spent lifetimes at the sharp edge of the sport have just done it wrong, even though their decisions have earned them millions.

[heebeegeetee]

DOCG said:

Graveworm said:

It's true if the car keeps breaking down, or they are prevented from driving it, then the driver may not be able to win.
But you keep ignoring that driving skill is what gets you in the best car, then you still need be better than others in the same machinery.
Given the title of this thread it may be relevant that career midfield driver Rosberg comfortably beat Schumacher and Ferrari wanted him to replace Massa?

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 4th November 13:07

I'm not ignoring it, I don't believe it is true. The drivers of the best cars are only perceived to be the best, it doesn't mean that they really are.

Sorry, I’m just rereading this- Do you really mean this? Are you sure you don’t want to rethink it?

[paulguitar]

heebeegeetee said:

DOCG said:

Graveworm said:

It's true if the car keeps breaking down, or they are prevented from driving it, then the driver may not be able to win.
But you keep ignoring that driving skill is what gets you in the best car, then you still need be better than others in the same machinery.
Given the title of this thread it may be relevant that career midfield driver Rosberg comfortably beat Schumacher and Ferrari wanted him to replace Massa?

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 4th November 13:07

I'm not ignoring it, I don't believe it is true. The drivers of the best cars are only perceived to be the best, it doesn't mean that they really are.

Sorry, I’m just rereading this- Do you really mean this? Are you sure you don’t want to rethink it?

I think we might be wasting our time with this one...

[Halmyre]

sparta6 said:

Since 2014 Brackley F1 has certainly delivered for Hamilton and Rosberg. Perhaps Bottas is next ?

Not sure that the hybrid lockout and zero in-season testing is good for F1 though !

In terms of percentages:

Wins - Hamilton 33%, Clark 35%
Poles - Hamilton 35%, Clark 46%
Fastest Laps - Hamilton 19%, Clark 39%
Entire Races Led - Hamilton 7%, Clark 18%
Hat Tricks - Hamilton 6%, Clark 15%
Grand Slams - Hamilton 7%, Clark 11%

Yes, modern race strategies mean that entire races led and grand slams are more difficult, but cars were less reliable back then and races were longer.

[Moobs]

Let's look at some facts and not opinions shall we.

Hamilton has the stronger team mates line up than any other F1 driver since the 80s. 3 world champions (4 titles total). Only Prost and Lauda team mates can compare. All of Hamilton's team mates have destroyed Schumacher himself or Schumacher's team mates when in the same team. Schumacher at Ferrari always had the best parts.

Rosberg retired and destroyed Schumacher (who even at 43 got the fastest qualifying Lap at Monaco) throughout their time together.

Hamilton broke and retired Rosberg. Who even admitted he couldn't sustain never mind improve the level of his only championship winning season against Hamilton in the same car.

Schumacher ran away from Kimi. When his number one status in the team was threatened at Ferrari. Loss of trust is a sorry excuse. Beat your team mate to earn the status. As Alonso did. Alonso absolutely smashed Kimi during their time together. The same Alonso who lost to a rookie Hamilton as a team mate.

Hamilton was the last driver to win the WDC not having the best car. As proven when Ferrari won world constructors in 2008.

Schumacher still holds the pole and wins records, but Hamilton is the man to break them. Don't under estimate Valteri. This guy was touted as a future WDC.

You can go on and on about a car not suiting a driver style(Barrichello, Kimi), losing motivation(Kim), not being at prime age. But the fact is you are in F1 to compete.

[A44RON]

Graveworm said:

They beat everyone in the equal machinery in the lower formula, your not believing it doesn't stop it being a fact. I am not sure how else you measure the better driver. They used to test them but they don't have as much latitude around that.

Only this weekend journeyman and way past his peak, Brundle was 3 seconds faster over 1 lap than Toto Wolff in the same car. Toto was a Formula ford and endurance champion so drivers skill can make a difference.. Even 1/1000th diffence would be 7 seconds at the end of a Grand Prix.

Fangio was 46 when he won his fifth WDC and you are the one saying the driver does not matter. Raikkonen aged 40 has almost 8 times the points of his 25 year old team mate..

Here is a view straight from this thread..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/formula1/50288385

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 4th November 22:35

Not this rubbish again. Answer this: do you honestly believe Schumacher was operating at the same ability 2010-2012 compared to 1991-2006 after three years retirement?

And anyone can see Raikkonen is not the same driver as his McLaren days/2007/2012. He's still good, but he's way off those years, it's like watching a different driver. Suzuka 2005 was prime (awesome) Kimi. Since his second Ferrari stint from 2014 he's been just a solid F1 driver. It also helps not taking over three years off and staying on it. But I will predict next year will be Kimi's last year in F1.

That vid was an okay watch but nothing we don't know already. That chap keeps harping on about character/morals/ethics of Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton which we know Hamilton trumps them when it comes to morals and ethics for sure. But that's not F1 ability, ie dragging the not-so-best F1 cars into title contention.

[Mr Tidy]

A44RON said:

Not this rubbish again. Answer this: do you honestly believe Schumacher was operating at the same ability 2010-2012 compared to 1991-2006 after three years retirement?

No, he wasn't - he couldn't get near enough to any rivals to punt them off the track in his come back! (Cheating b*stard).

He regularly got beaten by Nico Rosberg FFS, who in turn got put right back into his place when Lewis arrived - albeit with a slip up one season sadly.

Lewis would have nailed MS, or at least avoided MS' desperate lunges.

There's racing, and there's crashing - as Senna fans should know.

[angrymoby]

A44RON said:

Not this rubbish again. Answer this: do you honestly believe Schumacher was operating at the same ability 2010-2012 compared to 1991-2006 after three years retirement?

no.

[angrymoby]

Halmyre said:

In terms of percentages:

Wins - Hamilton 33%, Clark 35%
Poles - Hamilton 35%, Clark 46%
Fastest Laps - Hamilton 19%, Clark 39%
Entire Races Led - Hamilton 7%, Clark 18%
Hat Tricks - Hamilton 6%, Clark 15%
Grand Slams - Hamilton 7%, Clark 11%

Yes, modern race strategies mean that entire races led and grand slams are more difficult, but cars were less reliable back then and races were longer.

Clark is godlike in our household ...and my Dad rates him as the best he's ever seen- but even he acknowledges that Jim's all too short career skews his stats a bit

[LaurasOtherHalf]

It's pointless comparing drivers from different eras but it's plain to see both SCH and HAM are up there with the all time greats. As you simply can't compare them it all goes down to semantics, I personally prefer HAM as his racing is fairer, he's never knowingly cheated and man-child that he is, I genuinely like the bloke.

I get a lot of other's don't, obviously a lot is latent racism or a dislike of people who wear spangly trousers, speak with a mid Atlantic accent or have a haircut that doesn't go down too well at boarding school in the 1970s. Horses for courses.

One thing I would like to add that I do love about HAM is (in simplistic terms) is he is a combination of the two best types of F1 driver-let's say a Senna and a Prost. The natural speed and the analytical thinker. We'll never know whether Senna would have adopted the other style completely in the face of Schumacher's ascendancy but Hamilton is the complete driver at present. His performances over the last three seasons have been peerless.

If VER and LEC improve slightly and HAM's one lap pace deteriorates with age fractionally HAM may even lose his natural advantage but would anyone think he would still be easily beatable in top machinery?

[mattikake]

TobyTR said:

mattikake said:

But anyway; YES!

You've resorted to insults in lieu of the very evidence you say you have.

You know what this means? Cognitive dissonance - You've lost. You only semi-consciously know it. You won't accept it. And it hurts. The result? Emotional outburst of a confused mind. (Seriously, look it up)

And no, cognitive dissonance is not an implication that you're stupid. Not yet anyway.

My job here is done.

Well comparing a post-retired Michael Schumacher who came back and raced a 27-year-old Lewis Hamilton doesn't do you any favours. Lets see if Hamilton comes out of retirement 41-43 years old and races Verstappen.

Totally valid to do so on wheel-to-wheel racing. This is not a skill you lose with age (bar senility!). In fact the older you get the better you should be as your experience of 200mph chess moves increases.

Hamilton out-smarting Schumacher on the track is probably the only direct comparison you can make between them. As said, Hamilton won and made Schumacher look like the lesser driver in the process. I didn't expect it to go any other way.

TobyTR said:

I haven't lost anything, see my post above I'm still the only one here backing my posts up with evidence while you continue to regurgitate the same incorrect nonsense like vdn and the other biased Schumacher haters. It's great fun.

What have I said that is factually incotrect? Please cite.

Another trait of delusion is making up "facts" and using them in an argument. Simply saying something does not make it true.

TobyTR said:

Cognitive dissonance: "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change. It refers to a situation where someone's behaviour conflicts with their beliefs or attitudes. For example, when people smoke even though they know it's pretty bad for them, they experience cognitive dissonance." I've been the opposite actually and very consistent.

Your cognitive dissonance is as I stated; that you know Schumacher is not the better driver you want him to be but you choose to still believe he is. You have accepted sub-consciously he is not but continue to argue he is. Typically frustrated, you got aggressive, ranted, resorted to name calling while struggling to hold on to your chosen delusion.

Seen it a million times.

[mattikake]

angrymoby said:

Halmyre said:

In terms of percentages:

Wins - Hamilton 33%, Clark 35%
Poles - Hamilton 35%, Clark 46%
Fastest Laps - Hamilton 19%, Clark 39%
Entire Races Led - Hamilton 7%, Clark 18%
Hat Tricks - Hamilton 6%, Clark 15%
Grand Slams - Hamilton 7%, Clark 11%

Yes, modern race strategies mean that entire races led and grand slams are more difficult, but cars were less reliable back then and races were longer.

Clark is godlike in our household ...and my Dad rates him as the best he's ever seen- but even he acknowledges that Jim's all too short career skews his stats a bit

It was not uncommon for car advantages to be huge in his time as well

[Halmyre]

mattikake said:

Halmyre said:

In terms of percentages:

Wins - Hamilton 33%, Clark 35%
Poles - Hamilton 35%, Clark 46%
Fastest Laps - Hamilton 19%, Clark 39%
Entire Races Led - Hamilton 7%, Clark 18%
Hat Tricks - Hamilton 6%, Clark 15%
Grand Slams - Hamilton 7%, Clark 11%

Yes, modern race strategies mean that entire races led and grand slams are more difficult, but cars were less reliable back then and races were longer.

Clark is godlike in our household ...and my Dad rates him as the best he's ever seen- but even he acknowledges that Jim's all too short career skews his stats a bit

For better or worse though? If Clark hadn't been killed he'd have had more time with the Lotus 49, and then the 72.

angrymoby said:

It was not uncommon for car advantages to be huge in his time as well

Arguably, not until Lotus brought a gun to a knife fight, in the form of the 49. And even then it could be an unreliable brute.

Brabham designer Ron Tauranac once said the best thing about the Lotus is Jim Clark; looking at the statistics for Clark's team mates Trevor Taylor, Peter Arundell and Mike Spence, you have to agree.

[DOCG]

heebeegeetee said:

So you really do believe that the team bosses are doing it wrong, and that their perceptions may be wrong.

Ok fine, but just out of curiosity, why do you think that you may know more than say, Ross Brawn and Niki Lauda, who both spent time luring Hamilton to Mercedes, including reported personal visits to Hamilton family homes?

Are you suggesting that it’s not possible to apply some science to this process?

I’ve seen a tweet from a former F1 driver who claims he saw the data at the time during one of Hamilton’s first F1 tests, and his immediate response was “Sh*t”!

Likewise I recall reading about the sheer effort Benneton went to to steal Schumacher from Jordan, with countless lawyers involved.

Clearly you believe that these very experienced people who have spent lifetimes at the sharp edge of the sport have just done it wrong, even though their decisions have earned them millions.

There is not evidence that teams do believe that driver skill plays a large factor, marketing is just as big a reason as to what drivers a team will want to acquire. Ferrari were very keen to keep Massa until 2014 because their major sponsor (Santander) was expanding into Brazilian market at the time.

As for Brown and Lauda, they were luring the most marketable driver on the grid; British, media friendly, a good brand for Mercedes to associate themselves with.

[DOCG]

heebeegeetee said:

Sorry, I’m just rereading this- Do you really mean this? Are you sure you don’t want to rethink it?

It's true, just look at how Jacques Villeneuve was perceived at the beginning of his career compared to the end of his career.

[DOCG]

Mr Tidy said:

No, he wasn't - he couldn't get near enough to any rivals to punt them off the track in his come back! (Cheating b*stard).

He regularly got beaten by Nico Rosberg FFS, who in turn got put right back into his place when Lewis arrived - albeit with a slip up one season sadly.

Lewis would have nailed MS, or at least avoided MS' desperate lunges.

There's racing, and there's crashing - as Senna fans should know.

Rosberg was not that far behind Hamilton, in 2 of the 3 dominant seasons together the championship went to the final round.

Although I must say your blind hatred of MSC prevents you from looking at it objectively.

[DOCG]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

It's pointless comparing drivers from different eras but it's plain to see both SCH and HAM are up there with the all time greats. As you simply can't compare them it all goes down to semantics, I personally prefer HAM as his racing is fairer, he's never knowingly cheated and man-child that he is, I genuinely like the bloke.

I get a lot of other's don't, obviously a lot is latent racism or a dislike of people who wear spangly trousers, speak with a mid Atlantic accent or have a haircut that doesn't go down too well at boarding school in the 1970s. Horses for courses.

One thing I would like to add that I do love about HAM is (in simplistic terms) is he is a combination of the two best types of F1 driver-let's say a Senna and a Prost. The natural speed and the analytical thinker. We'll never know whether Senna would have adopted the other style completely in the face of Schumacher's ascendancy but Hamilton is the complete driver at present. His performances over the last three seasons have been peerless.

If VER and LEC improve slightly and HAM's one lap pace deteriorates with age fractionally HAM may even lose his natural advantage but would anyone think he would still be easily beatable in top machinery?

I never thought I'd see someone bother to write propaganda about an F1 driver.

[angrymoby]

TobyTR said:

Ooh, so now you agree with the Autosport video because you're trying to make it fit your own agenda. Now there's a surprise....

'agenda'? how old are you? ...you post like a 10 year old

TobyTR said:

And the 2000 Ferrari had 21 podiums, while the 2000 McLaren had 22 podiums and Coulthard finished 11 points ahead of Barrichello with two more wins than the Brazilian. Again, Schumacher making the difference that year.

again, what is your point? ...we all know Schumacher was better than Barrichello (Button was better than Barrichello )

the point you missed is that A44RON included 2000 as one of Schumachers 'wilderness' years- winning a WDC is clearly not a wilderness or poor year

TobyTR said:

So to recap:

1. The Ferrari F310B of '97 was not the second-best car that year, as proven by the stats and the Autosport video that you disagreed with at first and now agree with; they clearly say "the 96 and 97 cars were similar in pace to the Williams" - well the 96 car wasn't the second best that year either and the McLaren was improved for '97. To be employed as a journalist at Autosport you have to know what you're talking about - more than any of us armchair warriors on here. Same with the bbc F1 articles I've been sharing and you're conveniently ignoring along with the other biased Hamilton lovers.

nope & nope

lets take the 'lesser' Ferrari driver in '97 & podiums- Eddie (inc x4 crashes) 5, Berger 3, Alesi 5 podiums

& the reason Eddie didn't pick up more points when on the podium? Michael was in front of him (x4 Ferrari double podiums)

onto Autosport & their video ...can you give me the time stamp for where they 'clearly' say "the 96 and 97 cars were similar in pace to the Williams" because not only have you appeared to have made that up, it also undoes your argument somewhat

the only times they mention relative pace to other cars is that the F310 & F310B had similar pace deficit to the Williams (no mention of other cars ...so you seem to have made that up too)

& the other time is the F-2006 248 F1 which they clearly say was 'fastest car on pace' ...but lost out to Alonso (which you dont mention- lol)

not that that vid is to be taken that seriously as a. they're not ranking cars against all 'other' cars per season (just against the top car that year & Michaels performance in/ against them- otherwise it would be a bit of long video)

& b. the Jordan (which he had 1 race - zero podiums) is 13th ...having a bit of a leg pull of Autosport contributor Gary Anderson i feel

Edited by angrymoby on Tuesday 5th November 12:52