Lewis Hamilton G.O.A.T. ?

[nickfrog]

Siao said:

Ah, the Rubens squeeze, yeah, that was not nice, very hard racing for which he apologized to Rubens. Did you call out Webber when he did it to Massa or Senna when he did it to Prost?

The photo shows MSC in action.

[CustardOnChips]

Siao said:

nickfrog said:

paulguitar said:

Almost running Rubens into the wall at 180 MPH was insane and could have resulted in a car in the pitlane at that speed.

That was ugly, even by his standards.

Ah, the Rubens squeeze, yeah, that was not nice, very hard racing for which he apologized to Rubens. Did you call out Webber when he did it to Massa or Senna when he did it to Prost?

Hard racing

He should have been black flagged and had his racing licence removed.

[Siao]

CustardOnChips said:

Siao said:

nickfrog said:

paulguitar said:

Almost running Rubens into the wall at 180 MPH was insane and could have resulted in a car in the pitlane at that speed.

That was ugly, even by his standards.

Ah, the Rubens squeeze, yeah, that was not nice, very hard racing for which he apologized to Rubens. Did you call out Webber when he did it to Massa or Senna when he did it to Prost?

Hard racing

He should have been black flagged and had his racing licence removed.

Christ, you would probably ask for Senna's head in 1990...

[Siao]

MarkwG said:

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

Siao said:

paulguitar said:

ELUSIVEJIM said:

And for the record, it was Hill going for an overtake that was never going to work in Australia. A bit like his career when it came to trying to overtake Schumacher.

There's barely a driver on the planet who wouldn't have gone for that overtake.

Thankfully, there are relatively few that would have cynically and deliberately sideswiped the other car as Schumacher did. Then again, it was not a surprise, he was always a dirty driver.

I don't think there's any doubt Schuey was in a different league to Hill as a driver, but he was so good there was no need for the repeated lack of sportsmanship.

It is a bit unfair to remember one of the greatest careers in F1 by the handful of negatives. Also, remember that in the previous 5 years two of the WDC's were decided exactly like that. The FIA didn't nip it in the bud when they had the chance, I put equal blame on them for allowing this.

I still would think that common sense should have prevailed, but in red mist drivers did these things. Vettel did 3 years ago. We need to forget also the notion of the gentlemen drivers from the 50's, with the cars getting safer there were a lot more risks and dirty games from drivers. I remember Irvine mentioning how he pushed someone to the grass because they annoyed him. Or Alboretto in the example I used before, he pushed Senna on the barriers in Monaco. It happened, they finally grew balls in 1997 and put a stop to it. We can now move on.

The difficulty with that, is that it wasn't a "handful" - & this is a thread about whether one driver deserves the title of Greatest Of All Time. The poor behaviour was relentless, affected many races &, to my mind, caused far more damage to F1 than the Hamilton/Mercedes dominance has. Many long term fans were switched off by the cheating & foul play, & many newcomers walked away when it seemed to have more in common with WWF than sport. I agree the authorities should have stopped it from the off, but they failed to distinguish between engineers & designers pushing the limits, & drivers behaving like thugs - things only improved when Schumacher, the last of that era, finally retired.

It wasn't a handful? We have the two incidents with Hill and JV (even Hill's is debated by some, but anyway) and the Rascasse corner. What poor behaviour made people switch their TV's off and caused damage to F1? Are you sure you're not being a bit over dramatic here? Care to share some examples or anything to back this up?

Not really: those incidents don't get tucked away & ignored, particularly when were just the ones significant to the championship at the time. It's a pattern of behaviour that poisons the show, which is why they're still debated & discussed, decades further on. His time with Benneton was mired in controversy, of which he was part, prior to F1 he had already developed a reputation It was quite obvious that Shcumacher was playing with a loaded deck, most of the time - at Benneton because they were regularly caught cheating, & Ferrari because the FIA were turning a blind eye. As for examples: Derek Warwick, 1991 430k of Nürburgring; pushing Frentzen off the track in the '98 Canadian; pushing Barrichello at the pit wall in the 2010 Hungarian.

Yeah, the Benetton angle. As if he's the one that removed the fuel filter or wrote the software in the cars. Do you remember that he left Benetton partly because of the dire reputation they had? To pin it on him is a bit rich. I'd suggest the fantastic book from Ibrar Malic to get some more insight on that season, fascinating stuff. And I'm well aware of his history; he defended hard against Hakkinen in Macao and been branded a cheater before he even stepped a foot in F1.


Here, I'll try and explain it differently. Have a read:

http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com/2011/12/celeb...

Did you even know that Sir Jackie won a race having the only set of new wets? All we hear is that the German had special tyres and the T-car set up for him... Or, for example, branding some his starts the "Schumacher chop"; I think people forget some of the starts from Senna and Prost.

So is there a bit of bias, possibly, against the German?


I am not trying to say that he was a saint, that is obviously not the case (and he brought it to himself with things like '97). I never even argued that he is GOAT. I was just trying to show that he is possibly judged unfairly compared to some of the other drivers.

Want to judge him by the bad incidents, that's fine all the same. As they say, a man builds a thousand bridges...

[MarkwG]

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

Siao said:

paulguitar said:

ELUSIVEJIM said:

And for the record, it was Hill going for an overtake that was never going to work in Australia. A bit like his career when it came to trying to overtake Schumacher.

There's barely a driver on the planet who wouldn't have gone for that overtake.

Thankfully, there are relatively few that would have cynically and deliberately sideswiped the other car as Schumacher did. Then again, it was not a surprise, he was always a dirty driver.

I don't think there's any doubt Schuey was in a different league to Hill as a driver, but he was so good there was no need for the repeated lack of sportsmanship.

It is a bit unfair to remember one of the greatest careers in F1 by the handful of negatives. Also, remember that in the previous 5 years two of the WDC's were decided exactly like that. The FIA didn't nip it in the bud when they had the chance, I put equal blame on them for allowing this.

I still would think that common sense should have prevailed, but in red mist drivers did these things. Vettel did 3 years ago. We need to forget also the notion of the gentlemen drivers from the 50's, with the cars getting safer there were a lot more risks and dirty games from drivers. I remember Irvine mentioning how he pushed someone to the grass because they annoyed him. Or Alboretto in the example I used before, he pushed Senna on the barriers in Monaco. It happened, they finally grew balls in 1997 and put a stop to it. We can now move on.

The difficulty with that, is that it wasn't a "handful" - & this is a thread about whether one driver deserves the title of Greatest Of All Time. The poor behaviour was relentless, affected many races &, to my mind, caused far more damage to F1 than the Hamilton/Mercedes dominance has. Many long term fans were switched off by the cheating & foul play, & many newcomers walked away when it seemed to have more in common with WWF than sport. I agree the authorities should have stopped it from the off, but they failed to distinguish between engineers & designers pushing the limits, & drivers behaving like thugs - things only improved when Schumacher, the last of that era, finally retired.

It wasn't a handful? We have the two incidents with Hill and JV (even Hill's is debated by some, but anyway) and the Rascasse corner. What poor behaviour made people switch their TV's off and caused damage to F1? Are you sure you're not being a bit over dramatic here? Care to share some examples or anything to back this up?

Not really: those incidents don't get tucked away & ignored, particularly when were just the ones significant to the championship at the time. It's a pattern of behaviour that poisons the show, which is why they're still debated & discussed, decades further on. His time with Benneton was mired in controversy, of which he was part, prior to F1 he had already developed a reputation It was quite obvious that Shcumacher was playing with a loaded deck, most of the time - at Benneton because they were regularly caught cheating, & Ferrari because the FIA were turning a blind eye. As for examples: Derek Warwick, 1991 430k of Nürburgring; pushing Frentzen off the track in the '98 Canadian; pushing Barrichello at the pit wall in the 2010 Hungarian.

Yeah, the Benetton angle. As if he's the one that removed the fuel filter or wrote the software in the cars. Do you remember that he left Benetton partly because of the dire reputation they had? To pin it on him is a bit rich. I'd suggest the fantastic book from Ibrar Malic to get some more insight on that season, fascinating stuff. And I'm well aware of his history; he defended hard against Hakkinen in Macao and been branded a cheater before he even stepped a foot in F1.


Here, I'll try and explain it differently. Have a read:

http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com/2011/12/celeb...

Did you even know that Sir Jackie won a race having the only set of new wets? All we hear is that the German had special tyres and the T-car set up for him... Or, for example, branding some his starts the "Schumacher chop"; I think people forget some of the starts from Senna and Prost.

So is there a bit of bias, possibly, against the German?


I am not trying to say that he was a saint, that is obviously not the case (and he brought it to himself with things like '97). I never even argued that he is GOAT. I was just trying to show that he is possibly judged unfairly compared to some of the other drivers.

Want to judge him by the bad incidents, that's fine all the same. As they say, a man builds a thousand bridges...

No, it's not bias against a German, how ridiculous - it's calling out a regular & unrepentant cheat. He was fully aware of what was happening at Benneton, he was complicit in it, & benefitted enormously. He left Benneton because Ferrari made him, Ross Brawn & Rory Byrne a better offer, no more, no less. That it was Verstappen that nearly got barbequed, not him, was luck. He was not unfairly judged against others; no-one else came close to him in terms of abusing the system, barring perhaps Senna.

What are you talking about Jackie Stewart for? He would never consider racing in the manner Schumacher did, no -one would then, it was considered irresponsible as much as anything, because you'd either kill the other driver or be killed yourself. Hard racing is one thing, racing in bad faith is entirely another. No-one questions that Schumacher had number 1 status, or that the T car was set for him, that wasn't unusual in most teams: that he insisted on it contractually, that he didn't share his data whilst insisting the number 2 shared his, that was more unusual, & a function of the power & control he wielded - but it has nothing to do with whether he cheated or not. Senna & Prost were at war with each other; Schumacher targeted anyone in his way - he certainly learned that he could get away with it from the Senna/Prost events, but it was already part of his racing style. So, no he wasn't judged unfairly - he was allowed to get away with his poor behaviour because of the belief he could walk on water, whereas, he could walk on water in no small part because he got away with his bad behaviour. For those who believe in sport being about fair play, that was difficult to stomach, & yes, turned a number of people off the sport, me included.

[Siao]

MarkwG said:

No, it's not bias against a German, how ridiculous - it's calling out a regular & unrepentant cheat. He was fully aware of what was happening at Benneton, he was complicit in it, & benefitted enormously. He left Benneton because Ferrari made him, Ross Brawn & Rory Byrne a better offer, no more, no less. That it was Verstappen that nearly got barbequed, not him, was luck. He was not unfairly judged against others; no-one else came close to him in terms of abusing the system, barring perhaps Senna.

What are you talking about Jackie Stewart for? He would never consider racing in the manner Schumacher did, no -one would then, it was considered irresponsible as much as anything, because you'd either kill the other driver or be killed yourself. Hard racing is one thing, racing in bad faith is entirely another. No-one questions that Schumacher had number 1 status, or that the T car was set for him, that wasn't unusual in most teams: that he insisted on it contractually, that he didn't share his data whilst insisting the number 2 shared his, that was more unusual, & a function of the power & control he wielded - but it has nothing to do with whether he cheated or not. Senna & Prost were at war with each other; Schumacher targeted anyone in his way - he certainly learned that he could get away with it from the Senna/Prost events, but it was already part of his racing style. So, no he wasn't judged unfairly - he was allowed to get away with his poor behaviour because of the belief he could walk on water, whereas, he could walk on water in no small part because he got away with his bad behaviour. For those who believe in sport being about fair play, that was difficult to stomach, & yes, turned a number of people off the sport, me included.

A lot of accusations here, without much proof frankly. We haven't even seen his contract, his team mates mentioned that they never had Nr2 statuses, yet you just know all that.

I think I'll bow out on this, as you seem to have made up your mind and my points probably went above your head.

[Exige77]

I think David Coulthard was on record saying the contract he was offered at Ferrari was clearly saying he would be number 2 to MS.

They might not have contained the words “you are number 2” but the meaning was clear.

He declined as we all know.

[Muzzer79]

Siao said:

We haven't even seen his contract, his team mates mentioned that they never had Nr2 statuses, yet you just know all that.

Herbert has gone on record as saying that Schumacher was allowed to access his data, but it wasn't permitted the other way around.

Irvine has made pretty clear what his role was.

Barrichello........well, Austria 2002 and the many-documented accounts of what happened that day that are all corroborated tell us all we need to know about his status.

We'll never see a driver's contract, but if something looks, smells and tastes like a steak...it's a steak.

[Siao]

Irvine himself mentioned that they all started as the same in the beginning of the year. But as one driver was faster than the other, they would take priority, that was never denied. But they did not have an outright Nr2 status in their contracts.

Barrichello re-signed twice with Ferrari, that's how disadvantaged he was... If we're honest, neither held a candle to their team mate.

[MarkwG]

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

No, it's not bias against a German, how ridiculous - it's calling out a regular & unrepentant cheat. He was fully aware of what was happening at Benneton, he was complicit in it, & benefitted enormously. He left Benneton because Ferrari made him, Ross Brawn & Rory Byrne a better offer, no more, no less. That it was Verstappen that nearly got barbequed, not him, was luck. He was not unfairly judged against others; no-one else came close to him in terms of abusing the system, barring perhaps Senna.

What are you talking about Jackie Stewart for? He would never consider racing in the manner Schumacher did, no -one would then, it was considered irresponsible as much as anything, because you'd either kill the other driver or be killed yourself. Hard racing is one thing, racing in bad faith is entirely another. No-one questions that Schumacher had number 1 status, or that the T car was set for him, that wasn't unusual in most teams: that he insisted on it contractually, that he didn't share his data whilst insisting the number 2 shared his, that was more unusual, & a function of the power & control he wielded - but it has nothing to do with whether he cheated or not. Senna & Prost were at war with each other; Schumacher targeted anyone in his way - he certainly learned that he could get away with it from the Senna/Prost events, but it was already part of his racing style. So, no he wasn't judged unfairly - he was allowed to get away with his poor behaviour because of the belief he could walk on water, whereas, he could walk on water in no small part because he got away with his bad behaviour. For those who believe in sport being about fair play, that was difficult to stomach, & yes, turned a number of people off the sport, me included.

A lot of accusations here, without much proof frankly. We haven't even seen his contract, his team mates mentioned that they never had Nr2 statuses, yet you just know all that.

I think I'll bow out on this, as you seem to have made up your mind and my points probably went above your head.

Plenty on the record about all of it - you're the one not providing any. Over our heads - really? Reduced to ad hom already speaks volumes...

[Siao]

MarkwG said:

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

No, it's not bias against a German, how ridiculous - it's calling out a regular & unrepentant cheat. He was fully aware of what was happening at Benneton, he was complicit in it, & benefitted enormously. He left Benneton because Ferrari made him, Ross Brawn & Rory Byrne a better offer, no more, no less. That it was Verstappen that nearly got barbequed, not him, was luck. He was not unfairly judged against others; no-one else came close to him in terms of abusing the system, barring perhaps Senna.

What are you talking about Jackie Stewart for? He would never consider racing in the manner Schumacher did, no -one would then, it was considered irresponsible as much as anything, because you'd either kill the other driver or be killed yourself. Hard racing is one thing, racing in bad faith is entirely another. No-one questions that Schumacher had number 1 status, or that the T car was set for him, that wasn't unusual in most teams: that he insisted on it contractually, that he didn't share his data whilst insisting the number 2 shared his, that was more unusual, & a function of the power & control he wielded - but it has nothing to do with whether he cheated or not. Senna & Prost were at war with each other; Schumacher targeted anyone in his way - he certainly learned that he could get away with it from the Senna/Prost events, but it was already part of his racing style. So, no he wasn't judged unfairly - he was allowed to get away with his poor behaviour because of the belief he could walk on water, whereas, he could walk on water in no small part because he got away with his bad behaviour. For those who believe in sport being about fair play, that was difficult to stomach, & yes, turned a number of people off the sport, me included.

A lot of accusations here, without much proof frankly. We haven't even seen his contract, his team mates mentioned that they never had Nr2 statuses, yet you just know all that.

I think I'll bow out on this, as you seem to have made up your mind and my points probably went above your head.

Plenty on the record about all of it - you're the one not providing any. Over our heads - really? Reduced to ad hom already speaks volumes...

Clearly saying that I'll bow out wasn't enough. But reduced to ad hom, really? Nice try, I said that it went over your head as you never provided anything, just skipped over it so you either never understood me or just plainly ignored the post. Apologies if you took it personally, it wasn't meant like an attack.

To be clear, I never claimed that I had proof about the following:

"He was fully aware of what was happening at Benneton, he was complicit in it"

"Schumacher had number 1 status, or that the T car was set for him, that wasn't unusual in most teams: that he insisted on it contractually, that he didn't share his data whilst insisting the number 2 shared his"

That would be you, your text. So please, kindly show us his contract that mentions all that or how he was complicit in Benetton's shenanigans.


Again, you claimed these, the onus is on you to show it as you claimed it, but something tells me that you will not do that.

For the record, we have only seen Senna's and Piquet's contracts from Lotus asking for N1 statuses in the 80's. No one else's. So if you are claiming these things "contractually", I'd love to see that. Thanks

[nickfrog]

Siao said:

So is there a bit of bias, possibly, against the German?

Far more obvious that you have a strong pro MSC bias.

[CustardOnChips]

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

Siao said:

MarkwG said:

No, it's not bias against a German, how ridiculous - it's calling out a regular & unrepentant cheat. He was fully aware of what was happening at Benneton, he was complicit in it, & benefitted enormously. He left Benneton because Ferrari made him, Ross Brawn & Rory Byrne a better offer, no more, no less. That it was Verstappen that nearly got barbequed, not him, was luck. He was not unfairly judged against others; no-one else came close to him in terms of abusing the system, barring perhaps Senna.

What are you talking about Jackie Stewart for? He would never consider racing in the manner Schumacher did, no -one would then, it was considered irresponsible as much as anything, because you'd either kill the other driver or be killed yourself. Hard racing is one thing, racing in bad faith is entirely another. No-one questions that Schumacher had number 1 status, or that the T car was set for him, that wasn't unusual in most teams: that he insisted on it contractually, that he didn't share his data whilst insisting the number 2 shared his, that was more unusual, & a function of the power & control he wielded - but it has nothing to do with whether he cheated or not. Senna & Prost were at war with each other; Schumacher targeted anyone in his way - he certainly learned that he could get away with it from the Senna/Prost events, but it was already part of his racing style. So, no he wasn't judged unfairly - he was allowed to get away with his poor behaviour because of the belief he could walk on water, whereas, he could walk on water in no small part because he got away with his bad behaviour. For those who believe in sport being about fair play, that was difficult to stomach, & yes, turned a number of people off the sport, me included.

A lot of accusations here, without much proof frankly. We haven't even seen his contract, his team mates mentioned that they never had Nr2 statuses, yet you just know all that.

I think I'll bow out on this, as you seem to have made up your mind and my points probably went above your head.

Plenty on the record about all of it - you're the one not providing any. Over our heads - really? Reduced to ad hom already speaks volumes...

Clearly saying that I'll bow out wasn't enough. But reduced to ad hom, really? Nice try, I said that it went over your head as you never provided anything, just skipped over it so you either never understood me or just plainly ignored the post. Apologies if you took it personally, it wasn't meant like an attack.

To be clear, I never claimed that I had proof about the following:

"He was fully aware of what was happening at Benneton, he was complicit in it"

"Schumacher had number 1 status, or that the T car was set for him, that wasn't unusual in most teams: that he insisted on it contractually, that he didn't share his data whilst insisting the number 2 shared his"

That would be you, your text. So please, kindly show us his contract that mentions all that or how he was complicit in Benetton's shenanigans.


Again, you claimed these, the onus is on you to show it as you claimed it, but something tells me that you will not do that.

For the record, we have only seen Senna's and Piquet's contracts from Lotus asking for N1 statuses in the 80's. No one else's. So if you are claiming these things "contractually", I'd love to see that. Thanks

Top flounce. Then came back for more.

You seem surprised by the accusations. Is this the first time you've heard them?

[Siao]

nickfrog said:

Far more obvious that you have a strong pro MSC bias.

If you say so.

[Siao]

CustardOnChips said:

Top flounce. Then came back for more.

You seem surprised by the accusations. Is this the first time you've heard them?

That's not really what I said, is it? Where's the proof was the question.

[Muzzer79]

Siao said:

Barrichello re-signed twice with Ferrari, that's how disadvantaged he was... If we're honest, neither held a candle to their team mate.

The fact that he re-signed for Ferrari does not mean that he had equal status with Schumacher. Plenty of drivers have sold their soul to be a number 2.

I can't believe we're arguing about whether Schumacher had outright number 1 status. It's just beyond question and has been backed up by multiple sources.......did you watch F1 in the early 2000's?

[Siao]

Muzzer79 said:

The fact that he re-signed for Ferrari does not mean that he had equal status with Schumacher. Plenty of drivers have sold their soul to be a number 2.

I can't believe we're arguing about whether Schumacher had outright number 1 status. It's just beyond question and has been backed up by multiple sources.......did you watch F1 in the early 2000's?

No, that's not what I was arguing, just that we don't know if it was contractual as stated, certainly the team mates didn't have such a clause. Ferrari have gone on record to claim that all their drivers started as equal in the beginning of the year. They backed whoever was better, simple as, that was it.

[angrymoby]

Siao said:

I think I'll bow out on this

Ciao

[sparta6]

Exige77 said:

I think David Coulthard was on record saying the contract he was offered at Ferrari was clearly saying he would be number 2 to MS.

They might not have contained the words “you are number 2” but the meaning was clear.

He declined as we all know.

Instead DC chose to be Mika's unofficial number 2

[Siao]

angrymoby said:

Siao said:

I think I'll bow out on this

Ciao

Thanks