Schumacher - Was he the best ever??

bbability

Now that he's officially announced his retirement from F1, was he the best driver that F1 has ever seen?

Edwardius

Looks like this is gonna be serious bait for the senna whores! For what it's worth, from what I've seen the guy do over the last 14 odd years and for many reasons and no few cliches that're gonna be uttered numerous times over the coming weeks and months, I think so. As opinion is severly polarised on this topic I don't see any minds changing on the subject. There'll still be the same "the cars are much easier to drive", "the competition was crap" etc etc, but seven (possibly eight) world titles at the pinnacle of four wheeled motorsport, with two different teams speak volumes regardless of the era. Hopefully he can wrap up this year's title and give that little spanish pup something to think about, and make many a grown man get all misty eyed! He will be missed but it's better than hanging on and just deteriorating slowly towards the back of the grid as the years wear on. I don't expect to see his likes again for a long time and for that, respect is due.

el rabitos

no, no he wasnt

anytime he came up against someone with a car comparable to his, he finished runner up. he's a sore loser too

AdMMM

His ability to get the most out of a bad car really was special.

stever

el rabitos wrote:

no, no he wasnt

anytime he came up against someone with a car comparable to his, he finished runner up.

You won't be saying that in a few years time and something tells me he won't be remembered as a runner up. Everyone will remember him as the greatest there ever was.

Edwardius

el rabitos wrote:

no, no he wasnt

anytime he came up against someone with a car comparable to his, he finished runner up. he's a sore loser too

I'm not sure you can call the Williams cars of '96, '97 and subsequent mclarens "comparable", I'd call them vastly superior (less so towards 2000 but it's still recognised they had the edge). Do you plan on backing up your statements?

dinjo

without a shadow of a doubt... Michael Schumacher will be remembered as the greatest formula 1 driver of all time. he has broken every record in the books, and looks set to become an 8 time formula 1 world champion.

Senna was brilliant, but Schumi was unreal ! there will never be another driver like him.im very proud to be a schumacher fan, but im also gutted at the fact that he wont be there anymore.

Well Done Schumi ! !

thanks for everything !

doubledown

Yep. Schumi was (and is) the best. We will never see his like again. Sure, there were dark moments, but his records speak for themselves.

Farewell Michael and thanks for everything.

el rabitos

Dead Ed wrote:

I'm not sure you can call the Williams cars of '96, '97 and subsequent mclarens "comparable", I'd call them vastly superior (less so towards 2000 but it's still recognised they had the edge). Do you plan on backing up your statements?

i dont have to back up anything, he was wreckless, a sore loser and if any other competant driver couldnt win that many world championships in that ferrari as catered to as he was then i'd be in shock.

damon hill was better than him until he found himself in an inferior car
villeneuve was better until williams went and changed engines
mika hakkinen was better, then he just retired

there was no real challenge then until alonso came to promenence, and as soon as renault put a good reliable car under him he displaced him

what more do u want? he's overhyped

now if he'd left ferrari and went and drove for a lesser funded team for the next 2 years or so then i might have some more respect for him. other than that i think he's a cheat who should have been banned for what he did in adelaide in '94 and silverstone in '95 among other things

bmwman

"damon hill was better than him until he found himself in an inferior car
villeneuve was better until williams went and changed engines
mika hakkinen was better, then he just retired"

Are you for real ? Damon Hill had a vastly superior car and he still got owned,
only when Schu went to Ferrari did he win the campionship.
Villeneuve in the same superior car only won the season on the last race
mika was put into retirement coz he knew he could never beat the ferrari's.

Statistically Schu is the best (All the major records) and I think anyone who has a clue agrees, nuff said.

Blackjack

bbability wrote:

Now that he's officially announced his retirement from F1, was he the best driver that F1 has ever seen?

Certainly up there with the very best there ever was or ever will be.
The argument will always rage that Senna was better - I would not always agree, Schumacher was over the course of a race weekend a better driver.

Edwardius

damon hill was better than him until he found himself in an inferior car

Well judging by 1994 and 1995, you're talking crap. The Benetton was running a 3.5 V8 in '94 with the williams running the Renault V10. Who came out on top? 95: both run the same V10, Schumacher wins nine races in the benetton and beats Hill. Again.

Hill won in '96. Why? the 1996 Ferrari was a complete pig compared to the williams of the same year. Looking at Villeneuve's record in the same car in '96 shows the superiority of this package as the two were out of sight that year.

1997? Tighter championship but there's no way the ferrari was on a par with the williams that year and Schuey didn't win any fans for trying to nerf Villeneuve off in Jerez but was punished in accordance with the rules.

1998: Adrian newey, the guy responsible for designing the previously dominant Williams moves to mclaren. What happens? Hakkinen starts winning in the mclaren, having been nowhere in the previous seasons. Williams didn't "change engines", they ran the same renault V10s as the previous year under mecachrome branding and Villeneuve flops.

1999: Schumacher smashes leg, Hakkinen wins again. Hakkinen only really beat schumacher in one season despite both competing together for years

So really losing in 1996 was due to a duff car, 1997 and 1998 may have been something to do with a gentleman called Adrian Newey. The car came good in '99 but a broken leg saw to that year. and the rest was history

You can look at dominance in two ways: the quality of the competition isn't up to scratch (err... 20 of the best racing drivers on the planet hardly amounts to duff competition, so this argument is rubbish except for the year his main rival was Coulthard) or the driver in question might be just a little special. Now I fail to see how, for the five years at the start of this decade, no decent competition was available in the form of car or driver. Especialy with the likes of Raikkonen coming good

Regarding "leaving Ferrari". Why would he do that? He already proved that he could move to another team and make a previously uncompetitive car work through hard work, selection of the right people around him and maybe just a little raw speed. Why do it again if he'd nothing to prove at that point?

Regarding the cheating thing: Right, this amounts to taking out hill in '94, the incident you mentioned in '95, Villeneuve in '97 and the qualifying incident in monaco, but he was punished appropriately for the latter two. In fifteen odd years, that ain't a bad record. Regarding being a sore loser: Well for someone whose only goal in life is to win, coming second is bound to leave a bitter taste, and why the hell should he have to pretend to look pleased to come second just to make the likes of you happy? Cop on!

OSiriS

This is a pointless arguement. It is difficult to judge if Schumacher is was the best driver of the modern generation because he has never competed against any of the other contenders in equal equipment. We will never know how he would have stacked up against the legends of the sport since they were from very different eras facing different challenges. If you were a fan of his I believe many of us would appreciate it if you praised him quietly rather than trying to persuade those of us who believe otherwise.

Blackjack

Well lets just close the thread then eh?.

OSiriS

If you look back through the history of this board you will find that this arguement has re-appeared many times, and will never be resolved since we will only ever have opinion.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=9178761914513537949

Watch that video, F1 has changed hugely over the last 50 years as have the challenges. The drivers back then were as amazing as anyone we have seen in the modern era. My personal opinion is that any driver who could succeed in an F1 car of the 50s/60s would be a dominant force given a modern car on a modern circuit. With all the driver aids, aerodynamics, and technology in modern cars it is difficult to tell if the likes of Schumacher could be as brave in an old wingless F1 car with nothing to protect you from death in a crash.

trendkill

Just have something to say in relation to the villeneuve 97 thing. Alot of people blow him off saying it was the car that won him the championship, from the threads above.

We're Irish and patriotic, how many people supported Jordan here, anybody remember a driver name Heinz-Harold Frentzen. Remember he won a few great races for Jordan, Beating eddie/Mika/Coulthard. He raced with Schumacher before and most Germans believed that he would become successful before schumacher did, that he was better. Now, Schumi got his break with the Jordan team, Frentzen a couple of years later enters F1.... was Frentzen always a good driver.... or was it just in 97' with the same car as Villeneuve he was just plain crap...., if i can remember correctly he only won one race, i think in Imola that year..... while his team-mate took the title....

Anyway, to the title of the thread, if anyone remembers when most drivers announce their retirement.... they are usually on the verge of tears if not crying.... that look in Schumi's eyes today gave me the feeling that he did not want to go.... but had no other choice in the matter... thta glint and attitude. I'm not a fan of his but he has been such a part of the sport i am saddened about it, thinking that the time was not right. Damon Hill once said that we'll see if Schumi can win a Title at the age of 37 as Hill did, we'll see in the next few races i bet, but mansell won his at 41!

Kersh

Nope, Fangio is... 24 wins from 51 races. Thats a 47% win ratio.
Schumi 90 wins from 247 starts is 36.
So that answers that.
Besides, only once in Schumis illustrious career has he won a title he had to fight for in the last rounds - 2003 against Kimi. In all the rest he lost (97,98), cheated (94) or walked it well early (00,01,02,04).
In 93, 96, 99 he either didnt have a quick enough car, or broke a leg.
But he is definitely one of the best ever.

thegoth

"anytime he came up against someone with a car comparable to his, he finished runner up. he's a sore loser too"

This is crap. What do you think his team mates for driving ? A sleigh ?

El Rabitos, not even going to justify what you said with an answer. You really do not have a clue about Formula 1.

Frenzen's speed at Williams, was not a reflection on his true speed. He never settled in at Williams. Do not judge JV by his year against Frenzen, as it flatters him. JV and Hill were not anywhere near great drivers. They were in the right team at the right time.

I regard Schui as the best driver of his generation, just after Senna, but he is retiring now. Lets all look forward to seeing how good Alonso is and try and judge Kimi against Michael by his performances against Massa.

OSiriS

Massa won't be an accurate yard stick if he continues to improve as he has. Most people wouldn't have regarded Massa as a great driver before he joined Ferrari, and in the early races this year that opinion was confirmed. He has come on in leaps and bounds recently. I think many people spend too much time trying to show ways drivers weren't up to scratch rather than enjoying the times they put in great drives. Frentzen is a prime example. Before himself and Schumacher entered F1 Frentzen beat Schumacher consistently. Schumacher hada better entry into F1 though, being surrounded by a team that helped him achieve victory. Frentzen didn't have this luck, driving for a few yars with Sauber, a mid field team, then playing second fiddle at Williams. My memory of his career is of his first year with Jordan when he was in a position to take the drivers championship. F1 is dominated by technology rather than driver talent which makes it difficult to see beyond it. People put down every other good driver with claims that they only won because they had the best car, but the same is true for Schumacher.

I prefer to look for drivers who can put in great drivers in lesser equipment. I wonder how many will remember Alonso when he drove for Minardi. He never scored points there, but drove some amazing races given how weak the car was. The same could be said for Schumachers entry into the sport. Granted his debut was anti-climactic, be he did great things in that Jordan around Spa.

lostexpectation

apart from a long holiday what is he going to do now?

Dempsey

He is the most successful F1 driver without question but how much of that success was down to renault and ferrari's unrivaled dominance in the sport at the time of his success.

The above question will always hang over his greatness

SouperComputer

I always felt he was overrated TBH. He is up there, somwhere, with the best in F1, but I can't help but feel that he has achieved success in an eaiser eire in comparison to previous champions.

As a racing driver, if he has future success with more varied forms of motorsport I would be more convinced. Take Jim Clark for example. MS hasnt got a spec on him IMO, but MS has plenty of time to prove me wrong.

After spinning out of a double digit place in the world karting champs in 2001, I need much more convincing!

thegoth

"He is the most successful F1 driver without question but how much of that success was down to renault and ferrari's unrivaled dominance in the sport at the time of his success"

Ridicolous. He had the best car for four years, 2000 - 2004, and he did what you would expect a great driver to do with the best equipment. He dominated. He had a below par car from 1994 - 1999

His Benetton in 1994 and 1995 was a long way from the best car in the field, and he won.

His Ferraris from 1996 - 1999 were also a long way from the best, and his challehged for the world title. During this time McLaren and Williams had the best cars.

2005 - Renault had the best car, and Alonso won

2006 - Renault and Ferrari closly matched. Good battle between two great drivers

Anyone who thinks that Michael was not the best of his generation, please say who they think was and why. Exlude Senna, as people are sick of this debate already.

Peter Collins

Senna was the best driver of this generation

But none of them come close to the drivers of the 1960s - Stewart, Clark, Hill, etc.

Driving around the billiard-table smooth Shanghai circuit is always going to be easier than drifting a Lotus 49 around the Nurburgring with virtually no grip.

Of our generation:

1 - Senna
2 - Schumacher

Dempsey

thegoth wrote:

Ridicolous. He had the best car for four years, 2000 - 2004, and he did what you would expect a great driver to do with the best equipment. He dominated. He had a below par car from 1994 - 1999

His Benetton in 1994 and 1995 was a long way from the best car in the field, and he won.

His Ferraris from 1996 - 1999 were also a long way from the best, and his challehged for the world title. During this time McLaren and Williams had the best cars.

2005 - Renault had the best car, and Alonso won

2006 - Renault and Ferrari closly matched. Good battle between two great drivers

Anyone who thinks that Michael was not the best of his generation, please say who they think was and why. Exlude Senna, as people are sick of this debate already.

You just proved my point. When other teams had anyway near equal cars he struggled to win. If other teams were closer to ferrari in recent years, would he be a 7 time world champion? Unlikely

thegoth

"You just proved my point. When other teams had anyway near equal cars he struggled to win. If other teams were closer to ferrari in recent years, would he be a 7 time world champion? Unlikely"

Thats a stupid statement. The cars Schmui was in from 1994 - 1999 were along way from the best cars on the gid, so your statement "When other teams had anyway near equal cars he struggled to win", is flawed as this flawed as it implies that Michaels cars were the fastest and the other teams cars were nearly as fast, when the truth is that the cars Michael were in were along way from the speed of rival teams. 1996 and 97 the Williams were nearly a second and sometimes more quicker. Same as Mclaren in 1998 - 99.

The Benetton was also along way from the like of Williams and McLaren in the early to mid 90's.

Lets deal is fack, not wild statements that cannot be backed up.

I am not going to get dragged into who was best, Senna or Schmui. I believe it was Schmui, and so do most of the Engineers who worked with both, but we will never ever know. Both exceptional

Dempsey

How is it a stupid statement? You're being naive.

He won consecutive World Titles without any competition in a car that was clearly far superior to the rest. When he broke his leg, Eddie Irvine quickly became a front runner for the title once he was allowed to win by ferrari bosses. Was Irvine that good that he could reel in Mika so quickly? Errr No

thegoth

You said "When other teams had anyway near equal cars he struggled to win"

I am asking you to give examples of when someone who was in a team whos car was marginally slower that Schmuis, regular beat him, as you are saying this happened, and unless I missed a few seasons of F1, it didn't.

Irvine did challenge Mika, but if Michael were there, he would have beat him in 99. I believe Mika and Irvine had a very similar skill level. Ron Dennis has even said this. Mika was marginally faster I would think.

Kersh

His Benetton in 1994 and 1995 was a long way from the best car in the field, and he won.

Are you for real!!!
His 94 car was slightly better than the evil Williams that year, and his 95 car was by far the class of the field.

His 97/98/99 ferraris were almost the best, they were very close to the Mclarens... and he lost - so in a simple way he could not win in an inferior car... so what makes him better than Hill/Hakkinen, neither of whom won in the '2nd best car''

And FYI the fastest car last year was the Mclaren... funny that Alonso won a title in an inferior car... he was backfooting it finishing 2nd for the latter half of the season.

Dempsey

Damon Hill, Jacque Villeneuve, Mika Hakkinen

steviec

Dempsey wrote:

How is it a stupid statement? You're being naive.

He won consecutive World Titles without any competition in a car that was clearly far superior to the rest. When he broke his leg, Eddie Irvine quickly became a front runner for the title once he was allowed to win by ferrari bosses. Was Irvine that good that he could reel in Mika so quickly? Errr No

Have you actually watched Formula 1 or are you just reading statistics? Because if you'd seen Michael's return in 1999, you'd have seen how he was worlds apart from Eddie. Eddie was only in the championship thanks to a whole list of McLaren screw ups, Jordan nearly won the title thanks to their and Ferrari's decline in the mid-season. If Michael wasn't injured he'd probably have walked that title.

Michael came into F1 in 91 and was immediately shown to be special with his Jordan qualifying performance. He gets snapped up by Benetton where he's comfortably on the pace of his triple world champion team-mate Nelson Piquet. The following year, when the all conquering Williams practically drives Mansell and Piquet to success, it's Michael who comes in as best of the runners in cars not completely dictated by electronics, just ahead of Senna. He gets his first win in the rain at Spa, the most difficult conditions on the ultimate drivers track in modern F1.

By 1993 I considered him my favourite driver, and he managed to eek another race win out of a car that really wasn't on the pace of the leaders. In particular he put on a superb performance to lead Ayrton Senna at Monaco before his car packed in and he was consigned to retirement. While all eyes were on Prost and Senna that year, Michael was really showing himself to be a future star.

Then came 94. It was a huge loss to Formula 1 when Senna died, and we were robbed of a great championship battle. As it was, Michael was clearly the class of the field while his team-mates struggled for points in the same car. The championship only went down to the wire thanks to Michael spending more time banned than in a racecar in the second half of the Season, thanks to silly technicalities like overtaking Hill behind the safety car and the plank being damaged over a kerb. It's hard to say if Adelaide was a racing incident, but since he never said otherwise(he admitted Jerez) I'll assume it was. Michael was the better driver and deserved the title that Season regardless.

In 95 there was far less controversy. Benetton gave Michael a car that was almost on par with the Williams, and so he dominated the Season. In his entire double-championship winning Benetton career, he was only outqualified by his team-mate one single time. That was when Herbert outqualified him because Michael had technical problems at Spa 95. Michael started that race 16th, and went on to win it with some incredible driving, particularly on slicks in the wet.

So then started the Ferrari era. 1996, Williams had a dominant car. But Michael still won 3 races, Spain 96 in particular really proving his dominance. How can anyone logically explain a single driver being 4-8 seconds per lap faster than everyone else on the grid when it rains without admitting that it's quite simply his talent? Throughout the mid to late 90s he did this consistently in the rain, sadly this advantage has been eaten away in recent years by different tyres and traction control taking away much of the skill.

Then came 97, once again the Williams was dominant but the Ferrari now had the reliability, and Michael pulled off some incredible drives to keep himself in the championship. Sadly a bad set of tyres made him lose out in the final race. As a driven competitor who worked towards winning that title for the last two years, I can't blame Michael for the decision he made in a split second as Villeneuve went to overtake him. He showed he was human. And he was punished fairly for it.

98 the McLaren dominated, but once again Michael took it to the last race with some great driving. 99 things were more even but the broken leg robbed him of victory.

2000-2004, Ferrari finally produced the best car and Michael did the job brilliantly. Yes, he had the best car. Yes, other drivers could have won in 02 or 04 with that car. But the team got to that position with Michael, they achieved an unprecedented level of success with Michael, and they still won the title with Michael after a dodgy spell when the rules were rewritten and then Michelin were allowed run illegal tyres for half the Season in 03. So you can single out specific races and seasons when the car was great, but no other driver could have achieved what Michael did through his Ferrari career. And his come back this season has underlined that. His drives at Imola, at Monaco, at Canada, at Hungary were inspired. Of course Massa was able to keep up with him in the US or in Hockenheim when they were cruising. But it's in the races where the chips are down that Michael's talent really shines and he leaves his team-mate for dust. Or even look at Magny Cours or Monza, when other teams were on par with Ferrari, Massa couldn't hold second but Michael's wins were never in doubt. And that's not a criticism of Massa, who's been superb this Season.

I really don't think any other driver in the last 15 years can compare with Michael. They don't even come close. Going further back you just can't compare. You may as well be comparing him with a golfer or tennis player, the sport has just changed two much. In two full seasons against Senna, Michael came out on top once and Senna came out on top once. That was really before Michael hit his peak though, it's a pity we never got to see them race properly.

But to me Michael has put all of the excitement into F1 over the last decade. He's been the one to put in stunning drives in poorer cars. He's been the one who you always have to watch out for. He's turned this year into a championship battle when it was looking like Fernando would walk it a few months ago. He's always at the centre of attention whether for good or bad reasons, and Formula 1 simply won't be the same without him.

Kersh

Surely if he was any good he would have won the 97 title in an inferior car.... isnt that what defines great drivers... winning against the odds....

thegoth

Kersh,

I never said that Renault was the fastest car. I said, it was the best. Other variables such as Reliability must be taken into consideration when deciding on the best car. When you take all the variables into consideration, I believe that the Renault was the best car to have last year. Also, I believe that Renault had the car detuned for much of the season, as when Alonso clinched the title, all of a sudden Renault was as fast if not faster than the McLaren. This is also the view held by Gary Anderson

Whats the point of having a car thats 2 seconds faster than every other car in the field if you only finish half the races on the calendar ?

McLaren was the fastest car last year, but what use was this, when it couldn't finish a race for a large portion of the year.

If I was an F1 driver, and chould choose what car I would have liked last year, I would have picked the Renault

Kersh

Obviuosly the best car is the one that wins the championship... regardless how quick it is... im making the point that performance wise, the mclaren was the quickest car for the greater part of the season... I (as a driver) would rather pick a quick car, get 5 race wins and finish second, than pick a 'reliable' car and win once with 5 second places to take the title. The joy of the championship is the winning as the year goes on... not finishing runner up all year and take a title that way.

trendkill

thegoth wrote:

"anytime he came up against someone with a car comparable to his, he finished runner up. he's a sore loser too"

This is crap. What do you think his team mates for driving ? A sleigh ?

El Rabitos, not even going to justify what you said with an answer. You really do not have a clue about Formula 1.

Frenzen's speed at Williams, was not a reflection on his true speed. He never settled in at Williams. Do not judge JV by his year against Frenzen, as it flatters him. JV and Hill were not anywhere near great drivers. They were in the right team at the right time.

I regard Schui as the best driver of his generation, just after Senna, but he is retiring now. Lets all look forward to seeing how good Alonso is and try and judge Kimi against Michael by his performances against Massa.

SO schumacher wasn't in the right car at the right time when he won five of his seven world titles eh............ you make no sense. Everyone that wins a world title is in the right car at the right time.... if a person doesn't win.... they weren't in the right car at the right time. (bore/yawn)

thegoth

Lets define what being "In the right place at the right time means". It simply means having best car for a given season.

From 2000 - 2004, Michael was in the right place at the right time, but at this stage he had already won two world titles when he was not in the right place at the right time. I do not believe that Hill or JV would have won world titles without the best car. However Michael can and did. I believe that Kimi and Alonso can do this as well

Also, from 1996 - 1999 Michael produced some amazing drives in an cars that were of the pace. Just think of 2000 - 2004 as a reward for these drives.

Dempsey

steviec wrote:

Have you actually watched Formula 1 or are you just reading statistics? Because if you'd seen Michael's return in 1999, you'd have seen how he was worlds apart from Eddie. Eddie was only in the championship thanks to a whole list of McLaren screw ups, Jordan nearly won the title thanks to their and Ferrari's decline in the mid-season. If Michael wasn't injured he'd probably have walked that title.

Schumacher would have walked to the title that year only for injury, never said he wouldn't. But your missing my point.

When he won all those back to back titles, alot of that success can be put on the gap between ferrari and the rest of the pack. Several rules were changed to decrease ferrari's advantages but the still went on winning for a while. Now that Renault have come back and settled back in, Schumacher is struggling against a good driver in a car that is equivalent to his ferrari.

If ferrari was only equivalent to the next best car during that period do you think that he would have won all those back to back titles?

walshb

It's something we will never really know because of the technlogy in F1. Put them all in identical cars and you would find out. If theY were all iN identical cars my money would without doubt be on Senna. He could drive any car to the absolute max, and was amazing in the WET!!!!

thegoth

I take your point, and I agree with most of it.

I do think that Michael would have won the titles from 2000 - 2004, even if everyone had equal cars, as no one was really in his league at that time. Maybe Kimi, but not quiet. At Kimis age, Michael had some great races behind him, such at driving half the spanish GP in 5th ... I know it might be hard to swallow, but who could have beaten him ? Alonso was hammered by Trulli for the first half of 04, so I do not think he could have challenged him, as he seemed to come of age from half way through 04

When you say that "Schumacher is struggling against a good driver in a car that is equivalent to his ferrari"

I would say Schmacher is having a good close battle with one of the best young drivers in the past 20 years. Renault had the best car at the start of the year and Alonso pulled out a big lead. Now Ferrari have the best car and Michael is closing the gap. Tyes can decide the race on any given day.

To finish I do agree with you that " When he won all those back to back titles, alot of that success can be put on the gap between ferrari and the rest of the pack". If he was in a Sauber, he would not have won anything !! What I am saying is just because he won for so long in the best car, does not take away from his genius as a driver. I ask the question. From 2000 - 2004, who could have beaten him in equal equipment ? I dont think anyone

walshb

To be honest if ever I was fan of the sport it was during Mansell's, Prost's, Sennas reign. Since it became more dominant thru advanced Technology and that one team was always superior it became a bore fest. Another very annoying aspect and one that hinders this type of debate is team orders. If anyone was going to challenge Schumacher during those years it was going to be either sanctioned or ruled out by the Ferrari team . I seem to remember Irvine who I never considered a superb driver, challenging Michael on several occasions and even beating him. But Irvine I suspect was never given the fairest crack of the whip and was never allowed really pressure Michael. All team orders did for F1 was damage it and lose it its credibility. So to say Michael was the best even during his reign is something a little suspect. The record boks say he was, but was everyone playing on a fair circuit so to speak?

thegoth

I think Irvine was given a fair chance. He was generally faster than Schmui about once a year. Look at Fisi and Alsonso. Fisi was faster than him at every session twice this year, from Friday to Sunday. This happens to every driver now and again. It happened to Senna, Schmui, Alonso, Kimi .......

Irvine did have to move over a few times and this did lead to Schmi probaly winning one or two races that he otherwise wouldn't have won. Instead of winning 90, he may have won 85.

I agree the sport was better in Senna, Mansell time, but Schmui can hardly be blamed for a lack of skilled drivers.

I think that the next few years, especially with the banning if TC, the introduction of control slick tyres, and the reduction of dependancy of aerodynamics, will be great for the sport.

v10

Personally I think this is a bull**** topic that will probably be brought up forever ...

To ask if Schumacher is better than Fangio or whoever is like asking if Schumacher is better than Colin McRae in my opinion

You can only really rate any driver against his teammate and yes schumacher was faster than any of his.
Yeah Yeah they weren't let race him rant blah blah .. I'm not interested.

He holds every record anyone would want in F1 and for that he deserves to be called one of the best and will be considered a Legend.

As for whos the best ? Who knows ... nobody here knows, thats for sure.

walshb

State the obvious why don't you. We know that it can never really be proved but it's still worth debating even if just for the input. Just like debating whether Ali would have beat Tyson. Yes Schumacher has all the records but the sport of Motor racing has never been played equally by all. It's not like boxing, or swimming or Athletics where it is man against man. Motor racing is man and machine against man and inferior machine or man with team orders.
I just don't see how people can pay to watch a sport where some of those competing are actually not competing at all. They are under instructions.

As for Senna, to me anyway he was the only driver I ever saw that really stood out from the rest. He had such character, passion and was a bit like 'Maverick' in Top Gun, a daredevil. Maybe not always tactically the best, but he was he guy who could get the absolute best out of any car he was given. His pole positions tell that tale.

Blackjack

Anyone who saw Schumacher in Spain in 96 where (IIRC) he lapped all but those on the Podium in a Pig of a Ferrari will know that he was without a doubt one of the best.

HoJOs

nobody is going to change their mind but in my opinion he was and is the greatest f1 driver ever, he won 2 titles in a sub par car at bennetton and u cant deny that all u schuey haters, i think everyone laughed and cheered when he took out damon hill in the last grand prix to win the championship, then he went to ferrari and took a seriously seriously poor car at the time and helped ferrarri become champs, managed to win 5 with ferrari, correct me if im wrong, i probly am, and at least 3 of them maybe more were with an inferior car to his rivals, love him or hate him, he is without doubt the greatest f1 driver of all time

Kersh

Anyone who saw Schumacher in Spain in 96 where (IIRC) he lapped all but those on the Podium in a Pig of a Ferrari will know that he was without a doubt one of the best.

And anyone who saw Senna in a wet Donington park in a v8 Mclaren against way more superior Williams and Schumi IN THE WET (and the Benetton was a pig of a car!!) would know that he is brilliant too...
The reality is every driver has his brilliant days, for example Rubens at Silverstone in 03 I think, or maybe 02. Irvine in oz 1999.

Dempsey

There is doubts about his greatness, there are threads like this one, everywhere. I've nothing against Schumacher, brilliant driver but I cant ignore the fact that he had a ferrari that was head and shoulders above everyone, Irvine says it aswell and he drove the car, for several years.

Everytime a Driver and a car that matched him, he struggled, lost, cheated his way to winning and once was disqualified and all poiints taken for that block attempt on Villeneuve, which was very similar to the successful attempt on Damon Hill. Mika Hakkinen lost how many races/titles because his McLaren kept blowing up on the final lap.

Im not saying he aint a great driver, he is and always will be but the all time greatest? I have my reservations and I'm not the only one that has the same doubts.

trendkill

thegoth wrote:

I do not believe that Hill or JV would have won world titles without the best car. However Michael can and did. I believe that Kimi and Alonso can do this as well

Also, from 1996 - 1999 Michael produced some amazing drives in an cars that were of the pace. Just think of 2000 - 2004 as a reward for these drives.

I wonder could Shumi have hopped into an Arrows to lead a race up until the last lap..... wait a minute Hill did that.... Villeneuve also lead races in the B.A.R when he ultimately finished third in Hockenheim and that car was a dog. Schumacher in a "Ferrari" , 94 he won the title by crashing into Hill, hmmm,

Joeface

Its a hard one to gauge.

he is up there with the best , but He hasnt had much to match im. When compared to the Likes of Senna and Prost ,Im not sure, Senna had won races in bad cars , MS has for the most part of his career had the best car money can buy and this is a huge advantage and even more so when ur a good driver.I would be nice to see all these guys in the same cars.....ie like A1, it would be a much better gauge how good they are. Eddie Irvine always said there was no one better a pushin pedals and takin corners but that he was just ****e at setting up the car the way he wanted.

thegoth

Please dont tell me you are trying to compare Hill to Schmui. That was Hills only great drive. One sunny day does not make a summer. Schmui drove like this all his F1 career. Same goes for JV.

Let me ask every everyone one question. If you were setting up a team at any point from 91 to 2006, what drivers would you want ?

I would want Schmui and Senna. I would be shocked if anyone says Hill or JV !! Different league

steviec

Kersh wrote:

And anyone who saw Senna in a wet Donington park in a v8 Mclaren against way more superior Williams and Schumi IN THE WET (and the Benetton was a pig of a car!!) would know that he is brilliant too...
The reality is every driver has his brilliant days, for example Rubens at Silverstone in 03 I think, or maybe 02. Irvine in oz 1999.

In fairnes, if you rewatch that race it wasn't a patch on Schumacher's dominance in Spain 96.

Senna was a little bit faster than everyone else, and mainly pulled out a massive gap thanks to Prost changing tyres every other lap. It was still a great drive but I wouldn't rate it anywhere near as highly as Spain 96 where Michael was consistently 4 seconds per lap faster than the rest of the field when he wanted to be. And he was leading from Alesi, a driver celebrated for his wet drives. Senna was leading from Prost, a driver notorious for his dislike of wet weather.

And Schumacher didn't just have a 'brilliant day', he consistently obliterated the field every time there was a wet race in the mid to late 90s. In his early career he wasn't quite so good, and in his late career the addition of the tyre war and traction control have muted his dominance somewhat, but even if you look at Hungary this year, he lapped every single bridgestone runner including his own team-mate before the collision with Heidfeld. No mean feat.

Michael's very first race win of his career came in the wet at Spa, and that was on track with Ayrton himself. Not due to better speed, but better intelligence, his decisions when it came to timings of pitstops were inspired, unlike Senna who really messed up his own race by insisting on staying on slicks.

No other driver has produced the kind of drives time and again that Michael has, regardless of the car he was in.