The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
6 times world champion (1994, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003), 80th race wins........... can anyone stop him?
Page:
Michael Schumacher playing football channel 5 thursday late night.
Damon Hill won it before
I don't think Damon Hill was a merely average driver. When he drove for Williams in 1993, the car was superior but he did win 3 races and probably should have won 5 if it wasn't for engine glitches and tyres blowing up. Not bad for his first full season and beat Prost numerous times head to head.
1994 was a tough year. I wouldn't say the Williams was the dominant, greatest car on the track but Hill ran Schumacher right to the final race and it was only Schumacher's suspect tactics that denied Hill the title.
1995, the car was unreliable and probably would have pushed Schumacher again in what were almost identical cars as Benetton had Renault engines, the same as Williams.
1996, Hill finally got the title that I thought he deserved and it could have been 2. Villeneuve showed that year that he was good but Hill beat him that year.
1997, Hill got replaced by Frentzen and Frentzen did terrible. Hill went to Arrows, which was underpowered and pretty poor as it was in a transitional phase as Tom Walkinshaw had taken over the team. To drive that car to the front in Hungary was a masterful drive and it's the only drive I can remember in recent years when a team which has been near the bottom for the whole season, appear at the top. If it wasn't for a throttle problem, that race was his.
Then there were the Jordan years at the end of his career. He was ahead of Ralf Schumacher in Belguim when Jordan recorded their first win and 1-2 finish. He helped Jordan become a force as in later years, Frentzen won races at Jordan and was even a Championship contender with a few races left. His contribution was obviously invaluable as it was only money troubles at Jordan that have cost them recently. Otherwise they might still be there near the top.
I think Damon Hill was worthy of his title and probably should have had 2. Definitely not the greatest driver ever but definitely deserved the title he won, in my opinion of course. :)
1994 was a tough year. I wouldn't say the Williams was the dominant, greatest car on the track but Hill ran Schumacher right to the final race and it was only Schumacher's suspect tactics that denied Hill the title.
1995, the car was unreliable and probably would have pushed Schumacher again in what were almost identical cars as Benetton had Renault engines, the same as Williams.
1996, Hill finally got the title that I thought he deserved and it could have been 2. Villeneuve showed that year that he was good but Hill beat him that year.
1997, Hill got replaced by Frentzen and Frentzen did terrible. Hill went to Arrows, which was underpowered and pretty poor as it was in a transitional phase as Tom Walkinshaw had taken over the team. To drive that car to the front in Hungary was a masterful drive and it's the only drive I can remember in recent years when a team which has been near the bottom for the whole season, appear at the top. If it wasn't for a throttle problem, that race was his.
Then there were the Jordan years at the end of his career. He was ahead of Ralf Schumacher in Belguim when Jordan recorded their first win and 1-2 finish. He helped Jordan become a force as in later years, Frentzen won races at Jordan and was even a Championship contender with a few races left. His contribution was obviously invaluable as it was only money troubles at Jordan that have cost them recently. Otherwise they might still be there near the top.
I think Damon Hill was worthy of his title and probably should have had 2. Definitely not the greatest driver ever but definitely deserved the title he won, in my opinion of course. :)
lalakersrule wrote:
> Speculation, no solid proof
Speculation is always going to figure in a debate about the best current driver versus drivers who died before he ever stepped into an F1 car.
> Ah finally something relating to my post, Ah yes Hakkinen was so
> rapid he didn't win a race until '97 when Villeneuve's car suddenly
> slowed down. Hill was in the fastest car when he won his title,
> average drivers can win titles if their car can make up for their
> lack of speed. Not so in other sports where athletes have to rely on
> themselves to do well, F1 is all about technology now, not driver
> skill, which only plays a small part sadly.
I don't recall any of Hakkinen's team-mates winning either, with the exception of Senna in Hakkinen's first year. Hill did win in the fastest car, but as Williams said at the time "he made the most of his machinery". He never qualified off the front row in '96, and if you look back at his race performances from that year they were not of an average driver in a good car.
> Speculation, no solid proof
Speculation is always going to figure in a debate about the best current driver versus drivers who died before he ever stepped into an F1 car.
> Ah finally something relating to my post, Ah yes Hakkinen was so
> rapid he didn't win a race until '97 when Villeneuve's car suddenly
> slowed down. Hill was in the fastest car when he won his title,
> average drivers can win titles if their car can make up for their
> lack of speed. Not so in other sports where athletes have to rely on
> themselves to do well, F1 is all about technology now, not driver
> skill, which only plays a small part sadly.
I don't recall any of Hakkinen's team-mates winning either, with the exception of Senna in Hakkinen's first year. Hill did win in the fastest car, but as Williams said at the time "he made the most of his machinery". He never qualified off the front row in '96, and if you look back at his race performances from that year they were not of an average driver in a good car.
Miserableman wrote:
> This is the same across many sports. Pele would be an average
> footballer in todays premiership.
Speculation, no solid proof
Jimmy Connors wouldn't stand a
> chance against todays tennis stars.
Except Tim Henman :-D Anyway again speculation, no proof.
They would have to raise their
> game like everyone else, and it's extremely doubtful that the top
> sportsmen from the 70's would be top sportsmen today - at the very
> least, they certainly wouldn't enjoy the margin over their peers
> today that they did in their time.
Again Speculation, no proof.
> Also, fyi - average drivers don't win world titles. Hakkinen was
> brutally rapid his entire career, and Damon Hill nearly won a GP in
> an Arrows.
Ah finally something relating to my post, Ah yes Hakkinen was so rapid he didn't win a race until '97 when Villeneuve's car suddenly slowed down. Hill was in the fastest car when he won his title, average drivers can win titles if their car can make up for their lack of speed. Not so in other sports where athletes have to rely on themselves to do well, F1 is all about technology now, not driver skill, which only plays a small part sadly.
> This is the same across many sports. Pele would be an average
> footballer in todays premiership.
Speculation, no solid proof
Jimmy Connors wouldn't stand a
> chance against todays tennis stars.
Except Tim Henman :-D Anyway again speculation, no proof.
They would have to raise their
> game like everyone else, and it's extremely doubtful that the top
> sportsmen from the 70's would be top sportsmen today - at the very
> least, they certainly wouldn't enjoy the margin over their peers
> today that they did in their time.
Again Speculation, no proof.
> Also, fyi - average drivers don't win world titles. Hakkinen was
> brutally rapid his entire career, and Damon Hill nearly won a GP in
> an Arrows.
Ah finally something relating to my post, Ah yes Hakkinen was so rapid he didn't win a race until '97 when Villeneuve's car suddenly slowed down. Hill was in the fastest car when he won his title, average drivers can win titles if their car can make up for their lack of speed. Not so in other sports where athletes have to rely on themselves to do well, F1 is all about technology now, not driver skill, which only plays a small part sadly.
lalakersrule wrote:
> 'Much stiffer competition'?? Sorry but what career have you been
> watching?
>
> Damon Hill - average
> Mika Hakkinen - average
>
> And that's about it as far as proper rivals go, Raikkonen and Button
> are close but neither have proved yet to be top class drivers. Add
> the fact Schumacher has the Ferrari and there's no competition at
> all. The only guy that would give him a race and has shown him up to
> be very average on several occasions is Montoya, put him in a Ferrari
> and tell him he can race Schumie (well i doubt even if you told him
> not to it would make a difference) and then we'd see some proper
> action.
A lot of the drivers Fangio raced against were fatter than me, and I'm Tubby McLardBelly. Grand Prix racing has got a LOT more professional and a LOT more popular in the past twenty years - personal, organisational and technical standards have risen by orders of magnitude. I remember watching footage of the race at which James Hunt won his world championship in 1976 - drivers were coming into the pits unexpectedly and mechanics had to put out their fags and hurriedly get some tyres from the back of the pitlane! You can't tell me it wouldn't be vastly easier to excel in such an environment. If you were to put Schumacher or any of todays F1 drivers into such a sport, they would quickly rise to dominate it.
This is the same across many sports. Pele would be an average footballer in todays premiership. Jimmy Connors wouldn't stand a chance against todays tennis stars. They would have to raise their game like everyone else, and it's extremely doubtful that the top sportsmen from the 70's would be top sportsmen today - at the very least, they certainly wouldn't enjoy the margin over their peers today that they did in their time.
Also, fyi - average drivers don't win world titles. Hakkinen was brutally rapid his entire career, and Damon Hill nearly won a GP in an Arrows.
> 'Much stiffer competition'?? Sorry but what career have you been
> watching?
>
> Damon Hill - average
> Mika Hakkinen - average
>
> And that's about it as far as proper rivals go, Raikkonen and Button
> are close but neither have proved yet to be top class drivers. Add
> the fact Schumacher has the Ferrari and there's no competition at
> all. The only guy that would give him a race and has shown him up to
> be very average on several occasions is Montoya, put him in a Ferrari
> and tell him he can race Schumie (well i doubt even if you told him
> not to it would make a difference) and then we'd see some proper
> action.
A lot of the drivers Fangio raced against were fatter than me, and I'm Tubby McLardBelly. Grand Prix racing has got a LOT more professional and a LOT more popular in the past twenty years - personal, organisational and technical standards have risen by orders of magnitude. I remember watching footage of the race at which James Hunt won his world championship in 1976 - drivers were coming into the pits unexpectedly and mechanics had to put out their fags and hurriedly get some tyres from the back of the pitlane! You can't tell me it wouldn't be vastly easier to excel in such an environment. If you were to put Schumacher or any of todays F1 drivers into such a sport, they would quickly rise to dominate it.
This is the same across many sports. Pele would be an average footballer in todays premiership. Jimmy Connors wouldn't stand a chance against todays tennis stars. They would have to raise their game like everyone else, and it's extremely doubtful that the top sportsmen from the 70's would be top sportsmen today - at the very least, they certainly wouldn't enjoy the margin over their peers today that they did in their time.
Also, fyi - average drivers don't win world titles. Hakkinen was brutally rapid his entire career, and Damon Hill nearly won a GP in an Arrows.
Button's performance yesturday was outstanding, I reckon by next season, he will be the competitor to Schumacher.
That scrap between him and Alonso was excellent.
That scrap between him and Alonso was excellent.
Miserableman wrote:
> BiGGiE L͆†L€ Jn®™
> wrote:
> If you put kimi raikkonen in a ferrari, he would most probably beat
> micheal.
You what?
No doubt Kimi is a good driver but what proof do you have to say that? The McLaren itself has never been a bad car and yet Michael has always been stretches ahead of him...and you're saying that as soon as Kimi jumps into technically the same car as Michael, he's gonna be able to beat him just like that?
Nuh uh. Just because he's in the best car does not mean he's not the best driver - just look at Barrichello who has been beaten by other cars and drivers on a regular basis. You only needed to watch Silverstone a fortnight ago to see just how good Michael is - when he needs to be, he is so unbelievably quick and pushes so unbelievably hard that in the space of one pit stop he can move up from 4th to 1st.
At the moment, Kimi would probably give Michael a half decent challenge but as long as the latter is on top form, Kimi would always be second best.
> BiGGiE L͆†L€ Jn®™
> wrote:
> If you put kimi raikkonen in a ferrari, he would most probably beat
> micheal.
You what?
No doubt Kimi is a good driver but what proof do you have to say that? The McLaren itself has never been a bad car and yet Michael has always been stretches ahead of him...and you're saying that as soon as Kimi jumps into technically the same car as Michael, he's gonna be able to beat him just like that?
Nuh uh. Just because he's in the best car does not mean he's not the best driver - just look at Barrichello who has been beaten by other cars and drivers on a regular basis. You only needed to watch Silverstone a fortnight ago to see just how good Michael is - when he needs to be, he is so unbelievably quick and pushes so unbelievably hard that in the space of one pit stop he can move up from 4th to 1st.
At the moment, Kimi would probably give Michael a half decent challenge but as long as the latter is on top form, Kimi would always be second best.
'Much stiffer competition'?? Sorry but what career have you been watching?
Damon Hill - average
Mika Hakkinen - average
And that's about it as far as proper rivals go, Raikkonen and Button are close but neither have proved yet to be top class drivers. Add the fact Schumacher has the Ferrari and there's no competition at all. The only guy that would give him a race and has shown him up to be very average on several occasions is Montoya, put him in a Ferrari and tell him he can race Schumie (well i doubt even if you told him not to it would make a difference) and then we'd see some proper action.
Damon Hill - average
Mika Hakkinen - average
And that's about it as far as proper rivals go, Raikkonen and Button are close but neither have proved yet to be top class drivers. Add the fact Schumacher has the Ferrari and there's no competition at all. The only guy that would give him a race and has shown him up to be very average on several occasions is Montoya, put him in a Ferrari and tell him he can race Schumie (well i doubt even if you told him not to it would make a difference) and then we'd see some proper action.
Greatest driver ever? Nah.
It's all in the cars now. That's why F1 is so ridiculously boring.
It's all in the cars now. That's why F1 is so ridiculously boring.
Page: