planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:26 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

What is your Favorite Era?
Pre-historic 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
50s 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
60s 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
70s 12%  12%  [ 10 ]
80s 23%  23%  [ 19 ]
90s 30%  30%  [ 24 ]
00s 16%  16%  [ 13 ]
10s 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 81
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5452
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed with Vettel in mind which great driver has he ever beaten in the same car?

Frankly none, and the same can be said for Schumacher. That is the knock on those guys; that they never had to overcome someone of elite caliber in the same car and with equal status. With Senna, you can certainly look to his years against Prost. With Hamilton, you can look to his time against Alonso, Button or even Rosberg. With Vettel, the only time he was up against someone who people see as top shelf, he lost. It's a small sample size so it's understandable if people hesitate to draw conclusions from it but that is the sample. 2014 is the only year. With Schumacher, the first time he had a top driver as a teammate was when he was old and probably past his prime.


I think that you are both are doing a disservice to Schumi and perhaps even Vettel. It goes back to perceptions. If Schumi had not been the driver he was, how might we perceive a Rubens Barrichello with 2-3 WDCs to his name today? Would he then be considered "a great driver" in the same car? I won't hesitate for a moment to say that I think Rubens was every bit the equal, or perhaps superior, to Button or Rosberg in his prime years. Of course he won't have the shiny record that people see.. ie WDCs, but then those other drivers did not have to compete against the likes of Michael Schumacher on the same team. I don't believe that Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton could have beat Schumi over the year during the time that Rubens was at Ferrari either, so why is a "death knell" for his repuation that Barrichello didn't? and in putting down Rubens, that allows some, such as yourselves, to say that Schumi never beat a "great driver" in the same car. Vettel's situation is, of course, tougher to make, though I think that Webber is not given enough credit over the Red Bull years.

Rubens did compete against Button when they raced at Honda and then Brawn. Ultimately, when the car came good in 2009, it was Jenson who proved to be the better performer. Perhaps Rubens was a little up in years by then but the fact is that Jenson had him covered. Part of the issue with Michael and Rubens is that Rubens was not permitted to actually even compete against Michael. I'm NOT saying that Rubens was ever going to be better than him but the fact is that Ferrari ran a distinct 1-2 driver system whereby Michael was always going to be #1. From the first race of the season there was no competition between them whatsoever. Michael always had the superior strategy and first dibs on new parts. If Rubens was in his way, the team would move him out of the way. There was no actual teammate battle at all.

I would also point out that your assertion that Schumacher would beat Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel were they teammates is just your own personal opinion. You are certainly welcome to it but there is no real evidence to support it. The closest you can come to linking Michael to those guys is by proxy through his time as Massa's teammate or as Rosberg's teammate. Going by his time racing against Massa, you would have to say that he was clearly stronger than Felipe and that the difference between them was quite large. Of course, Alonso had a pretty big gap over Felipe as well so it's hard to really draw a conclusion there. Against Rosberg, Michael was beaten pretty conclusively over their three years together although he did do a much better overall job during the 2012 season and he was a much older guy by then and probably past his peak performance level. That said, Hamilton's performance was quite clearly beyond Rosberg's while they were teammates.

The bottom line is that Michael did not race against another top driver in the same car and have to compete on level terms until his time against Rosberg. It's a big stretch to suggest that Rubens was a top driver. He was certainly talented but I don't think you can say that a guy who has raced on 6 WDC and 6 WCC winning teams without ever taking the WDC is a top driver.

I think Vettel has faced tougher competition than Michael but I don't think he has much of a resume in beating top-shelf talent in the same car either. Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost; those guys had to really contend with the very best on level terms and, for me, that is a big separator.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27909
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well the first time was going to be Kimi but he retired which was a shame for Schumacher because I think he would have schooled him, avoiding the best drivers of an era never seems to come up that much in debates.


Of course it does, you, for example, love to bring it up whenever opportunity come up.
:lol:

When was the last time it came up, if it's that frequent it won't be that hard to remember?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
Flash2k11 wrote:
If Senna had lived and stayed at Williams I have absolutely no problem stating that I think he would have won both the titles Hill and Villenueve picked up. 1994 is a different scenario because his death very much directly impacted on exactly how that dark season went, but to say he would have won 2 more titles with Schumacher around had he lived is an entirely realistic statement.

Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well the first time was going to be Kimi but he retired which was a shame for Schumacher because I think he would have schooled him, avoiding the best drivers of an era never seems to come up that much in debates.


Of course it does, you, for example, love to bring it up whenever opportunity come up.
:lol:



To be fair, he's defending Schumacher with it here lol. I think a year against Schumacher at that stage in his career would really, really change the way a lot of people still see Kimi now.


Flash,
I was questioning this part of poker's statement... avoiding the best drivers of an era never seems to come up that much in debates

When it is brought up, it is usually the same people bringing it up.

As for Senna winning those two extra titles, obviously, I am not at all convinced.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Did you watch Ayrton Senna race? I doubt that you did. When he came into F1 he had multiple podiums in an absolute backmarker of a car as a rookie. It was literally the equivalent of someone in this year's Williams securing multiple podiums\ finishes. When he teamed with Prost, Prost was widely considered the best all around driver in F1. Senna out-qualified him 13-3 that year including the legendary Monaco session where he beat Prost by 1.5 seconds.

The reason I tell you that is to point out that, unlike some people want to suggest, Senna's reputation is not based on the fact that he died. It's based on the fact that he was an anomaly while he was racing. He had a bigger gap in pace to the field than any driver since. Schumacher, Hakkinen, Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, none of them have had the kind of margin that Senna showed in his prime. His death does perhaps add to the mystique but it is not what made him a legend.


I actually watched Senna race and a lot before him, need not get into the age thing as nowadays the internet gives all access to info.

You see this is what I was saying no one I mean not even an AI will podium with the Williams this year, it's the sort of nonsense I was talking about people spewing about Senna, in the years he was doing that the attrition and reliability rate was high, if Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc that's not even including his unforced errors. Gasly finished 4th in Bahrain he was almost a minute behind with the car in 1st position not pushing.

Are you now saying you have not watched a qualifying session where Vettel or Hamilton have beaten their respective team mates by same or close margin?

Were their teammates 4-time WDCs considered to be the best driver in the sport prior to being teamed with them? The only reason you are making the argument that you are is to try to take away from what Senna was as a driver by suggesting that it's blown out of proportion because of his death. I call BS on that as I watched his career and he was every bit as great as he's remembered. It's sad how some people feel the need to tear someone down in order to prop up others. You can speak about Vettel being a great driver without having to try to take away from other greats.

Indeed with Vettel in mind which great driver has he ever beaten in the same car?

Frankly none, and the same can be said for Schumacher. That is the knock on those guys; that they never had to overcome someone of elite caliber in the same car and with equal status. With Senna, you can certainly look to his years against Prost. With Hamilton, you can look to his time against Alonso, Button or even Rosberg. With Vettel, the only time he was up against someone who people see as top shelf, he lost. It's a small sample size so it's understandable if people hesitate to draw conclusions from it but that is the sample. 2014 is the only year. With Schumacher, the first time he had a top driver as a teammate was when he was old and probably past his prime.

Why should Button be considered tier 1 if Barrichello was not? Button was barely any faster than a 37 year old Barrichello.

Webber is another driver who does not get the credit he deserves, like Rubens.

Both Rosberg and Button enhanced or at least maintained their reputation when they were teammates with Hamilton. How exactly does that reflect well on Lewis?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
The fact that Senna was on average 6 tenths faster than the next best driver of his generation suggests to me that the quality of drivers 80s and 90s was rather mediocre. It’s unthinkable for any driver to have that kind of advantage today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed with Vettel in mind which great driver has he ever beaten in the same car?

Frankly none, and the same can be said for Schumacher. That is the knock on those guys; that they never had to overcome someone of elite caliber in the same car and with equal status. With Senna, you can certainly look to his years against Prost. With Hamilton, you can look to his time against Alonso, Button or even Rosberg. With Vettel, the only time he was up against someone who people see as top shelf, he lost. It's a small sample size so it's understandable if people hesitate to draw conclusions from it but that is the sample. 2014 is the only year. With Schumacher, the first time he had a top driver as a teammate was when he was old and probably past his prime.


I think that you are both are doing a disservice to Schumi and perhaps even Vettel. It goes back to perceptions. If Schumi had not been the driver he was, how might we perceive a Rubens Barrichello with 2-3 WDCs to his name today? Would he then be considered "a great driver" in the same car? I won't hesitate for a moment to say that I think Rubens was every bit the equal, or perhaps superior, to Button or Rosberg in his prime years. Of course he won't have the shiny record that people see.. ie WDCs, but then those other drivers did not have to compete against the likes of Michael Schumacher on the same team. I don't believe that Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton could have beat Schumi over the year during the time that Rubens was at Ferrari either, so why is a "death knell" for his repuation that Barrichello didn't? and in putting down Rubens, that allows some, such as yourselves, to say that Schumi never beat a "great driver" in the same car. Vettel's situation is, of course, tougher to make, though I think that Webber is not given enough credit over the Red Bull years.


Rubens did compete against Button when they raced at Honda and then Brawn. Ultimately, when the car came good in 2009, it was Jenson who proved to be the better performer. Perhaps Rubens was a little up in years by then but the fact is that Jenson had him covered. Part of the issue with Michael and Rubens is that Rubens was not permitted to actually even compete against Michael. I'm NOT saying that Rubens was ever going to be better than him but the fact is that Ferrari ran a distinct 1-2 driver system whereby Michael was always going to be #1. From the first race of the season there was no competition between them whatsoever. Michael always had the superior strategy and first dibs on new parts. If Rubens was in his way, the team would move him out of the way. There was no actual teammate battle at all.
Yes and no.... Rubens was never going to be better than Schumi and MOST of the time that team orders were implemented, Schumi was already well clear of Rubens in the title chase. Austria 2002 was an exception and I viciously took Ferrari to task for it in here... including being the one that started the thread condemning the action at that time. Please don't suggest that Ferrari was the only team to have a driver hierarchy in the team, most do and that includes todays top teams as well.

I would also point out that your assertion that Schumacher would beat Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel were they teammates is just your own personal opinion. You are certainly welcome to it but there is no real evidence to support it. The closest you can come to linking Michael to those guys is by proxy through his time as Massa's teammate or as Rosberg's teammate. Going by his time racing against Massa, you would have to say that he was clearly stronger than Felipe and that the difference between them was quite large. Of course, Alonso had a pretty big gap over Felipe as well so it's hard to really draw a conclusion there. Against Rosberg, Michael was beaten pretty conclusively over their three years together although he did do a much better overall job during the 2012 season and he was a much older guy by then and probably past his peak performance level. That said, Hamilton's performance was quite clearly beyond Rosberg's while they were teammates.
Of course it is my opinion, just as almost everything you post is your opinion. You can play all the "closest you can come is by proxy" games that you want, it means nothing to me, it is just a way of framing your opinion... nothing more. I fully maintain that Schumi in his prime was superior to Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso, with Nando being the only one who might have been close in skills. Obviously, I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it... period.

The bottom line is that Michael did not race against another top driver in the same car and have to compete on level terms until his time against Rosberg. It's a big stretch to suggest that Rubens was a top driver. He was certainly talented but I don't think you can say that a guy who has raced on 6 WDC and 6 WCC winning teams without ever taking the WDC is a top driver.
Again, your opinion and nothing more. We went through that in the above paragraph. You choose to dismiss Rubens because he raced on 6 WDC and 6WCC teams without winning a WDC... that is asinine in my opinion... 5 of those were against a drive many believe to be in the top 2-3 drivers in the history of the sport, and we are not just talking about rabid F1 forum people here either... When you have to race against a legendary driver in his prime every day, that does not mean that you are not a top driver because he beat you. I'll say it again.. I do not believe that Lewis or Seb could have beat Michael Schumacher in those years in the same car. You don't have to believe it, that is your choice, but to say that a driver is not a top driver because he didn't be Schumi is, in my mind, ridiculous.

I think Vettel has faced tougher competition than Michael but I don't think he has much of a resume in beating top-shelf talent in the same car either. Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost; those guys had to really contend with the very best on level terms and, for me, that is a big separator.
it is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. I only have one question for you, had Rubens run up 2-3 WDCs by Schumi not having been there, would you then consider him to be a top driver? If the answer is no, please explain how you write off the WDCs? Please be honest.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2584
Location: England
Blake wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
If Senna had lived and stayed at Williams I have absolutely no problem stating that I think he would have won both the titles Hill and Villenueve picked up. 1994 is a different scenario because his death very much directly impacted on exactly how that dark season went, but to say he would have won 2 more titles with Schumacher around had he lived is an entirely realistic statement.

Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well the first time was going to be Kimi but he retired which was a shame for Schumacher because I think he would have schooled him, avoiding the best drivers of an era never seems to come up that much in debates.


Of course it does, you, for example, love to bring it up whenever opportunity come up.
:lol:



To be fair, he's defending Schumacher with it here lol. I think a year against Schumacher at that stage in his career would really, really change the way a lot of people still see Kimi now.


Flash,
I was questioning this part of poker's statement... avoiding the best drivers of an era never seems to come up that much in debates

When it is brought up, it is usually the same people bringing it up.

As for Senna winning those two extra titles, obviously, I am not at all convinced.


Any particular reason why? I'm a Hill fanboy (for reasons recently posted elsewhere) and i've no doubt Senna would have outperformed him comfortably. JV didn't even do that well compared to Hill and only really beat an out of sorts Frentzen while somehow making it close with Schumacher in a far superior car, I think Senna would have had him on toast.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5452
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed with Vettel in mind which great driver has he ever beaten in the same car?

Frankly none, and the same can be said for Schumacher. That is the knock on those guys; that they never had to overcome someone of elite caliber in the same car and with equal status. With Senna, you can certainly look to his years against Prost. With Hamilton, you can look to his time against Alonso, Button or even Rosberg. With Vettel, the only time he was up against someone who people see as top shelf, he lost. It's a small sample size so it's understandable if people hesitate to draw conclusions from it but that is the sample. 2014 is the only year. With Schumacher, the first time he had a top driver as a teammate was when he was old and probably past his prime.


I think that you are both are doing a disservice to Schumi and perhaps even Vettel. It goes back to perceptions. If Schumi had not been the driver he was, how might we perceive a Rubens Barrichello with 2-3 WDCs to his name today? Would he then be considered "a great driver" in the same car? I won't hesitate for a moment to say that I think Rubens was every bit the equal, or perhaps superior, to Button or Rosberg in his prime years. Of course he won't have the shiny record that people see.. ie WDCs, but then those other drivers did not have to compete against the likes of Michael Schumacher on the same team. I don't believe that Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton could have beat Schumi over the year during the time that Rubens was at Ferrari either, so why is a "death knell" for his repuation that Barrichello didn't? and in putting down Rubens, that allows some, such as yourselves, to say that Schumi never beat a "great driver" in the same car. Vettel's situation is, of course, tougher to make, though I think that Webber is not given enough credit over the Red Bull years.


Rubens did compete against Button when they raced at Honda and then Brawn. Ultimately, when the car came good in 2009, it was Jenson who proved to be the better performer. Perhaps Rubens was a little up in years by then but the fact is that Jenson had him covered. Part of the issue with Michael and Rubens is that Rubens was not permitted to actually even compete against Michael. I'm NOT saying that Rubens was ever going to be better than him but the fact is that Ferrari ran a distinct 1-2 driver system whereby Michael was always going to be #1. From the first race of the season there was no competition between them whatsoever. Michael always had the superior strategy and first dibs on new parts. If Rubens was in his way, the team would move him out of the way. There was no actual teammate battle at all.
Yes and no.... Rubens was never going to be better than Schumi and MOST of the time that team orders were implemented, Schumi was already well clear of Rubens in the title chase. Austria 2002 was an exception and I viciously took Ferrari to task for it in here... including being the one that started the thread condemning the action at that time. Please don't suggest that Ferrari was the only team to have a driver hierarchy in the team, most do and that includes todays top teams as well.

I would also point out that your assertion that Schumacher would beat Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel were they teammates is just your own personal opinion. You are certainly welcome to it but there is no real evidence to support it. The closest you can come to linking Michael to those guys is by proxy through his time as Massa's teammate or as Rosberg's teammate. Going by his time racing against Massa, you would have to say that he was clearly stronger than Felipe and that the difference between them was quite large. Of course, Alonso had a pretty big gap over Felipe as well so it's hard to really draw a conclusion there. Against Rosberg, Michael was beaten pretty conclusively over their three years together although he did do a much better overall job during the 2012 season and he was a much older guy by then and probably past his peak performance level. That said, Hamilton's performance was quite clearly beyond Rosberg's while they were teammates.
Of course it is my opinion, just as almost everything you post is your opinion. You can play all the "closest you can come is by proxy" games that you want, it means nothing to me, it is just a way of framing your opinion... nothing more. I fully maintain that Schumi in his prime was superior to Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso, with Nando being the only one who might have been close in skills. Obviously, I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it... period.

The bottom line is that Michael did not race against another top driver in the same car and have to compete on level terms until his time against Rosberg. It's a big stretch to suggest that Rubens was a top driver. He was certainly talented but I don't think you can say that a guy who has raced on 6 WDC and 6 WCC winning teams without ever taking the WDC is a top driver.
Again, your opinion and nothing more. We went through that in the above paragraph. You choose to dismiss Rubens because he raced on 6 WDC and 6WCC teams without winning a WDC... that is asinine in my opinion... 5 of those were against a drive many believe to be in the top 2-3 drivers in the history of the sport, and we are not just talking about rabid F1 forum people here either... When you have to race against a legendary driver in his prime every day, that does not mean that you are not a top driver because he beat you. I'll say it again.. I do not believe that Lewis or Seb could have beat Michael Schumacher in those years in the same car. You don't have to believe it, that is your choice, but to say that a driver is not a top driver because he didn't be Schumi is, in my mind, ridiculous.

I think Vettel has faced tougher competition than Michael but I don't think he has much of a resume in beating top-shelf talent in the same car either. Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost; those guys had to really contend with the very best on level terms and, for me, that is a big separator.
it is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. I only have one question for you, had Rubens run up 2-3 WDCs by Schumi not having been there, would you then consider him to be a top driver? If the answer is no, please explain how you write off the WDCs? Please be honest.

A couple of things Blake. As I said before our discussion even began, there is no meaningful comparison to be made between drivers from different eras. It's all just opinions. That said, there is some overlap between Schumacher and today's top drivers and I don't think all opinions are equally valid. I think that's the difference between how you and I look at this. I believe that having evidence and/or statistical support for your views strengthens them. You seem to think that merely making an assertion (regardless of whether or not you have anything factual to back it up) makes your view carry as much weight as anyone else's. You maintain that neither Alonso, Hamilton nor Vettel could have beaten Michael Schumacher in the same car but you provide absolutely nothing to support that view. When I attempt to bring some facts into the conversation, you seem almost to be offended by them. This is why I sometimes struggle to have conversations with you.

To respond to your question as to what if Rubens were at Ferrari without Michael?; if Michael was not there, neither would Ross Brawn or the rest of the old Benetton team be. The whole crew came over and they all worked to make Ferrari what it was so the team most likely would not have been a WDC or WCC capable team without them. Rubens was distinctly brought in to be a #2 driver. Your hypothetical situation could never have happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Did you watch Ayrton Senna race? I doubt that you did. When he came into F1 he had multiple podiums in an absolute backmarker of a car as a rookie. It was literally the equivalent of someone in this year's Williams securing multiple podiums\ finishes. When he teamed with Prost, Prost was widely considered the best all around driver in F1. Senna out-qualified him 13-3 that year including the legendary Monaco session where he beat Prost by 1.5 seconds.

The reason I tell you that is to point out that, unlike some people want to suggest, Senna's reputation is not based on the fact that he died. It's based on the fact that he was an anomaly while he was racing. He had a bigger gap in pace to the field than any driver since. Schumacher, Hakkinen, Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, none of them have had the kind of margin that Senna showed in his prime. His death does perhaps add to the mystique but it is not what made him a legend.


I actually watched Senna race and a lot before him, need not get into the age thing as nowadays the internet gives all access to info.

You see this is what I was saying no one I mean not even an AI will podium with the Williams this year, it's the sort of nonsense I was talking about people spewing about Senna, in the years he was doing that the attrition and reliability rate was high, if Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc that's not even including his unforced errors. Gasly finished 4th in Bahrain he was almost a minute behind with the car in 1st position not pushing.

Are you now saying you have not watched a qualifying session where Vettel or Hamilton have beaten their respective team mates by same or close margin?

Were their teammates 4-time WDCs considered to be the best driver in the sport prior to being teamed with them? The only reason you are making the argument that you are is to try to take away from what Senna was as a driver by suggesting that it's blown out of proportion because of his death. I call BS on that as I watched his career and he was every bit as great as he's remembered. It's sad how some people feel the need to tear someone down in order to prop up others. You can speak about Vettel being a great driver without having to try to take away from other greats.



Not putting him down just stating facts really. You can dispute anything I said you think is not fact based.

Also till Vettel and Hamilton get paired they are not going to have 4X WDC team mates, also Senna wasn't paired with a 4X WDC so much for banging on about watching Senna's career miss me with the BS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:

Rubens did compete against Button when they raced at Honda and then Brawn. Ultimately, when the car came good in 2009, it was Jenson who proved to be the better performer. Perhaps Rubens was a little up in years by then but the fact is that Jenson had him covered. Part of the issue with Michael and Rubens is that Rubens was not permitted to actually even compete against Michael. I'm NOT saying that Rubens was ever going to be better than him but the fact is that Ferrari ran a distinct 1-2 driver system whereby Michael was always going to be #1. From the first race of the season there was no competition between them whatsoever. Michael always had the superior strategy and first dibs on new parts. If Rubens was in his way, the team would move him out of the way. There was no actual teammate battle at all.
Yes and no.... Rubens was never going to be better than Schumi and MOST of the time that team orders were implemented, Schumi was already well clear of Rubens in the title chase. Austria 2002 was an exception and I viciously took Ferrari to task for it in here... including being the one that started the thread condemning the action at that time. Please don't suggest that Ferrari was the only team to have a driver hierarchy in the team, most do and that includes todays top teams as well.

I would also point out that your assertion that Schumacher would beat Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel were they teammates is just your own personal opinion. You are certainly welcome to it but there is no real evidence to support it. The closest you can come to linking Michael to those guys is by proxy through his time as Massa's teammate or as Rosberg's teammate. Going by his time racing against Massa, you would have to say that he was clearly stronger than Felipe and that the difference between them was quite large. Of course, Alonso had a pretty big gap over Felipe as well so it's hard to really draw a conclusion there. Against Rosberg, Michael was beaten pretty conclusively over their three years together although he did do a much better overall job during the 2012 season and he was a much older guy by then and probably past his peak performance level. That said, Hamilton's performance was quite clearly beyond Rosberg's while they were teammates.
Of course it is my opinion, just as almost everything you post is your opinion. You can play all the "closest you can come is by proxy" games that you want, it means nothing to me, it is just a way of framing your opinion... nothing more. I fully maintain that Schumi in his prime was superior to Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso, with Nando being the only one who might have been close in skills. Obviously, I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it... period.

The bottom line is that Michael did not race against another top driver in the same car and have to compete on level terms until his time against Rosberg. It's a big stretch to suggest that Rubens was a top driver. He was certainly talented but I don't think you can say that a guy who has raced on 6 WDC and 6 WCC winning teams without ever taking the WDC is a top driver.
Again, your opinion and nothing more. We went through that in the above paragraph. You choose to dismiss Rubens because he raced on 6 WDC and 6WCC teams without winning a WDC... that is asinine in my opinion... 5 of those were against a drive many believe to be in the top 2-3 drivers in the history of the sport, and we are not just talking about rabid F1 forum people here either... When you have to race against a legendary driver in his prime every day, that does not mean that you are not a top driver because he beat you. I'll say it again.. I do not believe that Lewis or Seb could have beat Michael Schumacher in those years in the same car. You don't have to believe it, that is your choice, but to say that a driver is not a top driver because he didn't be Schumi is, in my mind, ridiculous.

I think Vettel has faced tougher competition than Michael but I don't think he has much of a resume in beating top-shelf talent in the same car either. Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost; those guys had to really contend with the very best on level terms and, for me, that is a big separator.
it is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. I only have one question for you, had Rubens run up 2-3 WDCs by Schumi not having been there, would you then consider him to be a top driver? If the answer is no, please explain how you write off the WDCs? Please be honest.

A couple of things Blake. As I said before our discussion even began, there is no meaningful comparison to be made between drivers from different eras. It's all just opinions. That said, there is some overlap between Schumacher and today's top drivers and I don't think all opinions are equally valid. I think that's the difference between how you and I look at this. I believe that having evidence and/or statistical support for your views strengthens them. You seem to think that merely making an assertion (regardless of whether or not you have anything factual to back it up) makes your view carry as much weight as anyone else's. You maintain that neither Alonso, Hamilton nor Vettel could have beaten Michael Schumacher in the same car but you provide absolutely nothing to support that view. When I attempt to bring some facts into the conversation, you seem almost to be offended by them. This is why I sometimes struggle to have conversations with you.

To respond to your question as to what if Rubens were at Ferrari without Michael?; if Michael was not there, neither would Ross Brawn or the rest of the old Benetton team be. The whole crew came over and they all worked to make Ferrari what it was so the team most likely would not have been a WDC or WCC capable team without them. Rubens was distinctly brought in to be a #2 driver. Your hypothetical situation could never have happened.


Where are your "facts", sandman? You may have a problem with my not accepting your facts, but then you don't really have facts, just opinions. You offered no facts that Lewis could have beaten Schumi in the same car and never can you... just as I cannot prove the Hamilton..or Seb or Alonso could have. You can claim that you use "facts" and "statistical support" but many times, and certainly in this instance you have not provided either of them, yet you discuss your struggles with me in conversations.

sandman, we are both discussing nothing more than opinions... yours appear to be based more on the current drivers mine believing more on Michael Schumacher being a superior talent to any current drivers. Schumi is not that far removed as to be considered another era/generation as I see it, and his skills certainly were not "old". I know it bothers some in here that I am not ready to put the current "Big Three" at the top of all-time lists... and I do mean the likes of Nando, Lewis & Seb... I simply do not think that they are the equal of a Micheal Schmacher, therefore to disregard Rubens as a lesser talent because he did not beat Schumi to a WDC is... in my opinion, unfair. You don't agree apparently, and that is your choice.

Your dismissal of my question is both somewhat correct, and a bit "trump-like". I know that you know the point I was trying to make, and your game of avoidance in answering is rather funny. Yes, it was hypothetical, but then, that is what this discussion has been about... hypothetical situations. Yes, much of the Ferrari "dream team" likely would not have been there had Schumi not been there, no argument on that. However, the question was how would Rubens have been received today had he driven those cars to multiple WDCs. He is being put down because he could not be a legend... when we have no proof that ANY driver of today could have done any better. Perhaps you are even making the case for Schumi's greatness yourself by bringing in the rest of the "dream team"...
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Did you watch Ayrton Senna race? I doubt that you did. When he came into F1 he had multiple podiums in an absolute backmarker of a car as a rookie. It was literally the equivalent of someone in this year's Williams securing multiple podiums\ finishes. When he teamed with Prost, Prost was widely considered the best all around driver in F1. Senna out-qualified him 13-3 that year including the legendary Monaco session where he beat Prost by 1.5 seconds.

The reason I tell you that is to point out that, unlike some people want to suggest, Senna's reputation is not based on the fact that he died. It's based on the fact that he was an anomaly while he was racing. He had a bigger gap in pace to the field than any driver since. Schumacher, Hakkinen, Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, none of them have had the kind of margin that Senna showed in his prime. His death does perhaps add to the mystique but it is not what made him a legend.


I actually watched Senna race and a lot before him, need not get into the age thing as nowadays the internet gives all access to info.

You see this is what I was saying no one I mean not even an AI will podium with the Williams this year, it's the sort of nonsense I was talking about people spewing about Senna, in the years he was doing that the attrition and reliability rate was high, if Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc that's not even including his unforced errors. Gasly finished 4th in Bahrain he was almost a minute behind with the car in 1st position not pushing.

Are you now saying you have not watched a qualifying session where Vettel or Hamilton have beaten their respective team mates by same or close margin?

The internet doesn't allow you to live through it.


Probably if you don't understand how to use it.

I suspect you lived through Fangio racing or Novulari thats why you know about it.

As a fan in my 40's I lived through it, so try another line mate.

So you was little more than 6 years old when Senna made his F1 debut.

I know very little about any racing before the 80's and wouldn't dream of getting into a counter argument against the likes of Blake because I happened to glean some knowledge from the internet.


That's a lot of assumption to suite your argument there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5908
Location: Michigan, USA
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
As a fan in my 40's I lived through it, so try another line mate.

So you was little more than 6 years old when Senna made his F1 debut.

I know very little about any racing before the 80's and wouldn't dream of getting into a counter argument against the likes of Blake because I happened to glean some knowledge from the internet.

That's a lot of assumption to suite your argument there.

Yeah, in your 40s doesn't mean 40 on the nose. Senna debuted in 1984, so that would mean someone 'in their 40s' was between 6 and 16 when he first raced.

That aside, I think the argument that your opinion is more valid if you lived through it is basically junk for an era like the 1980s. It's probably true for the 1950s or thereabouts, where very little of the coverage from that era has made it to digital. But every race from the 1980s was recorded and is available in some form (of varying legality), the articles from the time are available, people who watched it are readily available to talk to, etc. There's plenty of information accessible to a fan who didn't watch F1 in the 1980s; all they're missing out on is the nostalgia of that being their first decade.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Did you watch Ayrton Senna race? I doubt that you did. When he came into F1 he had multiple podiums in an absolute backmarker of a car as a rookie. It was literally the equivalent of someone in this year's Williams securing multiple podiums\ finishes. When he teamed with Prost, Prost was widely considered the best all around driver in F1. Senna out-qualified him 13-3 that year including the legendary Monaco session where he beat Prost by 1.5 seconds.

The reason I tell you that is to point out that, unlike some people want to suggest, Senna's reputation is not based on the fact that he died. It's based on the fact that he was an anomaly while he was racing. He had a bigger gap in pace to the field than any driver since. Schumacher, Hakkinen, Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, none of them have had the kind of margin that Senna showed in his prime. His death does perhaps add to the mystique but it is not what made him a legend.


I actually watched Senna race and a lot before him, need not get into the age thing as nowadays the internet gives all access to info.

You see this is what I was saying no one I mean not even an AI will podium with the Williams this year, it's the sort of nonsense I was talking about people spewing about Senna, in the years he was doing that the attrition and reliability rate was high, if Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc that's not even including his unforced errors. Gasly finished 4th in Bahrain he was almost a minute behind with the car in 1st position not pushing.

Are you now saying you have not watched a qualifying session where Vettel or Hamilton have beaten their respective team mates by same or close margin?

Were their teammates 4-time WDCs considered to be the best driver in the sport prior to being teamed with them? The only reason you are making the argument that you are is to try to take away from what Senna was as a driver by suggesting that it's blown out of proportion because of his death. I call BS on that as I watched his career and he was every bit as great as he's remembered. It's sad how some people feel the need to tear someone down in order to prop up others. You can speak about Vettel being a great driver without having to try to take away from other greats.

Indeed with Vettel in mind which great driver has he ever beaten in the same car?

Frankly none, and the same can be said for Schumacher. That is the knock on those guys; that they never had to overcome someone of elite caliber in the same car and with equal status. With Senna, you can certainly look to his years against Prost. With Hamilton, you can look to his time against Alonso, Button or even Rosberg. With Vettel, the only time he was up against someone who people see as top shelf, he lost. It's a small sample size so it's understandable if people hesitate to draw conclusions from it but that is the sample. 2014 is the only year. With Schumacher, the first time he had a top driver as a teammate was when he was old and probably past his prime.


So Schumacher now needs to proove himself really this is hilarious, Senna was chasing MSC when he lost his life.

As for Vettel, he beat Webber to the extent people decided Redbull was favouring Vettel, also Webber put Rosberg to bed as a rookie and are you telling me Vettel won't beat Button or Rosberg that has got to be a joke anyway.

We can always go back to '14 and say Ricciardo and all, but I bet you not even Ricciardo will risk his reputation to get teamed up with Vettel again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:04 am
Posts: 296
moving discussion here

_________________
- Mod Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5452
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
te]
Frankly none, and the same can be said for Schumacher. That is the knock on those guys; that they never had to overcome someone of elite caliber in the same car and with equal status. With Senna, you can certainly look to his years against Prost. With Hamilton, you can look to his time against Alonso, Button or even Rosberg. With Vettel, the only time he was up against someone who people see as top shelf, he lost. It's a small sample size so it's understandable if people hesitate to draw conclusions from it but that is the sample. 2014 is the only year. With Schumacher, the first time he had a top driver as a teammate was when he was old and probably past his prime.


So Schumacher now needs to proove himself really this is hilarious, Senna was chasing MSC when he lost his life.

As for Vettel, he beat Webber to the extent people decided Redbull was favouring Vettel, also Webber put Rosberg to bed as a rookie and are you telling me Vettel won't beat Button or Rosberg that has got to be a joke anyway.

We can always go back to '14 and say Ricciardo and all, but I bet you not even Ricciardo will risk his reputation to get teamed up with Vettel again.

Senna died during the third race of the season and was chasing a faster (and illegal) car. I never said Schuamcher needed to prove himself anyway, I said he never beat an elite teammate. That's something that is missing from his CV. He's not the only all-time great who doesn't have that on his CV but he DOESN'T have that on his CV.

Everything you just said about Vettel is pure emotional ravings. I do not for one second assume that he would beat either Button or Rosberg in the same car. I don't see that as a sure thing at all considering how he stacked up to Daniel. Your notion that Daniel wouldn't face him again doesn't mesh with the fact that Daniel was practically begging Ferrari to sign him earlier this season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5452
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:

Rubens did compete against Button when they raced at Honda and then Brawn. Ultimately, when the car came good in 2009, it was Jenson who proved to be the better performer. Perhaps Rubens was a little up in years by then but the fact is that Jenson had him covered. Part of the issue with Michael and Rubens is that Rubens was not permitted to actually even compete against Michael. I'm NOT saying that Rubens was ever going to be better than him but the fact is that Ferrari ran a distinct 1-2 driver system whereby Michael was always going to be #1. From the first race of the season there was no competition between them whatsoever. Michael always had the superior strategy and first dibs on new parts. If Rubens was in his way, the team would move him out of the way. There was no actual teammate battle at all.
Yes and no.... Rubens was never going to be better than Schumi and MOST of the time that team orders were implemented, Schumi was already well clear of Rubens in the title chase. Austria 2002 was an exception and I viciously took Ferrari to task for it in here... including being the one that started the thread condemning the action at that time. Please don't suggest that Ferrari was the only team to have a driver hierarchy in the team, most do and that includes todays top teams as well.

I would also point out that your assertion that Schumacher would beat Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel were they teammates is just your own personal opinion. You are certainly welcome to it but there is no real evidence to support it. The closest you can come to linking Michael to those guys is by proxy through his time as Massa's teammate or as Rosberg's teammate. Going by his time racing against Massa, you would have to say that he was clearly stronger than Felipe and that the difference between them was quite large. Of course, Alonso had a pretty big gap over Felipe as well so it's hard to really draw a conclusion there. Against Rosberg, Michael was beaten pretty conclusively over their three years together although he did do a much better overall job during the 2012 season and he was a much older guy by then and probably past his peak performance level. That said, Hamilton's performance was quite clearly beyond Rosberg's while they were teammates.
Of course it is my opinion, just as almost everything you post is your opinion. You can play all the "closest you can come is by proxy" games that you want, it means nothing to me, it is just a way of framing your opinion... nothing more. I fully maintain that Schumi in his prime was superior to Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso, with Nando being the only one who might have been close in skills. Obviously, I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it... period.

The bottom line is that Michael did not race against another top driver in the same car and have to compete on level terms until his time against Rosberg. It's a big stretch to suggest that Rubens was a top driver. He was certainly talented but I don't think you can say that a guy who has raced on 6 WDC and 6 WCC winning teams without ever taking the WDC is a top driver.
Again, your opinion and nothing more. We went through that in the above paragraph. You choose to dismiss Rubens because he raced on 6 WDC and 6WCC teams without winning a WDC... that is asinine in my opinion... 5 of those were against a drive many believe to be in the top 2-3 drivers in the history of the sport, and we are not just talking about rabid F1 forum people here either... When you have to race against a legendary driver in his prime every day, that does not mean that you are not a top driver because he beat you. I'll say it again.. I do not believe that Lewis or Seb could have beat Michael Schumacher in those years in the same car. You don't have to believe it, that is your choice, but to say that a driver is not a top driver because he didn't be Schumi is, in my mind, ridiculous.

I think Vettel has faced tougher competition than Michael but I don't think he has much of a resume in beating top-shelf talent in the same car either. Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost; those guys had to really contend with the very best on level terms and, for me, that is a big separator.
it is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. I only have one question for you, had Rubens run up 2-3 WDCs by Schumi not having been there, would you then consider him to be a top driver? If the answer is no, please explain how you write off the WDCs? Please be honest.

A couple of things Blake. As I said before our discussion even began, there is no meaningful comparison to be made between drivers from different eras. It's all just opinions. That said, there is some overlap between Schumacher and today's top drivers and I don't think all opinions are equally valid. I think that's the difference between how you and I look at this. I believe that having evidence and/or statistical support for your views strengthens them. You seem to think that merely making an assertion (regardless of whether or not you have anything factual to back it up) makes your view carry as much weight as anyone else's. You maintain that neither Alonso, Hamilton nor Vettel could have beaten Michael Schumacher in the same car but you provide absolutely nothing to support that view. When I attempt to bring some facts into the conversation, you seem almost to be offended by them. This is why I sometimes struggle to have conversations with you.

To respond to your question as to what if Rubens were at Ferrari without Michael?; if Michael was not there, neither would Ross Brawn or the rest of the old Benetton team be. The whole crew came over and they all worked to make Ferrari what it was so the team most likely would not have been a WDC or WCC capable team without them. Rubens was distinctly brought in to be a #2 driver. Your hypothetical situation could never have happened.


Where are your "facts", sandman? You may have a problem with my not accepting your facts, but then you don't really have facts, just opinions. You offered no facts that Lewis could have beaten Schumi in the same car and never can you... just as I cannot prove the Hamilton..or Seb or Alonso could have. You can claim that you use "facts" and "statistical support" but many times, and certainly in this instance you have not provided either of them, yet you discuss your struggles with me in conversations.

sandman, we are both discussing nothing more than opinions... yours appear to be based more on the current drivers mine believing more on Michael Schumacher being a superior talent to any current drivers. Schumi is not that far removed as to be considered another era/generation as I see it, and his skills certainly were not "old". I know it bothers some in here that I am not ready to put the current "Big Three" at the top of all-time lists... and I do mean the likes of Nando, Lewis & Seb... I simply do not think that they are the equal of a Micheal Schmacher, therefore to disregard Rubens as a lesser talent because he did not beat Schumi to a WDC is... in my opinion, unfair. You don't agree apparently, and that is your choice.

Your dismissal of my question is both somewhat correct, and a bit "trump-like". I know that you know the point I was trying to make, and your game of avoidance in answering is rather funny. Yes, it was hypothetical, but then, that is what this discussion has been about... hypothetical situations. Yes, much of the Ferrari "dream team" likely would not have been there had Schumi not been there, no argument on that. However, the question was how would Rubens have been received today had he driven those cars to multiple WDCs. He is being put down because he could not be a legend... when we have no proof that ANY driver of today could have done any better. Perhaps you are even making the case for Schumi's greatness yourself by bringing in the rest of the "dream team"...
;)

I did present you with facts Blake. Because you choose to ignore them, that doesn't mean that they aren't facts. I presented the way that Schumacher and Alonso matched up against Massa as teammates as well as the way that Schumacher and Hamilton matched up against Rosberg as teammates. Those are actual real events. You simply present your opinion without anything behind it at all. If you don't see the difference there then I don't know what else to say about the subject. You want to assert that SChumacher was superior to any of today's drivers but you think that simply stating it makes it carry weight...

As for the Rubens question, I tried to politely point out the absurdity of the question but you seem to insist on being bashed over the head about it. The dominance of Ferrari during that time was tied to the fact that Michael, Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne and the whole Benetton dream team came over in 1996. When they brought in Rubens, it was to be Michael's Wingman. The scenario where Rubens is there and the cars are dominant but Michael isn't there (nor is any other top-shelf driver) is an absurd scenario. If you're asking me if I think that Rubens could win a championship with a weak teammate and a dominant car, the answer is yes, I think he could. Would he be remembered as an all-time great for doing so, no, I don't think so. He'd be a Damon Hill or Jacques Villeneuve. A guy remembered for being in the right place at the right time but not for ever being the best driver (because he was never even in that conversation).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5452
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Did you watch Ayrton Senna race? I doubt that you did. When he came into F1 he had multiple podiums in an absolute backmarker of a car as a rookie. It was literally the equivalent of someone in this year's Williams securing multiple podiums\ finishes. When he teamed with Prost, Prost was widely considered the best all around driver in F1. Senna out-qualified him 13-3 that year including the legendary Monaco session where he beat Prost by 1.5 seconds.

The reason I tell you that is to point out that, unlike some people want to suggest, Senna's reputation is not based on the fact that he died. It's based on the fact that he was an anomaly while he was racing. He had a bigger gap in pace to the field than any driver since. Schumacher, Hakkinen, Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, none of them have had the kind of margin that Senna showed in his prime. His death does perhaps add to the mystique but it is not what made him a legend.


I actually watched Senna race and a lot before him, need not get into the age thing as nowadays the internet gives all access to info.

You see this is what I was saying no one I mean not even an AI will podium with the Williams this year, it's the sort of nonsense I was talking about people spewing about Senna, in the years he was doing that the attrition and reliability rate was high, if Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc that's not even including his unforced errors. Gasly finished 4th in Bahrain he was almost a minute behind with the car in 1st position not pushing.

Are you now saying you have not watched a qualifying session where Vettel or Hamilton have beaten their respective team mates by same or close margin?

Were their teammates 4-time WDCs considered to be the best driver in the sport prior to being teamed with them? The only reason you are making the argument that you are is to try to take away from what Senna was as a driver by suggesting that it's blown out of proportion because of his death. I call BS on that as I watched his career and he was every bit as great as he's remembered. It's sad how some people feel the need to tear someone down in order to prop up others. You can speak about Vettel being a great driver without having to try to take away from other greats.



Not putting him down just stating facts really. You can dispute anything I said you think is not fact based.

Also till Vettel and Hamilton get paired they are not going to have 4X WDC team mates, also Senna wasn't paired with a 4X WDC so much for banging on about watching Senna's career miss me with the BS.

We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

You haven't stated facts actually by the way. "If Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc" is not a statement of fact. That's purely an opinion. You don't seem to know the difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
I will repeat what I said previously:

The fact that Senna was on average 6 tenths faster than the next best driver of his generation suggests to me that the quality of drivers 80s and 90s was rather mediocre. It’s unthinkable for any driver to have that kind of advantage today.

Instead of pretending that Senna was some kind of alien who transcended the ability of his car, the more rational answer is that Formula 1 drivers today are much better and closer to each other than they were 30 years ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
I did present you with facts Blake. Because you choose to ignore them, that doesn't mean that they aren't facts. I presented the way that Schumacher and Alonso matched up against Massa as teammates as well as the way that Schumacher and Hamilton matched up against Rosberg as teammates. Those are actual real events. You simply present your opinion without anything behind it at all. If you don't see the difference there then I don't know what else to say about the subject. You want to assert that SChumacher was superior to any of today's drivers but you think that simply stating it makes it carry weight...

As for the Rubens question, I tried to politely point out the absurdity of the question but you seem to insist on being bashed over the head about it. The dominance of Ferrari during that time was tied to the fact that Michael, Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne and the whole Benetton dream team came over in 1996. When they brought in Rubens, it was to be Michael's Wingman. The scenario where Rubens is there and the cars are dominant but Michael isn't there (nor is any other top-shelf driver) is an absurd scenario. If you're asking me if I think that Rubens could win a championship with a weak teammate and a dominant car, the answer is yes, I think he could. Would he be remembered as an all-time great for doing so, no, I don't think so. He'd be a Damon Hill or Jacques Villeneuve. A guy remembered for being in the right place at the right time but not for ever being the best driver (because he was never even in that conversation).


Sandman, your "facts" don't tell us how Lewis, Seb & Nando would fare against Schumi in his Ferrari years, no matter how you try to spin it. You can blast me all you want about my assertion that today's drivers would not beat Schumi in his Ferrari years in the same car... but you cannot prove that I am wrong any more than I can prove that I am right. Don't give me this stuff about Massa vs Button, or an out of retirement Schumi vs Rosberg, as they have virtually no value in this debate... as in None. We are talking about Schumi in his prime against the best of today's drivers in their prime. Neither of us can prove anything either way, no matter what you might wish. I base my statement of having watched the drivers in question on the track, that is the only "proof" that I have... it is that simple. If you don't care to accept it, that your right, but to bash me for saying it without "proof" is baloney... because you cannot prove the contrary either.

I obviously rate Barrichello higher than you do, and I can accept that. I feel that Rubens is under appreciated in this forum and has been for a very long time, and certainly not only by you, sandman. When Ferrari signed Rubens he was likely the best driver available... he was considered an "up and coming" driver by many. Perhaps had he gone to another team, he might have fared better since he wouldn't have had to race with Schumi every race... it all depends on the car/team. So I will let it rest on the subject of Barrichello for now.

You have made several accusations against me here, sandman... You are basically claiming that you support your case with facts, while I throw out suppositions and ignore your "facts". The problem here is that I don't think in this case, and in some other discussion, the "facts" are relevant to the discussion. I try not to make claims as facts that I cannot prove as a fact. I offer opinions and often that seems to irritate some... so be it. In the end, that is what most of us, you included are doing, is offering opinions. Obviously, you see it differently and that I can't do anything about, it is what it is.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
sandman1347 wrote:
We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Prost won 4 WDC in a mediocre era with mediocre drivers. Apart from Senna, none of the drivers from the 80s would be good enough for today.

We criticize Vettel and Hamilton for being inconsistent when they are 0.1s slower than their Finnish teammates, yet Prost was regularly 1 second slower than Senna in qualifying. Prost's average qualifying gap to Senna (0.647s) by today's standards is utterly humiliating. There is not a single driver pairing on the current grid which has a gap in speed as large as Senna vs Prost, Leclerc vs Ericsson comes closest.

Although it's not really Prost's fault. He bagan karting at the age of 15. Today's drivers all began karting between the age of 4 to 9. I don't think it's a matter of talent. Prost simply didn't get anywhere near as much practice/training in his childhood as today's drivers do.

If you teleported a solid driver by today's standards (Perez, Hulkenberg) into the 1980s, they would easily be the second best driver on the grid behind only Senna.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Prost won 4 WDC in a mediocre era with mediocre drivers. Apart from Senna, none of the drivers from the 80s would be good enough for today.

We criticize Vettel and Hamilton for being inconsistent when they are 0.1s slower than their Finnish teammates, yet Prost was regularly 1 second slower than Senna in qualifying. Prost's average qualifying gap to Senna (0.647s) by today's standards is utterly humiliating. There is not a single driver pairing on the current grid which has a gap in speed as large as Senna vs Prost, Leclerc vs Ericsson comes closest.

Although it's not really Prost's fault. He bagan karting at the age of 15. Today's drivers all began karting between the age of 4 to 9. I don't think it's a matter of talent. Prost simply didn't get anywhere near as much practice/training in his childhood as today's drivers do.

If you teleported a solid driver by today's standards (Perez, Hulkenberg) into the 1980s, they would easily be the second best driver on the grid behind only Senna.


By the same token, if you teleported a Senna, Prost, Mansell, or going back further, an Andretti, Fittipladi, Stewart into today with the same benefits that today's drivers grow up with, I would suspect they would still be at or near the top of the field. It is just an opinion (I want no confusion about that), but I have long maintained that I believe that the great drivers of any era have something special that goes well beyond physical capacity and nutrition...

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
I agree that if Prost began karting at the age of 5 and joined McLaren’s academy at the age of 12 like Hamilton did, he would be great in today’s era too. The point is that nurture is at least as important as nature, if not more.

Senna’s natural talent is overrated. The main reason to why he was so much faster than everyone else in his era was because he began karting at the age of 4 while Prost didn’t start until the age of 15. Senna was the first “modern driver” in that sense.

If Senna was born 30 years later, he wouldn’t look so special against the likes of Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso; who began karting at the age of 4-5 themselves. He would still be one of the top drivers but he wouldn’t be in a league of his own like he was in his time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6381
Location: Nebraska, USA
fair enough, Void.

It is not just the karting though, it is a whole batch of things such training and nutrition, and simulators. Of course they would have adapted to all of them given the chance... in my opinion.

I have often contemplated who would have an easier time adapting to the era if you could but switch them. Imagine Seb, Lewis and Nando back into the mid 50s and sending Fangio, Moss & Hawthorn to today. . Which would be easiest to adapt to... the great risk (knowing that at least one of them would die racing their car), or Fangio trying to adapt to modern electronics? No question that today's drivers would be in much better shape, beyond the comprehension of the drivers of that era... but when they got in a car with those skinny tires on wire wheels, and they were above the body of their car from the chest up without seatbelts... while racing among the trees or the buildings... fitness might not mean as much as the mentality.

I don't know how it would work out, but it is fun to think about it at times.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5908
Location: Michigan, USA
KingVoid wrote:
I agree that if Prost began karting at the age of 5 and joined McLaren’s academy at the age of 12 like Hamilton did, he would be great in today’s era too. The point is that nurture is at least as important as nature, if not more.

Senna’s natural talent is overrated. The main reason to why he was so much faster than everyone else in his era was because he began karting at the age of 4 while Prost didn’t start until the age of 15. Senna was the first “modern driver” in that sense.

If Senna was born 30 years later, he wouldn’t look so special against the likes of Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso; who began karting at the age of 4-5 themselves. He would still be one of the top drivers but he wouldn’t be in a league of his own like he was in his time.

I believe this is likely true, and we began to see it when Schumacher came into the field - a driver who began karting just as young as Senna, was just as talented, and was clearly already pretty close to him (not going to say whether ahead or not) in terms of speed.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
This is why Senna is overrated. He was the first “modern” driver. A driver who began karting at the age of just 4, but was racing against drivers who didn’t begin until the age of 14-20. The conditions were perfect for him to become a legend. Senna had such an advantage over the other drivers because of nurture, not nature.

I’m 100% confident that if you teleported a 22 year old Hamilton/Vettel/Alonso into 1984, they would have dominated Formula 1 just as much as Senna did in his era.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5908
Location: Michigan, USA
KingVoid wrote:
I’m 100% confident that if you teleported a 22 year old Hamilton/Vettel/Alonso into 1984, they would have dominated Formula 1 just as much as Senna did in his era.

I think they'd have waxed Senna as well, tbh. The great drivers of today are even better prepared than Senna, with fitness programs and untold hours of simulator training that Senna didn't have access to. That's why you can't really compare drivers from different eras, and Senna just happens to be an odd one who crosses eras.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Prost won 4 WDC in a mediocre era with mediocre drivers. Apart from Senna, none of the drivers from the 80s would be good enough for today.

We criticize Vettel and Hamilton for being inconsistent when they are 0.1s slower than their Finnish teammates, yet Prost was regularly 1 second slower than Senna in qualifying. Prost's average qualifying gap to Senna (0.647s) by today's standards is utterly humiliating. There is not a single driver pairing on the current grid which has a gap in speed as large as Senna vs Prost, Leclerc vs Ericsson comes closest.

Although it's not really Prost's fault. He bagan karting at the age of 15. Today's drivers all began karting between the age of 4 to 9. I don't think it's a matter of talent. Prost simply didn't get anywhere near as much practice/training in his childhood as today's drivers do.

If you teleported a solid driver by today's standards (Perez, Hulkenberg) into the 1980s, they would easily be the second best driver on the grid behind only Senna.
i think that’s utter rubbish, quite frankly. There’s so much else behind the gaps other than driver talent, not least in that today’s cars have a level of preparation beyond anything available to the teams in past eras.

It’s sheer nonsense to say that drivers such as Piquet, Mansell, Laura etc wouldn’t even make the grid today. There is undoubtedly a case to be made to say that nostalgia clouds judgement, but you have gone the other extreme.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14181
Zoue wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Prost won 4 WDC in a mediocre era with mediocre drivers. Apart from Senna, none of the drivers from the 80s would be good enough for today.

We criticize Vettel and Hamilton for being inconsistent when they are 0.1s slower than their Finnish teammates, yet Prost was regularly 1 second slower than Senna in qualifying. Prost's average qualifying gap to Senna (0.647s) by today's standards is utterly humiliating. There is not a single driver pairing on the current grid which has a gap in speed as large as Senna vs Prost, Leclerc vs Ericsson comes closest.

Although it's not really Prost's fault. He bagan karting at the age of 15. Today's drivers all began karting between the age of 4 to 9. I don't think it's a matter of talent. Prost simply didn't get anywhere near as much practice/training in his childhood as today's drivers do.

If you teleported a solid driver by today's standards (Perez, Hulkenberg) into the 1980s, they would easily be the second best driver on the grid behind only Senna.
i think that’s utter rubbish, quite frankly. There’s so much else behind the gaps other than driver talent, not least in that today’s cars have a level of preparation beyond anything available to the teams in past eras.

It’s sheer nonsense to say that drivers such as Piquet, Mansell, Laura etc wouldn’t even make the grid today. There is undoubtedly a case to be made to say that nostalgia clouds judgement, but you have gone the other extreme.


:thumbup: Agree 100%. It's a different test now. Drivers now have to be so much more precise but the cars allow them that precision. Back in the 80s you had so much power and so little downforce. Of course drivers are not going to be able to drive that with anything like the same consistency.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2033
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Prost won 4 WDC in a mediocre era with mediocre drivers. Apart from Senna, none of the drivers from the 80s would be good enough for today.

We criticize Vettel and Hamilton for being inconsistent when they are 0.1s slower than their Finnish teammates, yet Prost was regularly 1 second slower than Senna in qualifying. Prost's average qualifying gap to Senna (0.647s) by today's standards is utterly humiliating. There is not a single driver pairing on the current grid which has a gap in speed as large as Senna vs Prost, Leclerc vs Ericsson comes closest.

Although it's not really Prost's fault. He bagan karting at the age of 15. Today's drivers all began karting between the age of 4 to 9. I don't think it's a matter of talent. Prost simply didn't get anywhere near as much practice/training in his childhood as today's drivers do.

If you teleported a solid driver by today's standards (Perez, Hulkenberg) into the 1980s, they would easily be the second best driver on the grid behind only Senna.
i think that’s utter rubbish, quite frankly. There’s so much else behind the gaps other than driver talent, not least in that today’s cars have a level of preparation beyond anything available to the teams in past eras.

It’s sheer nonsense to say that drivers such as Piquet, Mansell, Laura etc wouldn’t even make the grid today. There is undoubtedly a case to be made to say that nostalgia clouds judgement, but you have gone the other extreme.


:thumbup: Agree 100%. It's a different test now. Drivers now have to be so much more precise but the cars allow them that precision. Back in the 80s you had so much power and so little downforce. Of course drivers are not going to be able to drive that with anything like the same consistency.


Agree with Zoue and Mikey. Add to that that braveness and risk played a different role back then. Transplant some modern drivers back to the 70s, 80s and some of the millionaire boys would be too afraid to go full out and risk their lives and health and some would just be dead or seriously injured very quickly and some would thrive. A different game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2033
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Frankly none, and the same can be said for Schumacher. That is the knock on those guys; that they never had to overcome someone of elite caliber in the same car and with equal status. With Senna, you can certainly look to his years against Prost. With Hamilton, you can look to his time against Alonso, Button or even Rosberg. With Vettel, the only time he was up against someone who people see as top shelf, he lost. It's a small sample size so it's understandable if people hesitate to draw conclusions from it but that is the sample. 2014 is the only year. With Schumacher, the first time he had a top driver as a teammate was when he was old and probably past his prime.


I think that you are both are doing a disservice to Schumi and perhaps even Vettel. It goes back to perceptions. If Schumi had not been the driver he was, how might we perceive a Rubens Barrichello with 2-3 WDCs to his name today? Would he then be considered "a great driver" in the same car? I won't hesitate for a moment to say that I think Rubens was every bit the equal, or perhaps superior, to Button or Rosberg in his prime years. Of course he won't have the shiny record that people see.. ie WDCs, but then those other drivers did not have to compete against the likes of Michael Schumacher on the same team. I don't believe that Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton could have beat Schumi over the year during the time that Rubens was at Ferrari either, so why is a "death knell" for his repuation that Barrichello didn't? and in putting down Rubens, that allows some, such as yourselves, to say that Schumi never beat a "great driver" in the same car. Vettel's situation is, of course, tougher to make, though I think that Webber is not given enough credit over the Red Bull years.


Rubens did compete against Button when they raced at Honda and then Brawn. Ultimately, when the car came good in 2009, it was Jenson who proved to be the better performer. Perhaps Rubens was a little up in years by then but the fact is that Jenson had him covered. Part of the issue with Michael and Rubens is that Rubens was not permitted to actually even compete against Michael. I'm NOT saying that Rubens was ever going to be better than him but the fact is that Ferrari ran a distinct 1-2 driver system whereby Michael was always going to be #1. From the first race of the season there was no competition between them whatsoever. Michael always had the superior strategy and first dibs on new parts. If Rubens was in his way, the team would move him out of the way. There was no actual teammate battle at all.
Yes and no.... Rubens was never going to be better than Schumi and MOST of the time that team orders were implemented, Schumi was already well clear of Rubens in the title chase. Austria 2002 was an exception and I viciously took Ferrari to task for it in here... including being the one that started the thread condemning the action at that time. Please don't suggest that Ferrari was the only team to have a driver hierarchy in the team, most do and that includes todays top teams as well.

I would also point out that your assertion that Schumacher would beat Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel were they teammates is just your own personal opinion. You are certainly welcome to it but there is no real evidence to support it. The closest you can come to linking Michael to those guys is by proxy through his time as Massa's teammate or as Rosberg's teammate. Going by his time racing against Massa, you would have to say that he was clearly stronger than Felipe and that the difference between them was quite large. Of course, Alonso had a pretty big gap over Felipe as well so it's hard to really draw a conclusion there. Against Rosberg, Michael was beaten pretty conclusively over their three years together although he did do a much better overall job during the 2012 season and he was a much older guy by then and probably past his peak performance level. That said, Hamilton's performance was quite clearly beyond Rosberg's while they were teammates.
Of course it is my opinion, just as almost everything you post is your opinion. You can play all the "closest you can come is by proxy" games that you want, it means nothing to me, it is just a way of framing your opinion... nothing more. I fully maintain that Schumi in his prime was superior to Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso, with Nando being the only one who might have been close in skills. Obviously, I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it... period.

The bottom line is that Michael did not race against another top driver in the same car and have to compete on level terms until his time against Rosberg. It's a big stretch to suggest that Rubens was a top driver. He was certainly talented but I don't think you can say that a guy who has raced on 6 WDC and 6 WCC winning teams without ever taking the WDC is a top driver.
Again, your opinion and nothing more. We went through that in the above paragraph. You choose to dismiss Rubens because he raced on 6 WDC and 6WCC teams without winning a WDC... that is asinine in my opinion... 5 of those were against a drive many believe to be in the top 2-3 drivers in the history of the sport, and we are not just talking about rabid F1 forum people here either... When you have to race against a legendary driver in his prime every day, that does not mean that you are not a top driver because he beat you. I'll say it again.. I do not believe that Lewis or Seb could have beat Michael Schumacher in those years in the same car. You don't have to believe it, that is your choice, but to say that a driver is not a top driver because he didn't be Schumi is, in my mind, ridiculous.

I think Vettel has faced tougher competition than Michael but I don't think he has much of a resume in beating top-shelf talent in the same car either. Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost; those guys had to really contend with the very best on level terms and, for me, that is a big separator.
it is your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it. I only have one question for you, had Rubens run up 2-3 WDCs by Schumi not having been there, would you then consider him to be a top driver? If the answer is no, please explain how you write off the WDCs? Please be honest.

A couple of things Blake. As I said before our discussion even began, there is no meaningful comparison to be made between drivers from different eras. It's all just opinions. That said, there is some overlap between Schumacher and today's top drivers and I don't think all opinions are equally valid. I think that's the difference between how you and I look at this. I believe that having evidence and/or statistical support for your views strengthens them. You seem to think that merely making an assertion (regardless of whether or not you have anything factual to back it up) makes your view carry as much weight as anyone else's. You maintain that neither Alonso, Hamilton nor Vettel could have beaten Michael Schumacher in the same car but you provide absolutely nothing to support that view. When I attempt to bring some facts into the conversation, you seem almost to be offended by them. This is why I sometimes struggle to have conversations with you.

To respond to your question as to what if Rubens were at Ferrari without Michael?; if Michael was not there, neither would Ross Brawn or the rest of the old Benetton team be. The whole crew came over and they all worked to make Ferrari what it was so the team most likely would not have been a WDC or WCC capable team without them. Rubens was distinctly brought in to be a #2 driver. Your hypothetical situation could never have happened.


True. And even if, then there would have been another driver in the other Ferrari, probably a top driver. One cannot really conclude that Barrichello would have won any wdc's w/o MS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2033
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed with Vettel in mind which great driver has he ever beaten in the same car?

Frankly none, and the same can be said for Schumacher. That is the knock on those guys; that they never had to overcome someone of elite caliber in the same car and with equal status. With Senna, you can certainly look to his years against Prost. With Hamilton, you can look to his time against Alonso, Button or even Rosberg. With Vettel, the only time he was up against someone who people see as top shelf, he lost. It's a small sample size so it's understandable if people hesitate to draw conclusions from it but that is the sample. 2014 is the only year. With Schumacher, the first time he had a top driver as a teammate was when he was old and probably past his prime.


I think that you are both are doing a disservice to Schumi and perhaps even Vettel. It goes back to perceptions. If Schumi had not been the driver he was, how might we perceive a Rubens Barrichello with 2-3 WDCs to his name today? Would he then be considered "a great driver" in the same car? I won't hesitate for a moment to say that I think Rubens was every bit the equal, or perhaps superior, to Button or Rosberg in his prime years. Of course he won't have the shiny record that people see.. ie WDCs, but then those other drivers did not have to compete against the likes of Michael Schumacher on the same team. I don't believe that Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton could have beat Schumi over the year during the time that Rubens was at Ferrari either, so why is a "death knell" for his repuation that Barrichello didn't? and in putting down Rubens, that allows some, such as yourselves, to say that Schumi never beat a "great driver" in the same car. Vettel's situation is, of course, tougher to make, though I think that Webber is not given enough credit over the Red Bull years.

Rubens did compete against Button when they raced at Honda and then Brawn. Ultimately, when the car came good in 2009, it was Jenson who proved to be the better performer. Perhaps Rubens was a little up in years by then but the fact is that Jenson had him covered. Part of the issue with Michael and Rubens is that Rubens was not permitted to actually even compete against Michael. I'm NOT saying that Rubens was ever going to be better than him but the fact is that Ferrari ran a distinct 1-2 driver system whereby Michael was always going to be #1. From the first race of the season there was no competition between them whatsoever. Michael always had the superior strategy and first dibs on new parts. If Rubens was in his way, the team would move him out of the way. There was no actual teammate battle at all.

I would also point out that your assertion that Schumacher would beat Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel were they teammates is just your own personal opinion. You are certainly welcome to it but there is no real evidence to support it. The closest you can come to linking Michael to those guys is by proxy through his time as Massa's teammate or as Rosberg's teammate. Going by his time racing against Massa, you would have to say that he was clearly stronger than Felipe and that the difference between them was quite large. Of course, Alonso had a pretty big gap over Felipe as well so it's hard to really draw a conclusion there. Against Rosberg, Michael was beaten pretty conclusively over their three years together although he did do a much better overall job during the 2012 season and he was a much older guy by then and probably past his peak performance level. That said, Hamilton's performance was quite clearly beyond Rosberg's while they were teammates.

The bottom line is that Michael did not race against another top driver in the same car and have to compete on level terms until his time against Rosberg. It's a big stretch to suggest that Rubens was a top driver. He was certainly talented but I don't think you can say that a guy who has raced on 6 WDC and 6 WCC winning teams without ever taking the WDC is a top driver.

I think Vettel has faced tougher competition than Michael but I don't think he has much of a resume in beating top-shelf talent in the same car either. Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost; those guys had to really contend with the very best on level terms and, for me, that is a big separator.


Very good and very balanced analysis! :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1579
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:


Not putting him down just stating facts really. You can dispute anything I said you think is not fact based.

Also till Vettel and Hamilton get paired they are not going to have 4X WDC team mates, also Senna wasn't paired with a 4X WDC so much for banging on about watching Senna's career miss me with the BS.

We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

You haven't stated facts actually by the way. "If Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc" is not a statement of fact. That's purely an opinion. You don't seem to know the difference.


Prost never was Senna's team mate as a 4X WDC what you said there is pure nonsense.

The FACTS in the current era which is undeniable is a Williams is not able to finish in the points, let alone the podium, now I have compared Leclerc to Senna not talent wise, but anyone who can really analyse F1 and who understands what he or she is watching will know a Williams cannot finish on the podium, whatever talent the driver you put in has.

I mean the Alonso has not put the Mclaren on the podium but an hypothetical Senna will put the Williams, mate miss me with this BS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5452
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

Prost won 4 WDC in a mediocre era with mediocre drivers. Apart from Senna, none of the drivers from the 80s would be good enough for today.

We criticize Vettel and Hamilton for being inconsistent when they are 0.1s slower than their Finnish teammates, yet Prost was regularly 1 second slower than Senna in qualifying. Prost's average qualifying gap to Senna (0.647s) by today's standards is utterly humiliating. There is not a single driver pairing on the current grid which has a gap in speed as large as Senna vs Prost, Leclerc vs Ericsson comes closest.

Although it's not really Prost's fault. He bagan karting at the age of 15. Today's drivers all began karting between the age of 4 to 9. I don't think it's a matter of talent. Prost simply didn't get anywhere near as much practice/training in his childhood as today's drivers do.

If you teleported a solid driver by today's standards (Perez, Hulkenberg) into the 1980s, they would easily be the second best driver on the grid behind only Senna.

This overall point is one that I have made numerous times. Ayrton Senna was the very first driver that came along that would fit into F1 even today. He started young. He was obsessive about the sport; not drinking and partying between races like the guys from the 60s and 70s. He was committed to physical fitness and year-round training. All of those things gave him an edge and he was truly the first of his kind. Michael Schumacher arguably took it to an even further level of obsession and commitment.

Today, all drivers are obsessive about their training, diet and work habits. Just as in most any sport, the performance level increases over time. As much though I don't think this is the correct way to assess things, I do believe that Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel could go back in time and likely be the best driver in any previous era (at least as far back as the 70s/80s - older eras were just a completely different animal). It's not a popular thing to say but I think it's true. They started younger and have been better prepared. They also had to rise to the top of a MUCH deeper pool of talent.

I do, however, think that you have to compare guys to THEIR competition. I don't think it's fair to the older generations to compare them to the guys today; who have benefited from the groundwork that the older guys laid. You have to give someone credit for being ahead of their time, not take credit away from them for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5452
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:


Not putting him down just stating facts really. You can dispute anything I said you think is not fact based.

Also till Vettel and Hamilton get paired they are not going to have 4X WDC team mates, also Senna wasn't paired with a 4X WDC so much for banging on about watching Senna's career miss me with the BS.

We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

You haven't stated facts actually by the way. "If Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc" is not a statement of fact. That's purely an opinion. You don't seem to know the difference.


Prost never was Senna's team mate as a 4X WDC what you said there is pure nonsense.

The FACTS in the current era which is undeniable is a Williams is not able to finish in the points, let alone the podium, now I have compared Leclerc to Senna not talent wise, but anyone who can really analyse F1 and who understands what he or she is watching will know a Williams cannot finish on the podium, whatever talent the driver you put in has.

I mean the Alonso has not put the Mclaren on the podium but an hypothetical Senna will put the Williams, mate miss me with this BS.

We're talking about this in 2018; a time where we know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Do we have to play these kindergarten-level games of semantics?

The Toleman in 1984 that Senna put on the podium twice was often as much as 5-6 seconds off the pace in qualifying. The Williams hasn't been 5 seconds off the pace even once. You don't seem to understand what a fact is. Look it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 508
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:


Not putting him down just stating facts really. You can dispute anything I said you think is not fact based.

Also till Vettel and Hamilton get paired they are not going to have 4X WDC team mates, also Senna wasn't paired with a 4X WDC so much for banging on about watching Senna's career miss me with the BS.

We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

You haven't stated facts actually by the way. "If Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc" is not a statement of fact. That's purely an opinion. You don't seem to know the difference.


Prost never was Senna's team mate as a 4X WDC what you said there is pure nonsense.

The FACTS in the current era which is undeniable is a Williams is not able to finish in the points, let alone the podium, now I have compared Leclerc to Senna not talent wise, but anyone who can really analyse F1 and who understands what he or she is watching will know a Williams cannot finish on the podium, whatever talent the driver you put in has.

I mean the Alonso has not put the Mclaren on the podium but an hypothetical Senna will put the Williams, mate miss me with this BS.

It doesn't matter when Prost was a 4X WDC, he was driving at the top of his game when partnered with Senna and over his career he won them. The only times a 4X champion may not matter is at either end of the career when they are learning the skills or losing the finesse, such as peoples belief of Rosberg vs Schumacher...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14181
Senna put a car much further off the ultimate pace than the Williams on the podium. That surely cannot be denied?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 635
Is this the thread to discuss Webber vs Vettel 2009?

One thing that isn't considered is the overhaul of the rules for 2009. Also in early 2009, Webber badly broke his leg in a cycling accident which ruined his preparations. Also a few of the Webber defeats in qualifying, once fuel adjusted were actually Webber wins.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2273
Zoue wrote:
It’s sheer nonsense to say that drivers such as Piquet, Mansell, Laura etc wouldn’t even make the grid today. There is undoubtedly a case to be made to say that nostalgia clouds judgement, but you have gone the other extreme.

It’s not sheer nonsense, it’s an uncomfortable truth that nostalgic fans cannot seem to accept.

Ages at which drivers began karting:

Prost - 15
Piquet - 14
Lauda - started in Formula Vee

Multiple world champions since Senna:

Senna - 4
Schumacher - 4
Hakkinen - 5
Alonso - 3
Hamilton - 5
Vettel - 3.5

Again, do you think that this is just a coincidence? Why are there no top drivers who began karting at the age of 15 in Formula 1 today? Because what you learn between the ages of 5 to 15 is invaluable to your development as a driver.

Quote:
There’s so much else behind the gaps other than driver talent, not least in that today’s cars have a level of preparation beyond anything available to the teams in past eras.

How come Senna was almost never 1 second off the pace unless there was something seriously wrong with his car?

Senna made the rest of the grid in that era look like amateurs. He was 0.647s faster on average than the second best driver of this generation. One driver being 6-7 tenths faster than the rest on average is unthinkable today, because the drivers today are so much better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 635
King void> some good points and I agree with most of them. Nostalgia does play a big part.

There were a few freaks in the 50s, 60s and 70s that destroyed the field - Fangio, Clark and Stewart, especially the first 2 were clearly a step above everybody else. Senna was the first true modern day racing driver (starting aged 4 and taking things like fitness and diet seriously) in the early 80s. Then came along Schumacher continuing that and even raising the bar the in 90s. By the 00s every single driver HAD to have done that just make F1 and you were a big exception if you didn't start young.

Sato I believe is that last driver to make F1 who started late, I think he started at 14. Bruno Senna is also an example of a driver who could have been very good but stopped karting/racing for 10 years aged 10-20 when he was apparently amazing in karts before that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 635
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:


Not putting him down just stating facts really. You can dispute anything I said you think is not fact based.

Also till Vettel and Hamilton get paired they are not going to have 4X WDC team mates, also Senna wasn't paired with a 4X WDC so much for banging on about watching Senna's career miss me with the BS.

We know that Prost is a 4-time WDC. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

You haven't stated facts actually by the way. "If Senna raced in a backmarker in this era he will look no better than a Leclerc" is not a statement of fact. That's purely an opinion. You don't seem to know the difference.


Prost never was Senna's team mate as a 4X WDC what you said there is pure nonsense.

The FACTS in the current era which is undeniable is a Williams is not able to finish in the points, let alone the podium, now I have compared Leclerc to Senna not talent wise, but anyone who can really analyse F1 and who understands what he or she is watching will know a Williams cannot finish on the podium, whatever talent the driver you put in has.

I mean the Alonso has not put the Mclaren on the podium but an hypothetical Senna will put the Williams, mate miss me with this BS.


A big part of this is because the field is so good now compared to the 80s.

In the current field, if you put 15 of these drivers in a car 0.5 faster than anything else they would win the title. That is how tight the talent gap is.

If you do the same in the 1980's the number who would win the title is a lot less. So a drivers talent could make a lot more difference. Cars were also a lot more unreliable so there was many more opportunities. You would regularly get team mates 1 second apart at numerous races throughout the 80s.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JN23 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group