Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?
Discussion
paulguitar said:
Ross has not worked extensively with Lewis. he was instrumental in getting him into the Mercedes team, and even visited him at home, but of course, Ross was out of F1 before the start of the hybrid era.
Ross Brawn was pushed out of the Mercedes team at the end of 2013, after over a year working with Hamilton as team principal.A44RON said:
paulguitar said:
Ross has not worked extensively with Lewis. he was instrumental in getting him into the Mercedes team, and even visited him at home, but of course, Ross was out of F1 before the start of the hybrid era.
Ross Brawn was pushed out of the Mercedes team at the end of 2013, after over a year working with Hamilton as team principal.A44RON said:
So not exactly just a meet-and-greet recruitment interview like you described then. Having been Hamilton's team principal for over a year he would be the best-qualified individual to make an informed decision who is better.
Ross worked with Lewis in 2013, and Michael from 1993-1995 at Benetton, and 1996-2006 at Ferrari, and then 2010-2012 at Mercedes.So, it is a single year vs 16. In other words, Hamilton and Brawn worked together for 6.25% of the time Brawn and Schumacher worked together.
Ross has still been team principal to both. And lets not forget he's remained in F1 throughout the hybrid era as an advisor, and been Managing Director and Technical Director of F1 since 2017, so he's certainly still arguably the best qualified to comment on their abilities.
And because of this, I would 100% take Ross Brawn's informed opinion over Eddie Jordan's, for example.
And because of this, I would 100% take Ross Brawn's informed opinion over Eddie Jordan's, for example.
A44RON said:
Ross has still been team principal to both. And lets not forget he's remained in F1 throughout the hybrid era as an advisor, and been Managing Director and Technical Director of F1 since 2017, so he's certainly still arguably the best qualified to comment on their abilities.
And because of this, I would 100% take Ross Brawn's informed opinion over Eddie Jordan's, for example.
Sure, I would take his opinion seriously too. I think it's fair to point out though, that he had nothing like the professional or personal relationship with Lewis that he did with Michael. Ross and Lewis were working in the same team for one of Lewis's 83 wins, but Ross and Michael worked for the same team for all of MS's 91 wins!And because of this, I would 100% take Ross Brawn's informed opinion over Eddie Jordan's, for example.
So, have there been any F1 people who have worked alongside Lewis and Michael in the same team for a substantial period in both cases?
One thing we do know from Paddy Lowe and James Allison is that Lewis is considered as very much comparable with both Senna and Prost.
I'm still struggling to think of anyone better qualified to comment than Ross Brawn tbh.
I've got the F1 magazine feature with Paddy Lowe comparing and rating Hamilton's abilities with Senna's and he gave Senna the edge overall. He rated them the same at qualifying speed. I'll post up the page when I find it. Made for interesting reading.
I've got the F1 magazine feature with Paddy Lowe comparing and rating Hamilton's abilities with Senna's and he gave Senna the edge overall. He rated them the same at qualifying speed. I'll post up the page when I find it. Made for interesting reading.
paulguitar said:
One thing we do know from Paddy Lowe and James Allison is that Lewis is considered as very much comparable with both Senna and Prost.
If those two had a love-child, could it have been Lewis Hamilton? Albeit, for the sake of that particular union not being even weirder, lets ignore the difference in skin colour.Joking aside, Lewis seems to switch seamlessly between Senna's perfectly executed aggression (let's just flash over the last race..) and Prost's level of focus and composure on a long race. I've felt for a long time that Lewis keeps winning overall, because he's two drivers in one package - and neither side of his approach seems to compromise the other.
A44RON said:
I'm still struggling to think of anyone better qualified to comment than Ross Brawn tbh.
I dunno. Given Brawn's time and success with Schumacher I'd fully expect his choice to be heavily loaded with emotion and historical romanticism. None are good basis for an empirical opinion. That could be said for many pit lane insiders.Totally biased, but IMO LH is the best we've had for a long time.
MS seems to be keen on crashing, like AS who sadly died before he reached his best - but then Jimmy Clarke also died before he reached his full potential. I'd rate him above any of the current drivers, other than maybe LH!
MS seems to be keen on crashing, like AS who sadly died before he reached his best - but then Jimmy Clarke also died before he reached his full potential. I'd rate him above any of the current drivers, other than maybe LH!
Hello Eddie! paulguitar said:
Sure, I would take his opinion seriously too. I think it's fair to point out though, that he had nothing like the professional or personal relationship with Lewis that he did with Michael. Ross and Lewis were working in the same team for one of Lewis's 83 wins, but Ross and Michael worked for the same team for all of MS's 91 wins!
So, have there been any F1 people who have worked alongside Lewis and Michael in the same team for a substantial period in both cases?
One thing we do know from Paddy Lowe and James Allison is that Lewis is considered as very much comparable with both Senna and Prost.
It makes no difference to the point you are making, but I don't think all of MS's wins were with Brawn, because I'm sure he won with Ferrari in 1996 and Brawn didn't join them until 1997. Trivial point because the difference that would make to the number of wins with Brawn is tiny.So, have there been any F1 people who have worked alongside Lewis and Michael in the same team for a substantial period in both cases?
One thing we do know from Paddy Lowe and James Allison is that Lewis is considered as very much comparable with both Senna and Prost.
Personally I think a year working with someone is enough to get a good impression of them, though Lewis seems to have improved and become a more complete driver since 2013, but for what it's worth Brawn was asked to compare Schumacher and Hamilton by Channel 4 at, I think, Brazil. He didn't commit to who is better but instead gave a more diplomatic answer focussing on their differences. I got the impression he worked better with MS's total commitment approach and took a while to trust that Hamilton could do his own thing and still deliver. Eventually got that trust, but to me it seemed that MS's methods were a better match for Brawn.
I got the impression that, if he had a choice between the two in their prime, he'd choose Michael, because he's a better fit, rather than a better driver.
He agreed that Hamilton has the potential to surpass Shumacher's records.
paulguitar said:
vdn said:
sparta6 said:
glazbagun said:
sparta6 said:
Let's just agree on Senna - and close this thread 
Prost was better. Now we can close it. 
Everyone knows, deep down, the best of all time is Eddie Irvine.
End thread.
Eddie was the greatest.
At having fun
mattikake said:
You don't appear to understand what I'm talking about. Given your CD I take this as a deliberate ploy to deflect from something you can't "win".
I talk of wheel-to-wheel racing [race craft] and you counter it with race pace arguments. It's... bizarre.
I'm talking of fighting over the same piece of tarmac at the same time. Overtaking. Defending. Not race pace.
If verstappen out-battles Hamilton on the track, absolutely. Although recent on track scraps like Mexico would appear intelligence beats aggression as far as lewis v max has gone so far...
As I have already said, battling on track has little to do with age and everything about intelligence, wit and understanding of how to use different lines to affect a move.
Hamilton is in a class of one. Never flustered and always able to think quicker.
No it's an opinion and I stand by it. People are allowed to have an opinion. "Biased nonsense" is a very mentally unstable thing to say about an opinion. (One that is born out of 35 years following f1). I've seen a lot of drivers come and go.
Mansell had a no fear aggressive and flamboyant overtake craft frequently executing "the dummy" unnecessarily. Lauda pure intelligence and experience. Prost similar to lauda but more measured and error free. Jones was masterful in making planning look like opportunism - surprise attacks. Keke had such amazing throttle control he created the concept of power oversteer overtaking - the undefendable king of all moves.
As a schumacher fan, I suspect you have no idea what I'm talking about. Schumacher had nothing special or exciting in his moves, mostly dirt, cheat and ram. Little different to the likes of many midfield problem drivers like Maldonado or Perez.
Just been watching the new sky f1 "classic hamilton" series. China 2011. Some other things I forget about how great hamilton's overtaking prowess is. This race was a good example of how he quickly and clinically overtakes and makes them count. Everyone else seems to make it look harder and take too long to do it. Meanwhile hamilton gets free and clear. He gets it done quickly and this gains him time on the track. He has this ability to maximise different lines at the right time to run just that little bit closer to the guy in front than anyone else can. That's part of what makes his moves look so effortless and ultimately, undefendable.
You keep banging on about cognitive dissonance, yet you don't know what it actually means and you've demonstrated symptoms of it yourself. I provided evidence with my points - which you conveniently ignored - and you still haven't provided any evidence yourself to back up your points. So here you are again:I talk of wheel-to-wheel racing [race craft] and you counter it with race pace arguments. It's... bizarre.
I'm talking of fighting over the same piece of tarmac at the same time. Overtaking. Defending. Not race pace.
TobyTR said:
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?.....
If verstappen out-battles Hamilton on the track, absolutely. Although recent on track scraps like Mexico would appear intelligence beats aggression as far as lewis v max has gone so far...
As I have already said, battling on track has little to do with age and everything about intelligence, wit and understanding of how to use different lines to affect a move.
Hamilton is in a class of one. Never flustered and always able to think quicker.
TobyTR said:
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.
.No it's an opinion and I stand by it. People are allowed to have an opinion. "Biased nonsense" is a very mentally unstable thing to say about an opinion. (One that is born out of 35 years following f1). I've seen a lot of drivers come and go.
Mansell had a no fear aggressive and flamboyant overtake craft frequently executing "the dummy" unnecessarily. Lauda pure intelligence and experience. Prost similar to lauda but more measured and error free. Jones was masterful in making planning look like opportunism - surprise attacks. Keke had such amazing throttle control he created the concept of power oversteer overtaking - the undefendable king of all moves.
As a schumacher fan, I suspect you have no idea what I'm talking about. Schumacher had nothing special or exciting in his moves, mostly dirt, cheat and ram. Little different to the likes of many midfield problem drivers like Maldonado or Perez.
TobyTR said:
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.
No you've made an argument for race pace, not wheel-to-wheel battling. Why do you think this is the same thing? Seriously. And why do you think arguing a totally different point somehow counters the original one?Just been watching the new sky f1 "classic hamilton" series. China 2011. Some other things I forget about how great hamilton's overtaking prowess is. This race was a good example of how he quickly and clinically overtakes and makes them count. Everyone else seems to make it look harder and take too long to do it. Meanwhile hamilton gets free and clear. He gets it done quickly and this gains him time on the track. He has this ability to maximise different lines at the right time to run just that little bit closer to the guy in front than anyone else can. That's part of what makes his moves look so effortless and ultimately, undefendable.
Edited by mattikake on Thursday 7th November 00:07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3kbxjBAYmM - Alonso outfoxing Hamilton Canada 2013, not 'race pace'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml3zTFqNefI - Alonso beating Hamilton wheel-to-wheel in a tight battle, not 'race pace'
yeah, he's really "in a class of one"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbeDuAWFibw - Schumacher's last race for Ferrari, Brazil 2006. Most F1 pundits after the race said it summed up his career. Yet if anyone listened to you on here, Schumacher is comparable to Maldonado and only wins by ramming through the field..... Wrong again.
It doesn't matter how long you've been watching F1, if you're biased then you are. Calling you out on your biased nonsense isn't "a very mentally unstable thing to say" - that's an attempt at a cop-out, it's called hitting the nail on the head.
I'm not a Schumacher fan, but I appreciate greatness when I see it. Much in the same way I view all the multiple World Champions.
TobyTR said:
Alonso outfoxing Hamilton Canada 2013, not 'race pace'
Alonso beating Hamilton wheel-to-wheel in a tight battle, not 'race pace'
It doesn't matter how long you've been watching F1, if you're biased then you are.
I'm not a Schumacher fan, but I appreciate greatness when I see it. Much in the same way I view all the multiple World Champions.
Hereby proving your own bias.Alonso beating Hamilton wheel-to-wheel in a tight battle, not 'race pace'
It doesn't matter how long you've been watching F1, if you're biased then you are.
I'm not a Schumacher fan, but I appreciate greatness when I see it. Much in the same way I view all the multiple World Champions.
Nobody has said Schumacher is useless, only that he is not a true great because he resorted to cheating, had the backing of the FIA and always had a compliant team-mate.
You have managed to find a whole two examples of Alonso getting the better of Hamilton, wow, 2 examples from around 10 years of both being in F1, fantastic. No doubt, if I could be bothered, I could find 20 examples of Hamilton getting the better of Alonso during that period.
It is a simple fact that in 2007 Hamilton came 2nd in the WDC, Alonso 3rd when they were both in the same team. At that point Hamilton was a rookie and Alonso the reigning WDC holder.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff