A couple of things; first of all, I'm not suggesting that Michael's teammates couldn't have proven themselves to be faster than him. They were not faster, on that we agree but being faster is not really necessary in order to beat someone over a season. If you have better luck, reliability or are more consistent over a season, you can beat a quicker driver who has worse luck or consistency. That opportunity was denied them because they were not given equal status. As such, their lack of pace was compounded by consistently inferior strategy and compromised races. If Hamilton received the same treatment as Schuamcher throughout his career, he likely would have at least two more titles (2007 and 2016) and potentially more than that when you look at how McLaren tripped over themselves to give him and Button equal treatment while generally compromising both of them relative to the other teams.Siao7 wrote:All his team mates were allowed to prove they were faster. All of them, they just couldn't hold a candle to him. It's like saying that poor Kova wasn't allowed to race Hamilton when in reality he was never good enough. Irvine has confirmed this, there was nothing in his contract to say that he wasn't allowed to. Nor Rubens's, and Rubens was not a guy that would stay quiet...sandman1347 wrote:No they were not. There is no real debate about whether Michael's teammates were racing him. They were not. Both at Benetton and Ferrari, both cars were used to help Michael win. He always had the better fuel strategy and preference on parts, etc. None of Michael's teammates had equal status until Rosberg where literally all of Hamilton's teammates (except Kovaleinen) had equal status.Siao7 wrote:I disagree, firstly the rivalries are not between team mates (and Schumacher's team mates were allowed to race him on that). And secondly, if you think that Vettel gave Hamilton a better rivalry the last few years than the fights that Schumacher had with the Williams's or with Hakkinen, then I think we can't have a serious conversation really.sandman1347 wrote:Hunt and Lauda were really only direct title rivals for two seasons. Senna and Prost for three. Hamilton has had a rivalry with Alonso as a rookie and Vettel throughout several seasons. He's also had multiple strong teammates like Alonso, Button and Rosberg. I think he has faced more direct challenges from other top drivers than any of the greats. Name me one all-time great driver who has had stronger teammates throughout their career.shoot999 wrote:
He ticks all the boxes apart from one. And like Schumacher he has no control over that one. Hunt/Lauda; Senna/Prost. Hamilton/????
No, suggesting that his time has been similar to Schumacher is just not accurate. Michael did his damage with teammates who were not permitted to really race him and without strong rivals in the other teams most of the time. The 3-4 years where he battled with Hakkinen were probably the most intense rivalry that Michael had and I do have fond memories of it but I'd say it was similar to Hamilton's battles with Vettel the last two years. Again, the main thing is that Michael never had a teammate who was given equal status until he came back and faced Rosebrg (who beat him three straight years).
As for the idea that rivalries cannot be between teammates; I don't understand what you mean there. The most intense rivalries are between teammates. The greatest rivalry in F1 history was between Senna and Prost at McLaren. What makes for a better rivalry than having two elite drivers in identical machinery? Maybe you can explain what you mean by that?
Hamilton has been in many close battles for the championship that came down to the wire. His first two years at McLaren were decided in the final race by a single point. He was also still alive going into Abu Dhabi in 2010. Then you have the battles with Rosberg in 2014 and 2016.
You want to claim that Michael had better rivalries with Williams but he ended two of those years by intentionally crashing his opponent out of the race. Are we supposed to put that on a pedestal? Against Mika, there was never a title that came down to the last race (although I did appreciate this battle).
Regarding the bold part that is my fault, I confused what you said, until I re-read it now.
Now, why is winning on the last race constituting a rivalry with someone for you? No one said a rivalry is only for the last race, Jesus, you are reaching so much here...
Also, the intentional crashes did not take anything from the rivalry with the Williamses; if nothing else, you yourself mention Prost/Senna as the greatest rivalry ever and they had 2 intentional crashes of their own. Are you sure you are not just anti-Schumacher?
By the way, with Mika it came to the last race in 1998, so no idea why you say they never had a last race showdown.
I'd say that none of the Williams drivers were actual rivals to Michael. In fact, they seemed interchangeable. It was about Michael trying to beat a better car in those years. None of those drivers were top-tier. I already said that I appreciate the Hakkinen rivalry and my point about the last race was just for context. The whole idea that a driver's rivalries are important is based on the importance of how they perform in key moments and against top competition. That was my purpose in bringing that up but I agree that the last race thing is not really critical. I would point out that it becomes critical for Michael because of his track record of cheating in order to try to win in the last race.
And no, I'm not anti-Schumacher. I'm just not going to pretend that he didn't do the things he did.