Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?

Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?

Author
Discussion

DOCG

72 posts

1 month

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
Very occasionally being alone going against the traffic is a sign of true genius, but nearly always it's because they are driving the wrong direction.
Given it looks like you may be mistaken with your Massa theory, maybe you might want to check your bearings?
What additional marketing did Albon bring over Gasly, and why does his boss seem to think it is his driving that will decide whether he drives next year.
Kimi Raikkonen is one of the most popular drivers and an ex WDC but Ferrari let him go. They said it was because he was not competitive enough must have just been an excuse, as that doesn't matter.
What was wrong about the Massa theory? Santander invested heavily into Brazil in 2011 Source: https://www.santander.co.uk/assets/s3fs-public/doc...



I don't deny that drivers deteriorate as they get older.

paulguitar

3,800 posts

60 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
It's gone a bit surreal here.

DOCG

72 posts

1 month

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
Sorry, it was in 2009 that Santander invested heavily in the Brazilian market: https://www.ft.com/content/1ff753e6-7bbc-11de-9772...


"Santander chief executive Emilio Botín has identified the bank’s Brazilian operations as key to the bank’s strategy, and revealed plans last year for it to become the most profitable listed bank in the country."

Graveworm

2,646 posts

18 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
DOCG said:
What was wrong about the Massa theory? Santander invested heavily into Brazil in 2011 Source: https://www.santander.co.uk/assets/s3fs-public/doc...



I don't deny that drivers deteriorate as they get older.
Nothing about Brazil to show what you say in that report. Not surprising given that it is a Satander UK report (Santander Brazil is a separate entity) and that its from 2011 three years before the 2014 you originally said. It wouldn't explain why they would have wanted to replace Massa in 2012.. Also doesn't really sit with letting Alonso go a couple of years later before his contract was up.

According to you, it is their marketability not their driving ability that matters that had not deteriorated in Kimi's case, this does not explain the Gasly/Albon swap.

heebeegeetee

26,772 posts

195 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
DOCG said:
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.

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.
Let's get this straight - there is *no* evidence "that teams believe that driver skill plays a large factor" and "marketing is just as big a reason"

So, how come I've never ever read that before in over 40 years, and indeed have always read the complete and total opposite when it comes to the great drivers?

Prior to Hamilton, Merc already had possibly the most marketable driver on the grid in the form of Schumacher. If you're right then the difference between Schumacher (even of that period) and Hamilton would be too small to measure anyway, so why bother? And why would Brawn and Lauda get involved, Merc will already have a multi-million pound marketing dept anyway?

I don't know why I'm replying though. I've been following F1 for over 40 years, and your 2 sentences must rank as the biggest loads of cobblers I think I've ever read. As I've done before, I'll relay this to the racing-fan mates I drink with on Thursday nights, and we'll enjoy another right good belly laugh. I guarantee, they'll have never heard statements like yours before, just as I haven't.

DOCG said:
It's true, just look at how Jacques Villeneuve was perceived at the beginning of his career compared to the end of his career.
Perceived by who?

Graveworm

2,646 posts

18 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
DOCG said:
Sorry, it was in 2009 that Santander invested heavily in the Brazilian market: https://www.ft.com/content/1ff753e6-7bbc-11de-9772...


"Santander chief executive Emilio Botín has identified the bank’s Brazilian operations as key to the bank’s strategy, and revealed plans last year for it to become the most profitable listed bank in the country."
Which has what to do with trying to keep Massa in 2014 having tried to replace him in 2012..

DOCG

72 posts

1 month

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
Which has what to do with trying to keep Massa in 2014 having tried to replace him in 2012..
This was the reason why they kept him until 2014 and why it was Raikkonen who was forced out to make room for Alonso instead of Massa in 2010

DOCG

72 posts

1 month

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
Nothing about Brazil to show what you say in that report. Not surprising given that it is a Satander UK report (Santander Brazil is a separate entity) and that its from 2011 three years before the 2014 you originally said. It wouldn't explain why they would have wanted to replace Massa in 2012.. Also doesn't really sit with letting Alonso go a couple of years later before his contract was up.

According to you, it is their marketability not their driving ability that matters that had not deteriorated in Kimi's case, this does not explain the Gasly/Albon swap.
I said *until* 2014, I corrected myself in my next post and provided the information from an FT article. It was in 2010 that they chose to keep Massa over Raikkonen

DOCG

72 posts

1 month

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Perceived by who?

Fans and the media

Also, it was Schumacher who voluntarily decided to finally retire after the 2012 season.

Graveworm

2,646 posts

18 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
DOCG said:
I said *until* 2014, I corrected myself in my next post and provided the information from an FT article. It was in 2010 that they chose to keep Massa over Raikkonen
Yet they tried to get rid of him in 2012. And no explanation for getting rid of Kimmi & Alonso nor why Gasly for Albon or pretty much any driver decisions that all seem to be to do with driver performance..

TobyTR

713 posts

93 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
angrymoby said:
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
and Berger had a Grand Slam (pole, fastest lap, race win) at the German grand prix with that Benetton + missed three races with illness, Alesi had 1 pole. Crucially, as proven earlier in this thread, BOTH Benettons and BOTH McLarens qualified better all season than Irvine and scored more points than Irvine. Yet you are still living in fantasy land thinking the Ferrari was the second-best car, when the facts show otherwise. You're on a hiding to nothing.

Autosport vid from 2min 18sec Ferrari F310 "that car was terrible, he was a miracle-worker in it"... 2min 45sec: "the 96 and 97 cars were the cars he did his most amazing races." Ferrari F310B 3min 4sec: "in terms of pace deficit to the dominant Williams, it was very similar to the 96 car."

TobyTR

713 posts

93 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
mattikake said:
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. smile
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 biggrin 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. biggrin
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.
oh dear, still clutching at straws with the 43-year-old post-retired Schumacher getting beaten by 27-year-old Hamilton - bringing that up again just shows how weak your argument is. Will you be doing the same if Verstappen beats a 43-year-old out of retirement Lewis Hamilton?..... hehe

It's similar to those saying "but Lewis beat Alonso as a rookie" - well why didn't he beat him (score more points, not just the same) three years later from 2010-2013 with all that wealth of experience. It shows a distinct lack of common sense and logic.

On page 21 of this thread you said "I cannot think of one single moment where Schumacher demonstrated anywhere near the same level of wheel-to-wheel racecraft. Even masters of overtaking racecraft and understanding like Lauda, Keke, Jones, Mansell, Prost haven't shown such intelligence and clinical quick thinking nor with anywhere near the regularity. IMO Hamilton is literally in a class of one in this respect." - which is total biased nonsense.

Button was smarter than Hamilton was in race situations, Prost certainly was, Lauda was no mug in that department, and now I've proven with facts that Alonso eclipsed Hamilton across multiple seasons in wheel-to-wheel racecraft. So Hamilton was not "in a class of one" in this respect.

As for your last paragraph, very contradictory. I've been 100% consistent throughout this entire thread and posted links and stats to back up my argument. You've posted nothing like that and again you're clutching at straws trying to bring in "cognitive dissonance", I'm still trying to find links to your arguments... Clutching at straws again, I see a theme here.

FWIW, I'm in the camp that Hamilton is arguably the best British sportsman we have had. Not in terms of when things don;t go his way and his subsequent antics, but his actual achievements. No doubt about that.


Edited by TobyTR on Tuesday 5th November 20:56

vdn

6,913 posts

150 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
Yes; Hamilton beating Alonso wasn’t astonishing in the slightest.

rolleyes

Every single person involved in F1 (including Alonso) has said it was an unbelievable arrival in F1; EVEN given that those in the know, knew he’d be stellar.

Next hehe


TobyTR

713 posts

93 months

Tuesday 5th November
quotequote all
No one has disputed it was an amazing rookie year. I've said it was the best rookie-year in modern F1 history. The big question mark is over how he responded in the 6 years following that when things weren't going all his own way. Which is why we saw Schumacher have a significantly better win% over the same prime years and 91 race wins by 246 grand prix.

vdn

6,913 posts

150 months

Wednesday 6th November
quotequote all
TobyTR said:
No one has disputed it was an amazing rookie year. I've said it was the best rookie-year in modern F1 history. The big question mark is over how he responded in the 6 years following that when things weren't going all his own way. Which is why we saw Schumacher have a significantly better win% over the same prime years and 91 race wins by 246 grand prix.
There has been dispute about how much of an amazing rookie year it was. You can count yourself outside of that umbrella it would seem.

beer

As for his time in the wilderness... yes he had some bad periods; I agree. He’s still the only driver in F1 history to win every year he’s raced. A feat that Alonso acknowledged when he was asked about Hamilton VS Vettel, years back.

I don’t think that there can be any dispute over the fact he had a poor period though; especially by his own high standards. He’s said since; and people at McLaren have said that, he just felt out of place and restricted at McLaren; never allowed to do anything and forced to toe the line. Trapped almost.

Does that make him more of an emotional character, compared to MS; at times to his detriment. I think that could be said, yes.

But when you’re comparing driver VS driver; you are stuck on F1, which makes sense to some degree but I’ll say it again: Hamilton proved himself at every stage of motorsport. People in the racing world ‘knew’ Hamilton was special, years before he even set foot on the F1 grid. Tales of the whole pit lane / all of the teams staring agog at his performances. Battling Vettel pre F1. The list goes on and people don’t look back which is a massive shame as they miss a massive part of the journey, and story, as a result.

Also not disputed; Schumacher was a dirty driver and poor sportsman - and a chunk of his results and records are a result of foul play. Hamilton is approaching the same level of success without that, and without contractual status. Without also, one way data shares and the like. As others have said; had Hamilton employed such tactics, then we’d likely already have an 8 time WDC on our hands; but he didn’t and we don’t. It’s a comparison worth mentioning for obvious reasons, though.

DOCG

72 posts

1 month

Wednesday 6th November
quotequote all
TobyTR said:
No one has disputed it was an amazing rookie year. I've said it was the best rookie-year in modern F1 history. The big question mark is over how he responded in the 6 years following that when things weren't going all his own way. Which is why we saw Schumacher have a significantly better win% over the same prime years and 91 race wins by 246 grand prix.
How many rookies go straight into the best team? Only him and Villeneuve, who won as many races as Hamilton in his rookie year and also won the title in his second season.

37chevy

3,211 posts

103 months

Wednesday 6th November
quotequote all
DOCG said:
How many rookies go straight into the best team? Only him and Villeneuve, who won as many races as Hamilton in his rookie year and also won the title in his second season.
How many rookies win every championship on the way up and then beat a double world champion proving that they deserve that seat?

Deesee

3,140 posts

30 months

Wednesday 6th November
quotequote all
Wonderful graph Damon Hill tweeted earlier today


glazbagun

10,065 posts

144 months

Wednesday 6th November
quotequote all
Deesee said:
Wonderful graph Damon Hill tweeted earlier today

Would be good to see some regulation eras overlaid on that. Schumis' (bar only the first, I think) were in the grooved tyre and unlimited testing era. Vettel's all with Blown diffuser, all bar one of Lewis' have been v6 Hybrid. Prost won with V10's & Turbos.

If the new regs bring a new team to the fore, I wonder if Lewis will jump again. I'd find it unlikely, but it seems to be the only way to stay at the top.

E34-3.2

951 posts

26 months

Wednesday 6th November
quotequote all
Interesting comments from EJ which summed up pretty much why Hamilton is just plain better than Schumacher. Not a big fan of EJ but he worked with Schumacher and knows a bit more than we do. He doesn' t need to make up some numbers to explain something very simple:

“Everyone has their own view on this, but I am of the view he’s already surpassed Michael,” the former F1 team boss told talkSPORT.

“Michael started with me so there is a love affair there, but there is a situation some people may not fully grasp.

“At the time I handled people like [Rubens] Barrichello, [Eddie] Irvine, [Giancarlo] Fisichella and [Jean] Alesi, and every time we went to sign a contract with Michael Schumacher or Ferrari it always had conditions in it, where what we saw in Austin wouldn’t have been allowed to happen.

“Lewis, if he had in his contract the same things, he would have had to been able to pass [Valtteri] Bottas [to win the race].

“You can’t have that in a competitive sport, where one part of the team dictates to the other.

“For me, that is a flaw factor for Michael.

“Seven World Championships… how many would he have won if he hadn’t had the influence and support of the other people in the team?

“And I’m not just talking about team members – I’m talking about the drivers.

“Lewis is already in a different league, in my opinion. He’s done it on his own

Link: https://www.planetf1.com/news/ej-hamilton-is-bette...