This isn't about little bits of a career it is about overall achievement it doesn't matter who had an engine failure here or a puncture there, as they say "If Ifs and buts were candles and nuts then we would all have a merry Christmas"...
Poll Greatest Champion of the 21st Century (to date!)
- Thread starter FB
- Start date
Bro
If Ferrari has always been favoured by the FIA, why were there no Red Menace WDCs from 1979 until 2000?
It is worth remembering that Michelin made tyres that catered to the requirements of Renault in the turbo era, and Lotus had tyres designed around their needs in the early downforce era. Tyre companies frequently design their tyres to suit the most competetive car in their stable. It was hardly invented by Bridgestone for Ferrari.
As for Schumacher's teammates not being able to challenge him, that was basically because they didn't have enough talent to do so. It is notable that none of his teammates ever acheived anything remotely comparable to their Ferrari days with other teams. Look at Irvine--in the Jag he proved to be a journeyman (which reinforced the impression I had when the performance of the Ferrari fell off so dramatically while MS was injured . As soon as MS was back in the car, the improvements were obvious), yet nearly won the WDC in the Red cars. Rubens sure worked wonders at Honda didn't he? In the nineties, Herbert never came close to repeating what he acheived as Schumacher's teammate.
The fact is, the Ferraris were not world beaters until MS arrived there. Coincidence? I doubt it.
If Ferrari has always been favoured by the FIA, why were there no Red Menace WDCs from 1979 until 2000?
It is worth remembering that Michelin made tyres that catered to the requirements of Renault in the turbo era, and Lotus had tyres designed around their needs in the early downforce era. Tyre companies frequently design their tyres to suit the most competetive car in their stable. It was hardly invented by Bridgestone for Ferrari.
As for Schumacher's teammates not being able to challenge him, that was basically because they didn't have enough talent to do so. It is notable that none of his teammates ever acheived anything remotely comparable to their Ferrari days with other teams. Look at Irvine--in the Jag he proved to be a journeyman (which reinforced the impression I had when the performance of the Ferrari fell off so dramatically while MS was injured . As soon as MS was back in the car, the improvements were obvious), yet nearly won the WDC in the Red cars. Rubens sure worked wonders at Honda didn't he? In the nineties, Herbert never came close to repeating what he acheived as Schumacher's teammate.
The fact is, the Ferraris were not world beaters until MS arrived there. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Was this poll designed just to make Schumacher look good by any chance, because he happened to win most of his titles in the first decade of this century, when he was in the dominant team with the dominant car, team orders in his favour, special tyres from Bridgestone that not even his team mate was allowed, etc etc?
There are ten decades in each century; I'd have thought it would be better to wait till near the end of the tenth decade, rather than ask this question a little way into the second. Then the question might be more meaningful.
It's a bit like asking who's the best driver in the Canadian Grand Prix after 8.5 laps.
Just for the record, I'll say Alonso (so far).
There are ten decades in each century; I'd have thought it would be better to wait till near the end of the tenth decade, rather than ask this question a little way into the second. Then the question might be more meaningful.
It's a bit like asking who's the best driver in the Canadian Grand Prix after 8.5 laps.
Just for the record, I'll say Alonso (so far).
I was hoping people would use the Autocourse criteria Chad Stewarthill - driver performance given the equipment available to them. If you believe another drivers championships were more deserving then you can vote accordingly (as you have). No bias on my part I can assure you.
Interesting that the majority have gone for Schumie though despite the advantages he was perceived to have had.
Interesting that the majority have gone for Schumie though despite the advantages he was perceived to have had.
I think that the fact of the matter is that if Michael was not as good as he was, he would not have been in a position to command the advantages that he had.
I think the talent was obvious whilst he was elsewhere, he showed at Benneton that he had serious talent, and in the early years at Ferrari he made a real difference. In 99, for example, Irvine was unable to do what Michael was. in 98, Michael was the only driver able to take the battle to the dominant McLarens.
The dominance of the team was down to many things. The formidable team, including Michael, Ross and Jean, along with a subservient number 2 was the recipe. The main factor for my anti sentiment would be 2003, where it seems like Ferrari used underhanded methods to get the Michelin tyres changed, and swing the advantage back to them, although I will not claim to be an expert in this era, as I watched the races without getting involved in the behind the scenes stuff.
Anyhoo, to cut a long story short, despite all the factors that others have mentioned, I am not sure there would be many who could or would have delivered such a period of dominance as Michael did. Of the others on the list, there are at least three who still have it in them to match the feat, or at least stamp there own mark, but it is really too early in their careers to judge.
I think the talent was obvious whilst he was elsewhere, he showed at Benneton that he had serious talent, and in the early years at Ferrari he made a real difference. In 99, for example, Irvine was unable to do what Michael was. in 98, Michael was the only driver able to take the battle to the dominant McLarens.
The dominance of the team was down to many things. The formidable team, including Michael, Ross and Jean, along with a subservient number 2 was the recipe. The main factor for my anti sentiment would be 2003, where it seems like Ferrari used underhanded methods to get the Michelin tyres changed, and swing the advantage back to them, although I will not claim to be an expert in this era, as I watched the races without getting involved in the behind the scenes stuff.
Anyhoo, to cut a long story short, despite all the factors that others have mentioned, I am not sure there would be many who could or would have delivered such a period of dominance as Michael did. Of the others on the list, there are at least three who still have it in them to match the feat, or at least stamp there own mark, but it is really too early in their careers to judge.
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
Bill Boddy If we give Alonso the engine failure can we give Schumi the puncture back? I have no clue where that would have left him but it would have been even closer
And while we're at it let's give him back his pole in Monaco,it's not because his car stalled and rivals complained,that he should be put at the back of the grid.Shit does happen, even to badman schumie
Jos the Boss
Champion Elect
He clearly had a lot of oversteer into Rascasse and could do nothing about it!
Jos the Boss if you take away everything that went wrong for all the drivers who knows who would have won what. All you can count on is what actually happened. If Jim Clark had not had died at Hockenheim he might have won another 6 WDCs, but I'm not counting on it.
I'm not sure you can design a poll to make a person look good the chief whip certainly didn't visit me and tell me which way to vote.
It would have been great if FB had waited until the end of this century to ask the question but if he had I'm not sure I would be around to vote and if he had said the end of the 20th century Schumacher would have still been in the running whereas none of the other drivers he put in the pole would be on it as they hadn't even started their careers then
Michael may have been in a dominant team but that is part of the reason I voted for him because he was directly responsible for making Ferrari a dominant team which in turn made Brigdestone want to work with them also there was nothing special about the tyres on the Ferrari they were exactly the same as all the other teams using them.
If Michael's team mates were any good, even with team orders they should have been finishing directly behind him at every race but they didn't...
You don't just luck into a top team Michael more than earned his place their and a great driver doesn't just turn up and drive, Michael would stay in the pits after sessions talking the mechanics giving feedback and learning as much as possible from them about the car how it works and how to get the best out of it, today's drivers finish the session do the debrief and piss off back to their hotels or motor homes for a nap.
It is the whole package that makes Michael the best not just his driving ability...
Edit
I don't believe that F1 will still exist by the end of this century
Better get our time machine fixed Fenderman, RasputinLives & Jen
http://cliptheapex.com/threads/f1-2112.4862/
Abnash24
Points Scorer
I went for Hamilton because i judged mine by how much i had seen, which is the 2010 season onward, so my whole F1 opinion is based upon the knowledge that Schumacher was good but currently is not (excluding Monaco) I said Lewis Hamilton because he is my favorite driver because i chose based on the 1st race i saw, the 2010 Melbourne Grand Prix. When i saw Lewis sweep around Rosberg in the high speed chicane i immediately placed my allegiance to him. Since then my opinion still stands that he is the best overtaker i know.
So during your watching time Vettel has won all the WDCs but you still go for Hamilton. Hmmm.
I didn't watch the Schumacher years. I found F1 to be an extremely boring sport during that period. The greatest part of the "century" so far has been since his first retirement as far as racing is concerned and he hasn't achieved a great deal since then or even looked like he particularly measures up against the new breed of drivers.
For me, to be great is to inspire. I can't think of any other driver who has inspired more than Lewis Hamilton and so he got my vote. If it were all about results, we wouldn't need the poll. We could just look at the record books and do a little simple mathematics.
For me, to be great is to inspire. I can't think of any other driver who has inspired more than Lewis Hamilton and so he got my vote. If it were all about results, we wouldn't need the poll. We could just look at the record books and do a little simple mathematics.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article