Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)

[Mod Aqua]

Maybe we should take this conversation to another thread, not the official thread of a driver?

Don't want to sound like a party pooper, but I think it would be wiser.

Correct! I have split the majority of the conversation out now, in this this new thread

[KingVoid]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

[Alienturnedhuman]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

[mikeyg123]

My view on this hasn't changed from the time it was happening some 20 years ago now which I viewed as the dark ages of F1 because of the dearth in talent.

Hamilton has done the majority of his winning in an era that was even weaker than those days.

From 2014-2021, there have only been five drivers that have enjoyed a car capable of challenging for the WDC:

- Hamilton
- Rosberg
- Bottas
- Vettel
- Raikkonen

My opinion of Rosberg is similar to your opinion of Button. A good driver but never a great driver. Bottas is a modern day Barrichello. Vettel was never a great driver in the V6 hybrid era, as both Leclerc and Ricciardo proved when they beat him easily. Raikkonen was more than a decade past his prime.

That has been Hamilton’s competition in since 2014.

Yeah, we had the likes of Verstappen, Alonso and Ricciardo on the grid, but what’s the point of all these guys have been stuck with a hugely inferior car for their entire careers? The three drivers I mentioned above have spent the entire hybrid era driving with Renault or Honda engines.

On top of that, Hamilton is also very lucky that Ferrari have fallen off a cliff just as Leclerc looks to have matured into a real top driver. All the elite talent apart from Hamilton has been stuck in mediocre machinery for this entire era.

2014-2021 is the weakest era of all time in terms of competition at the front.

You've clearly changed the subject from drivers onto cars.

Well how relevant is a talented grid if they don't have the car to compete with Hamilton? Daniel Ricciardo is very good but how does having him on the grid make Hamilton's job harder when he is in a much slower car?

So yes, you came up with an irrelevant point and someone has made it relevant for you.

It actually started out with Hamilton's early years and how better Schumacher would have done in 2011 and 2013 but somehow there was a need to move it on to his Mercedes years.

Schumacher did face more varied competition but the drivers were weak compared to the drivers of today so the argument loses it's strength somewhat and let's not forget this is not people saying that Hamilton is better than Schumacher but rather that Schumacher was better than Hamilton, maybe this should be not be running in the Hamilton thread if some of the things being said are best not to be challenged.

The question is were the drivers Schumacher actually had to compete against to win championships actually stronger than the ones Hamilton has had to compete against. The relative weakness and strength of the field doesn't really matter. As I said Ricciardo is very good but him being on the grid doesn't make Hamilton's job harder when he's in a Renault.

[mikeyg123]

My view on this hasn't changed from the time it was happening some 20 years ago now which I viewed as the dark ages of F1 because of the dearth in talent.

Hamilton has done the majority of his winning in an era that was even weaker than those days.

From 2014-2021, there have only been five drivers that have enjoyed a car capable of challenging for the WDC:

- Hamilton
- Rosberg
- Bottas
- Vettel
- Raikkonen

My opinion of Rosberg is similar to your opinion of Button. A good driver but never a great driver. Bottas is a modern day Barrichello. Vettel was never a great driver in the V6 hybrid era, as both Leclerc and Ricciardo proved when they beat him easily. Raikkonen was more than a decade past his prime.

That has been Hamilton’s competition in since 2014.

Yeah, we had the likes of Verstappen, Alonso and Ricciardo on the grid, but what’s the point of all these guys have been stuck with a hugely inferior car for their entire careers? The three drivers I mentioned above have spent the entire hybrid era driving with Renault or Honda engines.

On top of that, Hamilton is also very lucky that Ferrari have fallen off a cliff just as Leclerc looks to have matured into a real top driver. All the elite talent apart from Hamilton has been stuck in mediocre machinery for this entire era.

2014-2021 is the weakest era of all time in terms of competition at the front.

You've clearly changed the subject from drivers onto cars.

Well how relevant is a talented grid if they don't have the car to compete with Hamilton? Daniel Ricciardo is very good but how does having him on the grid make Hamilton's job harder when he is in a much slower car?

So yes, you came up with an irrelevant point and someone has made it relevant for you.

It actually started out with Hamilton's early years and how better Schumacher would have done in 2011 and 2013 but somehow there was a need to move it on to his Mercedes years.

Schumacher did face more varied competition but the drivers were weak compared to the drivers of today so the argument loses it's strength somewhat and let's not forget this is not people saying that Hamilton is better than Schumacher but rather that Schumacher was better than Hamilton, maybe this should be not be running in the Hamilton thread if some of the things being said are best not to be challenged.

I'm not crediting Schumacher. I'm laying out his competition versus Hamilton's.

[mikeyg123]

I've stayed out of this for the most part as the arguments are all over the place, but to pokerman's point it seems like some are asking whether driver's from Hamilton's Mercedes era (who had a car capable of competing for the title) are stronger than the best drivers who competed against Schumacher? The phrase Oranges and Apples comes to mind. Unless all those drivers had competitive cars during Schumacher's title winning years in which case I stand corrected?

The drivers I've listed all had cars capable of challenging him for the WDC during Schumacher's most winningest period - 00-06.

[KingVoid]

[quote="KingVoid
Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

I completely disagree with Hill being ranked below Bottas and Villeneuve, that's nonsense.

I would also rank Raikkonen the lowest from that group. Raikkonen from 2017-2018 was more than a decade removed from his prime.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead

Red Bull had a title winning car in 2020? That's a new one, and takes some serious reaching.

[F1Tyrant]

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

While this is certainly true, there have been many races where Mercedes have been off the pace where the honours have been split between Hamilton, Verstappen and Leclerc.

Hamilton has proved his status on individual weekends even if the championships haven't been competitive.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

Your mileage may vary, but competing in a car that breaks the rules is the opposite of a level playing field.

Also, Leclerc is far from the finished article. He would have won three races out of six in 2019 (Bahrain Grand Prix engine failure notwithstanding) but he lost Singapore on merit to Vettel, was wrestled out of a win in Austria by Verstappen and got mugged by Vettel in Russia.

I see no reason to think Leclerc would have seriously troubled Hamilton if his Ferrari had been equally competitive in 2020. Perhaps it would have gone to the penultimate round.

[Alienturnedhuman]

[quote="KingVoid
Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

I completely disagree with Hill being ranked below Bottas and Villeneuve, that's nonsense.

I would also rank Raikkonen the lowest from that group. Raikkonen from 2017-2018 was more than a decade removed from his prime.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead

Red Bull had a title winning car in 2020? That's a new one, and takes some serious reaching.

I personally rank Hill above Villeneuve, but my memory of past polls on the subject has popular opinion ranking him behind Villeneuve by some margin.

Mercedes had the best car in 2020, there is no doubt about it, but Red Bull, Honda and - at the end of the season, Verstappen - made it look better than it was.

Max would have won in Austria had Verstappen not retired, given that Albon would have won if he hadn't collided with Hamilton. This would have been a safety car assisted win, rather than one on merit, but it would have been a 28 point swing to Verstappen.

Max would have won in Britain, if Red Bull not made the call to pit him. This is with the benefit of hindsight, but Red Bull played it too safe and Mercedes played it too risky, but Merc ended up winning their risky gambit, 14 point swing to Verstappen.

Given that Gasly won in the Alpha Tauri, with a functioning car, Max would have won the Italian GP, 29 point point to Verstappen.

Without his car issues in Mugello, Max would have collected 3rd place, 15 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his tyre failure at Imola, Max would have won the race, 32 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his impatient driving and the correct wing set up at Turkey, Max would have won the race, a 24 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his refusal to back off of the throttle and drive straight into a barrier to avoid Leclerc's rookie manoeuvre, Max would have won Sakhir, 25 point swing to Verstappen.

All of this does require the chips to fall Red Bull's way, but it is a possible result that could have happened this season based on the potential performances seen by driver and car.

Of course, with all this said, had Mercedes not had their massive head start on Max at the start of the season - largely down to Red Bull/Honda errors - then they would not have stopped the development of their 2020 car so early, so the end of the season would have been a different picture. Red Bull certainly had the faster race car in the last 4 races of the season, by a whisker, and the fastest total package at Abu Dhabi. This probably would not have been the case if Merc kept developing.

If you replayed the 2020 season 100 times, with the same degree of unpredictability (while Italy was a wild result, it was the consequence of normal events, car breaking down, driver missing a stewards sign - not dinosaur eating Alonso stuff) we saw this season, Hamilton would be champion in a sizeable majority of those seasons. But Max would have been WDC more times than Bottas.

Yes Mercedes was the car to be in this season, but the Red Bull was much closer than the results made it seem. The Red Bull was much closer to the Mercedes in performance than the next best car was to Red Bull, and Red Bull know this which is why they have recruited Perez.

[KingVoid]

Mercedes had the best car in 2020, there is no doubt about it, but Red Bull, Honda and - at the end of the season, Verstappen - made it look better than it was.

Max would have won in Austria had Verstappen not retired, given that Albon would have won if he hadn't collided with Hamilton. This would have been a safety car assisted win, rather than one on merit, but it would have been a 28 point swing to Verstappen.

Max would have won in Britain, if Red Bull not made the call to pit him. This is with the benefit of hindsight, but Red Bull played it too safe and Mercedes played it too risky, but Merc ended up winning their risky gambit, 14 point swing to Verstappen.

Given that Gasly won in the Alpha Tauri, with a functioning car, Max would have won the Italian GP, 29 point point to Verstappen.

Without his car issues in Mugello, Max would have collected 3rd place, 15 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his tyre failure at Imola, Max would have won the race, 32 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his impatient driving and the correct wing set up at Turkey, Max would have won the race, a 24 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his refusal to back off of the throttle and drive straight into a barrier to avoid Leclerc's rookie manoeuvre, Max would have won Sakhir, 25 point swing to Verstappen.

All of this does require the chips to fall Red Bull's way, but it is a possible result that could have happened this season based on the potential performances seen by driver and car.

Of course, with all this said, had Mercedes not had their massive head start on Max at the start of the season - largely down to Red Bull/Honda errors - then they would not have stopped the development of their 2020 car so early, so the end of the season would have been a different picture. Red Bull certainly had the faster race car in the last 4 races of the season, by a whisker, and the fastest total package at Abu Dhabi. This probably would not have been the case if Merc kept developing.

If you replayed the 2020 season 100 times, with the same degree of unpredictability (while Italy was a wild result, it was the consequence of normal events, car breaking down, driver missing a stewards sign - not dinosaur eating Alonso stuff) we saw this season, Hamilton would be champion in a sizeable majority of those seasons. But Max would have been WDC more times than Bottas.

Yes Mercedes was the car to be in this season, but the Red Bull was much closer than the results made it seem. The Red Bull was much closer to the Mercedes in performance than the next best car was to Red Bull, and Red Bull know this which is why they have recruited Perez.[/color]

In other words, if Red Bull and Verstappen were absolutely perfect in 2020 while Mercedes and Hamilton made all the mistakes they were allowed to make, then Verstappen might have been close to Hamilton at the end of the season.

You could say the same about Montoya in 2002 tbh.

That does not mean that Red Bull was proper competition for Mercedes in 2020. The car was not fast enough, and not reliable enough either.

[KingVoid]

Your mileage may vary, but competing in a car that breaks the rules is the opposite of a level playing field.

Also, Leclerc is far from the finished article. He would have won three races out of six in 2019 (Bahrain Grand Prix engine failure notwithstanding) but he lost Singapore on merit to Vettel, was wrestled out of a win in Austria by Verstappen and got mugged by Vettel in Russia.

I see no reason to think Leclerc would have seriously troubled Hamilton if his Ferrari had been equally competitive in 2020. Perhaps it would have gone to the penultimate round.

2019 Leclerc was not 2020 Leclerc. His dominance over Vettel last year was emphatic, far more convincing than what Hamilton showed over Bottas.

Also, blaming Leclerc for Singapore 2019 is bizarre, but that's only a minor issue.

[Alienturnedhuman]

Mercedes had the best car in 2020, there is no doubt about it, but Red Bull, Honda and - at the end of the season, Verstappen - made it look better than it was.

Max would have won in Austria had Verstappen not retired, given that Albon would have won if he hadn't collided with Hamilton. This would have been a safety car assisted win, rather than one on merit, but it would have been a 28 point swing to Verstappen.

Max would have won in Britain, if Red Bull not made the call to pit him. This is with the benefit of hindsight, but Red Bull played it too safe and Mercedes played it too risky, but Merc ended up winning their risky gambit, 14 point swing to Verstappen.

Given that Gasly won in the Alpha Tauri, with a functioning car, Max would have won the Italian GP, 29 point point to Verstappen.

Without his car issues in Mugello, Max would have collected 3rd place, 15 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his tyre failure at Imola, Max would have won the race, 32 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his impatient driving and the correct wing set up at Turkey, Max would have won the race, a 24 point swing to Verstappen.

Without his refusal to back off of the throttle and drive straight into a barrier to avoid Leclerc's rookie manoeuvre, Max would have won Sakhir, 25 point swing to Verstappen.

All of this does require the chips to fall Red Bull's way, but it is a possible result that could have happened this season based on the potential performances seen by driver and car.

Of course, with all this said, had Mercedes not had their massive head start on Max at the start of the season - largely down to Red Bull/Honda errors - then they would not have stopped the development of their 2020 car so early, so the end of the season would have been a different picture. Red Bull certainly had the faster race car in the last 4 races of the season, by a whisker, and the fastest total package at Abu Dhabi. This probably would not have been the case if Merc kept developing.

If you replayed the 2020 season 100 times, with the same degree of unpredictability (while Italy was a wild result, it was the consequence of normal events, car breaking down, driver missing a stewards sign - not dinosaur eating Alonso stuff) we saw this season, Hamilton would be champion in a sizeable majority of those seasons. But Max would have been WDC more times than Bottas.

Yes Mercedes was the car to be in this season, but the Red Bull was much closer than the results made it seem. The Red Bull was much closer to the Mercedes in performance than the next best car was to Red Bull, and Red Bull know this which is why they have recruited Perez.[/color]

In other words, if Red Bull and Verstappen were absolutely perfect in 2020 while Mercedes and Hamilton made all the mistakes they were allowed to make, then Verstappen might have been close to Hamilton at the end of the season.

You could say the same about Montoya in 2002 tbh.

That does not mean that Red Bull was proper competition for Mercedes in 2020. The car was not fast enough, and not reliable enough either.

If Hamilton and McLaren had been perfect in 2009, Hamilton could have won the title that year, although by a narrower margin than by Max could have in 2020. In fact, 2011 and 2013 were harder years than 2009 for Hamilton to win in.

Again, it would have required even less margin of error and bad luck than Max would have needed to have won in 2020 - and as I said, Red Bull's poor decision making, Honda's poor reliability and Max's impatient driving in later races made the Red Bull car look further away from the Mercedes than it actually was.

I am not disagreeing with you that the Mercedes was the best car of 2020, but it was only a cakewalk for them because the Red Bull Honda/Verstappen package let it be. Lotus believe they had a championship contending car in 2013 that was let down by their drivers, but no one looks back on that car as being in the same league as the RB8. This season was similar, but with the main deficiency in the area of pitlane calls and reliability.

[Exediron]

If Hamilton and McLaren had been perfect in 2009, Hamilton could have won the title that year, although by a narrower margin than by Max could have in 2020. In fact, 2011 and 2013 were harder years than 2009 for Hamilton to win in.

Are you serious about that? 2009?

If Hamilton had won all 8 consecutive races after the improved McLaren debuted, he would still have come up shy against Button's total. I find it baffling for you to claim 2009 was winnable by anyone driving a McLaren, perfect season or not.

[Schumacher forever#1]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

Is this statement for or against Hamilton? Because all it states is that more drivers have won a WDC competing against Hamilton than that of Schumacher. And that's despite the fact Schumacher had seasons where he was either in evidently inferior cars, or had other issues such as injuries.

This thread of course makes sense based on the fact they've now the same amount of WDC's, but I think it makes no difference in my judgement. Hamilton was not, in my opinion, the best driver each season for most of his career. Schumacher convincingly was. We can talk all we like about how we perceive different opposition, but even the fact Schumacher was exceptionally impressive against Rosberg in 2012 at age 43 shows that even despite how well we might perceive a generation, Schumacher's talent would likely have transcended generations.

[Alienturnedhuman]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

Is this statement for or against Hamilton? Because all it states is that more drivers have won a WDC competing against Hamilton than that of Schumacher. And that's despite the fact Schumacher had seasons where he was either in evidently inferior cars, or had other issues such as injuries.

This thread of course makes sense based on the fact they've now the same amount of WDC's, but I think it makes no difference in my judgement. Hamilton was not, in my opinion, the best driver each season for most of his career. Schumacher convincingly was. We can talk all we like about how we perceive different opposition, but even the fact Schumacher was exceptionally impressive against Rosberg in 2012 at age 43 shows that even despite how well we might perceive a generation, Schumacher's talent would likely have transcended generations.

It doesn't show that given that 12 WDCs have been won by drivers other than Schumacher and 7 have been won by drivers other than Hamilton in the years they competed.

[Schumacher forever#1]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

Is this statement for or against Hamilton? Because all it states is that more drivers have won a WDC competing against Hamilton than that of Schumacher. And that's despite the fact Schumacher had seasons where he was either in evidently inferior cars, or had other issues such as injuries.

This thread of course makes sense based on the fact they've now the same amount of WDC's, but I think it makes no difference in my judgement. Hamilton was not, in my opinion, the best driver each season for most of his career. Schumacher convincingly was. We can talk all we like about how we perceive different opposition, but even the fact Schumacher was exceptionally impressive against Rosberg in 2012 at age 43 shows that even despite how well we might perceive a generation, Schumacher's talent would likely have transcended generations.

It doesn't show that given that 12 WDCs have been won by drivers other than Schumacher and 7 have been won by drivers other than Hamilton in the years they competed.

Once again, these statistics really don't mean anything without context. Especially given how you include Schumacher's Mercedes years in that statistic.

The most accurate measure of driver performance is that relative to their peers. Schumacher, excluding his rookie years, was probably only matched by Alonso before retiring. Schumacher once again reiterated his talent against Rosberg in 2012, where (despite age, injuries, different Formula and tyres), Schumacher could have been leading the championship after seven races.

Indeed this same Alonso I think was the best driver of the next generation, and the only one who could would have the potential to beat Schumacher on a level-playing field in modern F1 in my opinion.

[Alienturnedhuman]

If Hamilton and McLaren had been perfect in 2009, Hamilton could have won the title that year, although by a narrower margin than by Max could have in 2020. In fact, 2011 and 2013 were harder years than 2009 for Hamilton to win in.

Are you serious about that? 2009?

If Hamilton had won all 8 consecutive races after the improved McLaren debuted, he would still have come up shy against Button's total. I find it baffling for you to claim 2009 was winnable by anyone driving a McLaren, perfect season or not.

In a perfect season it was possible. He could have achieved a 45 point swing from the actual result.

If McLaren hadn't told Hamilton to yield to Trulli, no DSQ at Australia and podium, 6 point swing to Hamilton
5th at China (Heikki's position), 1 point swing to Hamilton
Win at Monaco (where he was fastest in practice and then binned in Q1), 12 point swing to Hamilton
Win at Germany, 11 point swing to Hamilton
6th at Spa (Heikki's position), 4 point swing to Hamilton
No crash at Italy, 6 point swing to Hamilton
Victory at Brazil (given he started at the back and finished 3rd), 4 point swing to Hamilton
Victory at Abu Dhabi, 11 point swing to Hamilton

Final points:
Hamilton 100
Button 91
Vettel 79

Less likely than Verstappen winning in 2020, but possible if luck, judgement and reliability had gone his way. It was also only possible because the top car switched from the Brawn to the Red Bull mid season.

In contrast, in 2011, if you took the top McLaren result for every race, Vettel was still comfortably WDC.

[Alienturnedhuman]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

Is this statement for or against Hamilton? Because all it states is that more drivers have won a WDC competing against Hamilton than that of Schumacher. And that's despite the fact Schumacher had seasons where he was either in evidently inferior cars, or had other issues such as injuries.

This thread of course makes sense based on the fact they've now the same amount of WDC's, but I think it makes no difference in my judgement. Hamilton was not, in my opinion, the best driver each season for most of his career. Schumacher convincingly was. We can talk all we like about how we perceive different opposition, but even the fact Schumacher was exceptionally impressive against Rosberg in 2012 at age 43 shows that even despite how well we might perceive a generation, Schumacher's talent would likely have transcended generations.

It doesn't show that given that 12 WDCs have been won by drivers other than Schumacher and 7 have been won by drivers other than Hamilton in the years they competed.

Once again, these statistics really don't mean anything without context. Especially given how you include Schumacher's Mercedes years in that statistic.

The most accurate measure of driver performance is that relative to their peers. Schumacher, excluding his rookie years, was probably only matched by Alonso before retiring. Schumacher once again reiterated his talent against Rosberg in 2012, where (despite age, injuries, different Formula and tyres), Schumacher could have been leading the championship after seven races.

Indeed this same Alonso I think was the best driver of the next generation, and the only one who could would have the potential to beat Schumacher on a level-playing field in modern F1 in my opinion.

This is not a question of F1 analysis. It's a simple debunking of your statement that those figures show something they do not. It's 100% factual and objective. It is not an assessment of who is the better driver.

[pokerman]

You've clearly changed the subject from drivers onto cars.

This is Formula 1... it's all about the cars.

Then let's not talk about the drivers.

[pokerman]

I've stayed out of this for the most part as the arguments are all over the place, but to pokerman's point it seems like some are asking whether driver's from Hamilton's Mercedes era (who had a car capable of competing for the title) are stronger than the best drivers who competed against Schumacher? The phrase Oranges and Apples comes to mind. Unless all those drivers had competitive cars during Schumacher's title winning years in which case I stand corrected?

It got changed to the Mercedes era because there was a need to go down the Mercedes domination tirade.

[pokerman]

My view on this hasn't changed from the time it was happening some 20 years ago now which I viewed as the dark ages of F1 because of the dearth in talent.

Hamilton has done the majority of his winning in an era that was even weaker than those days.

From 2014-2021, there have only been five drivers that have enjoyed a car capable of challenging for the WDC:

- Hamilton
- Rosberg
- Bottas
- Vettel
- Raikkonen

My opinion of Rosberg is similar to your opinion of Button. A good driver but never a great driver. Bottas is a modern day Barrichello. Vettel was never a great driver in the V6 hybrid era, as both Leclerc and Ricciardo proved when they beat him easily. Raikkonen was more than a decade past his prime.

That has been Hamilton’s competition in since 2014.

Yeah, we had the likes of Verstappen, Alonso and Ricciardo on the grid, but what’s the point of all these guys have been stuck with a hugely inferior car for their entire careers? The three drivers I mentioned above have spent the entire hybrid era driving with Renault or Honda engines.

On top of that, Hamilton is also very lucky that Ferrari have fallen off a cliff just as Leclerc looks to have matured into a real top driver. All the elite talent apart from Hamilton has been stuck in mediocre machinery for this entire era.

2014-2021 is the weakest era of all time in terms of competition at the front.

You've clearly changed the subject from drivers onto cars.

Discussing drivers is absolutely meaningless when the four most talented drivers outside of Hamilton (Alonso, Verstappen, Ricciardo, Leclerc) have all been completely locked out of contention for the entire hybrid era.

You can mock Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen all you want, at least those guys had a fair go at Schumacher in comparable and often superior machinery.

When has Hamilton ever competed against Verstappen or Ricciardo on a level playing field? Hamilton has won 6 of his 7 world titles in an era where Alonso was either not on the grid or stuck in a car that regularly got lapped.

This all started out with how much better Schumacher is then Hamilton and actually got posted in the Lewis Hamilton thread, who actually was trying to flame bait?

[Schumacher forever#1]

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

Is this statement for or against Hamilton? Because all it states is that more drivers have won a WDC competing against Hamilton than that of Schumacher. And that's despite the fact Schumacher had seasons where he was either in evidently inferior cars, or had other issues such as injuries.

This thread of course makes sense based on the fact they've now the same amount of WDC's, but I think it makes no difference in my judgement. Hamilton was not, in my opinion, the best driver each season for most of his career. Schumacher convincingly was. We can talk all we like about how we perceive different opposition, but even the fact Schumacher was exceptionally impressive against Rosberg in 2012 at age 43 shows that even despite how well we might perceive a generation, Schumacher's talent would likely have transcended generations.

It doesn't show that given that 12 WDCs have been won by drivers other than Schumacher and 7 have been won by drivers other than Hamilton in the years they competed.

Once again, these statistics really don't mean anything without context. Especially given how you include Schumacher's Mercedes years in that statistic.

The most accurate measure of driver performance is that relative to their peers. Schumacher, excluding his rookie years, was probably only matched by Alonso before retiring. Schumacher once again reiterated his talent against Rosberg in 2012, where (despite age, injuries, different Formula and tyres), Schumacher could have been leading the championship after seven races.

Indeed this same Alonso I think was the best driver of the next generation, and the only one who could would have the potential to beat Schumacher on a level-playing field in modern F1 in my opinion.

This is not a question of F1 analysis. It's a simple debunking of your statement that those figures show something they do not. It's 100% factual and objective. It is not an assessment of who is the better driver.

Would you not agree that you compared two sets of drivers based on their championship count (where their championship count was a direct result of whether they beat their respective competitors in question in various seasons)?

Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen all won mainly because they and their team beat Schumacher (to a total of four times). Rosberg, Vettel, Raikkonen (..Bottas) and their team all won as a result of the fact that they beat Hamilton.

I just think you're doing reverse engineering to imply that because someone beats Hamilton, their stock rises higher, and therefore the stock of Hamilton rises higher as a result.

Of course, I don't agree with the analysis and conclusion. I just don't think it's necessarily relevant in discussing the difference in calibre of the two eras of drivers.

[pokerman]

Hamilton has done the majority of his winning in an era that was even weaker than those days.

From 2014-2021, there have only been five drivers that have enjoyed a car capable of challenging for the WDC:

- Hamilton
- Rosberg
- Bottas
- Vettel
- Raikkonen

My opinion of Rosberg is similar to your opinion of Button. A good driver but never a great driver. Bottas is a modern day Barrichello. Vettel was never a great driver in the V6 hybrid era, as both Leclerc and Ricciardo proved when they beat him easily. Raikkonen was more than a decade past his prime.

That has been Hamilton’s competition in since 2014.

Yeah, we had the likes of Verstappen, Alonso and Ricciardo on the grid, but what’s the point of all these guys have been stuck with a hugely inferior car for their entire careers? The three drivers I mentioned above have spent the entire hybrid era driving with Renault or Honda engines.

On top of that, Hamilton is also very lucky that Ferrari have fallen off a cliff just as Leclerc looks to have matured into a real top driver. All the elite talent apart from Hamilton has been stuck in mediocre machinery for this entire era.

2014-2021 is the weakest era of all time in terms of competition at the front.

You've clearly changed the subject from drivers onto cars.

Well how relevant is a talented grid if they don't have the car to compete with Hamilton? Daniel Ricciardo is very good but how does having him on the grid make Hamilton's job harder when he is in a much slower car?

So yes, you came up with an irrelevant point and someone has made it relevant for you.

It actually started out with Hamilton's early years and how better Schumacher would have done in 2011 and 2013 but somehow there was a need to move it on to his Mercedes years.

Schumacher did face more varied competition but the drivers were weak compared to the drivers of today so the argument loses it's strength somewhat and let's not forget this is not people saying that Hamilton is better than Schumacher but rather that Schumacher was better than Hamilton, maybe this should be not be running in the Hamilton thread if some of the things being said are best not to be challenged.

Last time I checked, the guy who was dominating in 2011 was not Alonso, Ricciardo, Verstappen or any other driver you can describe as a tier 1 talent. It was Vettel.

Let me ask you two questions and I want an honest response:

1. Was the RB7 any more dominant than the MP4-13?
2. Is Vettel really any better than Hakkinen?

If your answer to both of these questions is “no”, you can begin to see my point of view.

The 2 years are simply not transferable, Schumacher's hard charging drives on those Pirelli cheese tyres?

Also are we going to compare how those 2 seasons played out, how well Hakkinen and Vettel drove in respect to driving errors, how luck or reliability issues played out not just for the 2 drivers but for this theoretical McLaren that you are putting Schumacher in.

You look to credit Schumacher with everyone of the 6 wins that Hamilton and Button achieved and then add some more on, because Button won the crazy race in Canada, yep add that to the Schumacher list.

Hamilton fans are often depicted as being a bit over the top but do they ever make such grandiose statements about what he would achieve in different eras?

In respect to Hakkinen and Vettel how can we know who was better when they never competed against one another, there is only the ABC qualifying comparison we can make via Hakkinen>DC>Kimi>Vettel.

[pokerman]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Your first post talked about the period from 2009-2013 now for some reason you've moved it on to the 2014-2020 period which is a total different discussion again but somehow it's the same discussion, was the original discussion losing steam?

[pokerman]

Hamilton has done the majority of his winning in an era that was even weaker than those days.

From 2014-2021, there have only been five drivers that have enjoyed a car capable of challenging for the WDC:

- Hamilton
- Rosberg
- Bottas
- Vettel
- Raikkonen

My opinion of Rosberg is similar to your opinion of Button. A good driver but never a great driver. Bottas is a modern day Barrichello. Vettel was never a great driver in the V6 hybrid era, as both Leclerc and Ricciardo proved when they beat him easily. Raikkonen was more than a decade past his prime.

That has been Hamilton’s competition in since 2014.

Yeah, we had the likes of Verstappen, Alonso and Ricciardo on the grid, but what’s the point of all these guys have been stuck with a hugely inferior car for their entire careers? The three drivers I mentioned above have spent the entire hybrid era driving with Renault or Honda engines.

On top of that, Hamilton is also very lucky that Ferrari have fallen off a cliff just as Leclerc looks to have matured into a real top driver. All the elite talent apart from Hamilton has been stuck in mediocre machinery for this entire era.

2014-2021 is the weakest era of all time in terms of competition at the front.

You've clearly changed the subject from drivers onto cars.

Well how relevant is a talented grid if they don't have the car to compete with Hamilton? Daniel Ricciardo is very good but how does having him on the grid make Hamilton's job harder when he is in a much slower car?

So yes, you came up with an irrelevant point and someone has made it relevant for you.

It actually started out with Hamilton's early years and how better Schumacher would have done in 2011 and 2013 but somehow there was a need to move it on to his Mercedes years.

Schumacher did face more varied competition but the drivers were weak compared to the drivers of today so the argument loses it's strength somewhat and let's not forget this is not people saying that Hamilton is better than Schumacher but rather that Schumacher was better than Hamilton, maybe this should be not be running in the Hamilton thread if some of the things being said are best not to be challenged.

The question is were the drivers Schumacher actually had to compete against to win championships actually stronger than the ones Hamilton has had to compete against. The relative weakness and strength of the field doesn't really matter. As I said Ricciardo is very good but him being on the grid doesn't make Hamilton's job harder when he's in a Renault.

This was never the original question but for some reason morphed into Mercedes domination, the period being covered was from 2009-2013 and what Schumacher could have done in the McLaren in particular in 2011, this is obviously based on what he was able to do to drivers in the past being no different to what he would have been able to do to drivers during that period.

[pokerman]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

Is this statement for or against Hamilton? Because all it states is that more drivers have won a WDC competing against Hamilton than that of Schumacher. And that's despite the fact Schumacher had seasons where he was either in evidently inferior cars, or had other issues such as injuries.

This thread of course makes sense based on the fact they've now the same amount of WDC's, but I think it makes no difference in my judgement. Hamilton was not, in my opinion, the best driver each season for most of his career. Schumacher convincingly was. We can talk all we like about how we perceive different opposition, but even the fact Schumacher was exceptionally impressive against Rosberg in 2012 at age 43 shows that even despite how well we might perceive a generation, Schumacher's talent would likely have transcended generations.

It doesn't show that given that 12 WDCs have been won by drivers other than Schumacher and 7 have been won by drivers other than Hamilton in the years they competed.

Once again, these statistics really don't mean anything without context. Especially given how you include Schumacher's Mercedes years in that statistic.

The most accurate measure of driver performance is that relative to their peers. Schumacher, excluding his rookie years, was probably only matched by Alonso before retiring. Schumacher once again reiterated his talent against Rosberg in 2012, where (despite age, injuries, different Formula and tyres), Schumacher could have been leading the championship after seven races.

Indeed this same Alonso I think was the best driver of the next generation, and the only one who could would have the potential to beat Schumacher on a level-playing field in modern F1 in my opinion.

Schumacher could have been leading the title race after 7 races, I think you need to run that past me.

[myattitude]

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

Is this statement for or against Hamilton? Because all it states is that more drivers have won a WDC competing against Hamilton than that of Schumacher. And that's despite the fact Schumacher had seasons where he was either in evidently inferior cars, or had other issues such as injuries.

This thread of course makes sense based on the fact they've now the same amount of WDC's, but I think it makes no difference in my judgement. Hamilton was not, in my opinion, the best driver each season for most of his career. Schumacher convincingly was. We can talk all we like about how we perceive different opposition, but even the fact Schumacher was exceptionally impressive against Rosberg in 2012 at age 43 shows that even despite how well we might perceive a generation, Schumacher's talent would likely have transcended generations.

It doesn't show that given that 12 WDCs have been won by drivers other than Schumacher and 7 have been won by drivers other than Hamilton in the years they competed.

Once again, these statistics really don't mean anything without context. Especially given how you include Schumacher's Mercedes years in that statistic.

The most accurate measure of driver performance is that relative to their peers. Schumacher, excluding his rookie years, was probably only matched by Alonso before retiring. Schumacher once again reiterated his talent against Rosberg in 2012, where (despite age, injuries, different Formula and tyres), Schumacher could have been leading the championship after seven races.

Indeed this same Alonso I think was the best driver of the next generation, and the only one who could would have the potential to beat Schumacher on a level-playing field in modern F1 in my opinion.

Schumacher could have been leading the title race after 7 races, I think you need to run that past me.

Unreliability in 2012. Had he collected the points in the positions he retired in, he'd have been leading the 2012 WDC by the time they arrived Canada.

[myattitude]

I give credit to Hakkinen but then again he won 2 titles against Schumacher allbeit he seemingly needed the car to do it, I think we might place Hakkinen at a similar level to Vettel.

Actually Hakkinen is more comparable to Lewis, both extremely fast in ultimate pace and qualifying,, both loved by Ron, but both not renowned for their team building abilities like Michael, which is always his top trump card over everything else.

Well you can strike Alonso off that list, Schumacher never beat Alonso when Alonso had a competitive car.

This is wrong, and goes back to looking at results over performance - a fundamental mistake in F1 analyses. Rather than me copy and paste an old post, here is a deeper analysis that shows Schumacher was far superior to Alonso in 2006: viewtopic.php?p=728897#p728897

[myattitude]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

It's really something to put this way: Which is a tougher challenge -

Hakkinen, Montoya, Hill, Villeneuve, Alonso, and Kimi (the good version) in title contending McLarens, Renaults and Williams's?

or

Max in a car up 0.3-1.0 secs slower, an imploding Vettel, an old Kimi, and an Alonso driving a McHonda?

[mikeyg123]

So in real basic terms these are the drivers that drove cars that would REALISTICALLY (so know Verstappen in 2020 or Button in 2004 where literally everything would have to go right to allow them to challenge for championship) let hem challenge for a championship during time time Hamilton and Schumacher were competing for championships -

I'll stick to full seasons as to not muddy the waters by including the likes of Mansell and Senna.

Schumacher - 94-06

Hill
Coulthard
Herbert
Alesi
Berger
Villeneuve
Irvine
Frentzen
Hakkinen
Barrichello
Raikkonen
Montoya
R.Schumacher
Alonso
Fissichella

Hamilton - 07-20

Raikkonen
Massa
Alonso
Kubica
Heidfeld
Button
Barrichello
Vettel
Webber
Grosjean
Rosberg
Bottas

I'm not seeing a gulf in class between the two groups. 12 on Hamilton's side and 15 on Schumacher's after I have consumed my dinner I might have a go at ordering Hamilton's 12 and Schumacher's best 12 from best to worst and see if I come to a definitive decision on who had the stiffer competition.

[Exediron]

Going by the metric of 'who did he have to beat to win his WDCs', I think both of them actually come off looking surprisingly poor -- but Hamilton not really any worse than Schumacher.

SCHUMACHER

1994: Hill and a rotating cast of weak teammates
1995: Hill, Herbert

Damon Hill is one of the weakest WDCs, and none of Schumi's teammates were any stronger than Hamilton's weakest teammate.

2000: Häkkinen, Coulthard, Barrichello
2001: Häkkinen, Coulthard, Barrichello

Häkkinen is clearly the strongest of the three, but I would consider him only a mid-tier WDC. He won his titles in dominant cars, and in one case with the help of a serious injury from his main competition. Objectively, there's no indication that Häkkinen is any better than someone of the Raikkonen/Massa tier.

2002: Barrichello
2004: Barrichello

These years his only competition was his own teammate.

2003: Barrichello, Räikkönen, Montoya, Schumacher, Coulthard

The most competitive season yet, with three cars all having a serious shot at the title. Again, the lead drivers from the opposition side are a second-tier WDC and several strong non-WDC drivers.

On the other side...

HAMILTON

2008: Kovalainen, Massa, Räikkönen, kind-of Kubica

As with Schumi, we see a pair of second-tier WDC caliber drivers headlining the opposition. Kubica, if you count him (I wouldn't, since his car was only competitive for part of the season) would be Hamilton's strongest opposition.

2014: Rosberg
2015: Rosberg
2016: Rosberg

Then we get to a three-year stretch in which Hamilton needs only fight his own teammate. I rate Rosberg in a slightly higher category than any of the drivers Schumacher defeated for a title, so this is good for Hamilton's side of the equation.

2017: Bottas, Vettel, Räikkönen
2018: Bottas, Vettel, Räikkönen

Hamilton switches teammates, and now faces a new driver in the strongest opposition car. Again, I find it difficult to rate Vettel lower than any of the drivers Schumacher faced in competitive cars, although there is some open question of how close to his peak he was operating at.

2019: Bottas
2020: Bottas

These two aren't worth a huge amount, because realistically Hamilton was only fighting Bottas. You could make a case for 2019 if it hadn't been for the FIA's late-season engine ruling, but I think it would be a stretch.

CONCLUSION

Schumacher had to defeat a larger variety of drivers to earn his WDCs, but they weren't of any higher quality than the drivers Hamilton defeated. If I were to take mikeyg123's experiment and stack all of them together, I would rank the drivers roughly as such:

Vettel, Rosberg
Häkkinen, Räikkönen, Montoya, Barrichello, Bottas, Massa, Schumacher, Hill
Kovalainen, Coulthard, Herbert

(note that I have Raikkonen down for his position in 2003; I would put him lower when Hamilton faced him later)

In final summary, I do not believe either Hamilton or Schumacher ever faced another tier one driver in a competitive car and won a WDC in that season.

Could they have? Sure. Did they? No.

[mikeyg123]

Going by the metric of 'who did he have to beat to win his WDCs', I think both of them actually come off looking surprisingly poor -- but Hamilton not really any worse than Schumacher.

SCHUMACHER

1994: Hill and a rotating cast of weak teammates
1995: Hill, Herbert

Damon Hill is one of the weakest WDCs, and none of Schumi's teammates were any stronger than Hamilton's weakest teammate.

2000: Häkkinen, Coulthard, Barrichello
2001: Häkkinen, Coulthard, Barrichello

Häkkinen is clearly the strongest of the three, but I would consider him only a mid-tier WDC. He won his titles in dominant cars, and in one case with the help of a serious injury from his main competition. Objectively, there's no indication that Häkkinen is any better than someone of the Raikkonen/Massa tier.

2002: Barrichello
2004: Barrichello

These years his only competition was his own teammate.

2003: Barrichello, Räikkönen, Montoya, Schumacher, Coulthard

The most competitive season yet, with three cars all having a serious shot at the title. Again, the lead drivers from the opposition side are a second-tier WDC and several strong non-WDC drivers.

On the other side...

HAMILTON

2008: Kovalainen, Massa, Räikkönen, kind-of Kubica

As with Schumi, we see a pair of second-tier WDC caliber drivers headlining the opposition. Kubica, if you count him (I wouldn't, since his car was only competitive for part of the season) would be Hamilton's strongest opposition.

2014: Rosberg
2015: Rosberg
2016: Rosberg

Then we get to a three-year stretch in which Hamilton needs only fight his own teammate. I rate Rosberg in a slightly higher category than any of the drivers Schumacher defeated for a title, so this is good for Hamilton's side of the equation.

2017: Bottas, Vettel, Räikkönen
2018: Bottas, Vettel, Räikkönen

Hamilton switches teammates, and now faces a new driver in the strongest opposition car. Again, I find it difficult to rate Vettel lower than any of the drivers Schumacher faced in competitive cars, although there is some open question of how close to his peak he was operating at.

2019: Bottas
2020: Bottas

These two aren't worth a huge amount, because realistically Hamilton was only fighting Bottas. You could make a case for 2019 if it hadn't been for the FIA's late-season engine ruling, but I think it would be a stretch.

CONCLUSION

Schumacher had to defeat a larger variety of drivers to earn his WDCs, but they weren't of any higher quality than the drivers Hamilton defeated. If I were to take mikeyg123's experiment and stack all of them together, I would rank the drivers roughly as such:

Vettel, Rosberg
Häkkinen, Räikkönen, Montoya, Barrichello, Bottas, Massa, Schumacher, Hill
Kovalainen, Coulthard, Herbert

(note that I have Raikkonen down for his position in 2003; I would put him lower when Hamilton faced him later)

In final summary, I do not believe either Hamilton or Schumacher ever faced another tier one driver in a competitive car and won a WDC in that season.

Could they have? Sure. Did they? No.

That's a really interesting way of doing things. I disagree with your rankings - I'd put Hakkinen at least ahead of Rosberg if not Vettel and Coulthard very much in the same league as Massa et al but it certainly gives some insight. Neither driver actually beat a recognised top 10 of all time to a championship.

[pokerman]

Is this statement for or against Hamilton? Because all it states is that more drivers have won a WDC competing against Hamilton than that of Schumacher. And that's despite the fact Schumacher had seasons where he was either in evidently inferior cars, or had other issues such as injuries.

This thread of course makes sense based on the fact they've now the same amount of WDC's, but I think it makes no difference in my judgement. Hamilton was not, in my opinion, the best driver each season for most of his career. Schumacher convincingly was. We can talk all we like about how we perceive different opposition, but even the fact Schumacher was exceptionally impressive against Rosberg in 2012 at age 43 shows that even despite how well we might perceive a generation, Schumacher's talent would likely have transcended generations.

It doesn't show that given that 12 WDCs have been won by drivers other than Schumacher and 7 have been won by drivers other than Hamilton in the years they competed.

Once again, these statistics really don't mean anything without context. Especially given how you include Schumacher's Mercedes years in that statistic.

The most accurate measure of driver performance is that relative to their peers. Schumacher, excluding his rookie years, was probably only matched by Alonso before retiring. Schumacher once again reiterated his talent against Rosberg in 2012, where (despite age, injuries, different Formula and tyres), Schumacher could have been leading the championship after seven races.

Indeed this same Alonso I think was the best driver of the next generation, and the only one who could would have the potential to beat Schumacher on a level-playing field in modern F1 in my opinion.

Schumacher could have been leading the title race after 7 races, I think you need to run that past me.

Unreliability in 2012. Had he collected the points in the positions he retired in, he'd have been leading the 2012 WDC by the time they arrived Canada.

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

[mikeyg123]

It doesn't show that given that 12 WDCs have been won by drivers other than Schumacher and 7 have been won by drivers other than Hamilton in the years they competed.

Once again, these statistics really don't mean anything without context. Especially given how you include Schumacher's Mercedes years in that statistic.

The most accurate measure of driver performance is that relative to their peers. Schumacher, excluding his rookie years, was probably only matched by Alonso before retiring. Schumacher once again reiterated his talent against Rosberg in 2012, where (despite age, injuries, different Formula and tyres), Schumacher could have been leading the championship after seven races.

Indeed this same Alonso I think was the best driver of the next generation, and the only one who could would have the potential to beat Schumacher on a level-playing field in modern F1 in my opinion.

Schumacher could have been leading the title race after 7 races, I think you need to run that past me.

Unreliability in 2012. Had he collected the points in the positions he retired in, he'd have been leading the 2012 WDC by the time they arrived Canada.

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

[pokerman]

I give credit to Hakkinen but then again he won 2 titles against Schumacher allbeit he seemingly needed the car to do it, I think we might place Hakkinen at a similar level to Vettel.

Actually Hakkinen is more comparable to Lewis, both extremely fast in ultimate pace and qualifying,, both loved by Ron, but both not renowned for their team building abilities like Michael, which is always his top trump card over everything else.

Well you can strike Alonso off that list, Schumacher never beat Alonso when Alonso had a competitive car.

This is wrong, and goes back to looking at results over performance - a fundamental mistake in F1 analyses. Rather than me copy and paste an old post, here is a deeper analysis that shows Schumacher was far superior to Alonso in 2006: viewtopic.php?p=728897#p728897

There's some heavy duty reading there, 10 out of 10 for the effort you put in, there's simply to much for me to wade through, some of the replies are heavy duty as well before you go into a mammoth of a post, it has to be said though that people are not really agreeing with you, one calling it a one eyed point of view.

I now see that you're actually a Schumacher fan and not a Rubens fan, the defence of Rubens being simply because of his association with Schumacher.

[pokerman]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

It's really something to put this way: Which is a tougher challenge -

Hakkinen, Montoya, Hill, Villeneuve, Alonso, and Kimi (the good version) in title contending McLarens, Renaults and Williams's?

or

Max in a car up 0.3-1.0 secs slower, an imploding Vettel, an old Kimi, and an Alonso driving a McHonda?

Didn't Schumacher have the best car for much of this period, Kimi (the good version) nearly beat him in a year old McLaren. Montoya got exposed by Kimi and quit F1, I'm not sure his ego could take it, he only ever beat Alonso when having a much better car but we can't list the likes of Verstappen and Leclerc for Hamilton beating them in similar circumstances.

As I've said previously most of the drivers listed for Schumacher later got exposed but we will keep them relevant as being exceptional when Schumacher beat them, and of course any driver that Hamilton beat was rubbish.

[pokerman]

So in real basic terms these are the drivers that drove cars that would REALISTICALLY (so know Verstappen in 2020 or Button in 2004 where literally everything would have to go right to allow them to challenge for championship) during time time Hamilton and Schumacher were competing for championships -

I'll stick to full seasons as to not muddy the waters by including the likes of Mansell and Senna.

Schumacher - 94-06

Hill
Coulthard
Herbert
Alesi
Berger
Villeneuve
Irvine
Frentzen
Hakkinen
Barrichello
Raikkonen
Montoya
R.Schumacher
Alonso
Fissichella

Hamilton - 07-20

Raikkonen
Massa
Alonso
Kubica
Heidfeld
Button
Barrichello
Vettel
Webber
Grosjean
Rosberg
Bottas

I'm not seeing a gulf in class between the two groups. 12 on Hamilton's side and 15 on Schumacher's after I have consumed my dinner I might have a go at ordering Hamilton's 12 and Schumacher's best 12 from best to worst and see if I come to a definitive decision on who had the stiffer competition.

I guess you're listing drivers that Schumacher and Hamilton beat without need of a car advantage, Schumacher never beat Alonso without a car advantage.

[pokerman]

Once again, these statistics really don't mean anything without context. Especially given how you include Schumacher's Mercedes years in that statistic.

The most accurate measure of driver performance is that relative to their peers. Schumacher, excluding his rookie years, was probably only matched by Alonso before retiring. Schumacher once again reiterated his talent against Rosberg in 2012, where (despite age, injuries, different Formula and tyres), Schumacher could have been leading the championship after seven races.

Indeed this same Alonso I think was the best driver of the next generation, and the only one who could would have the potential to beat Schumacher on a level-playing field in modern F1 in my opinion.

Schumacher could have been leading the title race after 7 races, I think you need to run that past me.

Unreliability in 2012. Had he collected the points in the positions he retired in, he'd have been leading the 2012 WDC by the time they arrived Canada.

I know he had unreliability but you still need to run that past me, retiring from a couple of third places doesn't quite do it for me, he was never close to winning a race which you kind of need to do to be leading a title race. In the first 7 races he crashed out of one of them which was his own fault and he got penalised with a grid penalty at Monaco which otherwise he would have been on for winning before retiring, but what happed is that he retired from about 6th place, the numbers don't add up.

Just of them was his own fault. That cost him the win. Certainly without that he would have be leading the WDC.

How, where's the evidence?

[mikeyg123]

So in real basic terms these are the drivers that drove cars that would REALISTICALLY (so know Verstappen in 2020 or Button in 2004 where literally everything would have to go right to allow them to challenge for championship) during time time Hamilton and Schumacher were competing for championships -

I'll stick to full seasons as to not muddy the waters by including the likes of Mansell and Senna.

Schumacher - 94-06

Hill
Coulthard
Herbert
Alesi
Berger
Villeneuve
Irvine
Frentzen
Hakkinen
Barrichello
Raikkonen
Montoya
R.Schumacher
Alonso
Fissichella

Hamilton - 07-20

Raikkonen
Massa
Alonso
Kubica
Heidfeld
Button
Barrichello
Vettel
Webber
Grosjean
Rosberg
Bottas

I'm not seeing a gulf in class between the two groups. 12 on Hamilton's side and 15 on Schumacher's after I have consumed my dinner I might have a go at ordering Hamilton's 12 and Schumacher's best 12 from best to worst and see if I come to a definitive decision on who had the stiffer competition.

I guess you're listing drivers that Schumacher and Hamilton beat without need of a car advantage, Schumacher never beat Alonso without a car advantage.

Nope, these are a list of drivers who drove cars capable of realistically challenging for a championship between the dates specified. I.E the competition both drivers actually had to face.

[mikeyg123]

My opinion on this is very clear

The grid from 2014-2020 was more talented than in Schumacher’s time, but that is completely meaningless because all the best drivers from 2014-2020 were stuck in hugely inferior machinery.

Say what you want about Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen - they all had a fair shot against Schumacher in equal or even superior machinery.

It doesn’t really matter how good Ricciardo or Verstappen are because neither have ever competed against Hamilton on a level playing field.

If the 2020 version of Leclerc drove a Ferrari car as good as the ones from 2017-2018, that would have been proper competition. Luckily for Hamilton, Ferrari fell off a cliff just as Leclerc came into his own.

We all know about Alonso’s machinery in the hybrid era, nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

The only competition Hamilton has had since 2014 has been Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Raikkonen. Far from a mesmerizing group of drivers.

2014-2020 is without a doubt the weakest era of all time if you judge it by the competition at the front.

Schumacher's group of challengers you selected in equal machinery have 4 WDCs and 5 runners up.

Hamilton's group of challengers you selected have 6 WDCs and 8 runners up positions. Even if you normalise, that's 4.5/6.

Schumacher's list contains the two drivers who most consider the weakest WDCs of the modern era (Hill and Villeneuve). I suspect if people were asked to rank all 7 drivers, whilst Hakkinen would probably top the list, Hill and Villeneuve would be bottom - probably something like: Hakkinen, Vettel, Rosberg, Raikkonen, Bottas, Villeneuve, Hill.

You should also include Verstappen in the second list, as between his errors, Red Bull's errors and Honda's errors they gave a 164 point swing to Hamilton in the 2020 season, and he only finished 133 points ahead.

It's really something to put this way: Which is a tougher challenge -

Hakkinen, Montoya, Hill, Villeneuve, Alonso, and Kimi (the good version) in title contending McLarens, Renaults and Williams's?

or

Max in a car up 0.3-1.0 secs slower, an imploding Vettel, an old Kimi, and an Alonso driving a McHonda?

Didn't Schumacher have the best car for much of this period, Kimi (the good version) nearly beat him in a year old McLaren. Montoya got exposed by Kimi and quit F1, I'm not sure his ego could take it, he only ever beat Alonso when having a much better car but we can't list the likes of Verstappen and Leclerc for Hamilton beating them in similar circumstances.

As I've said previously most of the drivers listed for Schumacher later got exposed but we will keep them relevant as being exceptional when Schumacher beat them, and of course any driver that Hamilton beat was rubbish.

And the award for most strawman arguments packed into two paragraphs goes to....