Will Schumacher's Race Win and WDC records be broken?

[ringo]

I think you are being too romantic.
Back then they knew what they knew. Safety never came to mind as much.

In the same way we can look back on seat belt wearing, and the halo, and even these covid face masks and then say how brave were people back then to not have airborne virus protection!

If the records cannot be considered broken, then they aren't really records now are they?
Aslo which year would you draw the cut off point?

Hamilton needs 2 more wins to tie with Shumacher now. The FIA are adding more races to the calendar. He might just be the first driver to reach 100 wins.

[Just_a_fan]

To be respectful to those daredevils, their records should never be considered as broken by current generation of drivers and cars. It's a true tribute.

Indeed. This is why one can't compare eras. Comparing Hamilton with Schumacher etc. is fine. Going back beyond the Prost / Senna years is to compare apples and oranges.

Crashing in to other drivers in order to take titles was a reasonable safety risk for Prost, Senna, Schumacher. Clark et al would never do it because it could have killed them.

[PlatinumZealot]

Two races now to be statistically the greatest F1 driver in history... No wait.. Sorry.. He still needs to win the championship first!

[Shrieker]

Aslo which year would you draw the cut off point?

You know, it wasn't that long ago when a Formula 1 driver lost his life in a crash (2014 RIP). Also, Anthoine this past year (RIP).

Yes the risk used to be higher in the older years, but trying to make a cut-off argument is in my opinion moot. Because going by that logic, the greatest driver then must be one of the greats of the 50s/60s/70s; however for that to be absolutely and irrefutably true, they must be taken at their prime and put into a contemporary cockpit to battle with the now greats, in which case they might be found out to not be the absolute greatest ever. Neither Fangio, nor Clark had the same level of intense preparation the greats of today had; thus, it might not be realistic to expect they'd be at the same level as them.

And that is exactly the reason Hamilton is about to take over the mantle of the 'most successful driver ever' from Schumacher, and not the 'greatest ever".

[Manoah2u]

Thanks, yes he has been tbh but I'm not one to point it out.

are you for real? i'm literally talking about YOU

Stop trolling please.

If you can't answer my questions without resorting to trolling it's best you don't say anything at all.

LOL, surprised you haven't gotten a ban from the mods, i guess trolling is no longer a problem on this board.
if acting like a 12 year old makes you happy though, fine, but take it elsewhere, reddit or something,
i'm sure there's some anti-hamilton group there.

[Wass85]

are you for real? i'm literally talking about YOU

Stop trolling please.

If you can't answer my questions without resorting to trolling it's best you don't say anything at all.

LOL, surprised you haven't gotten a ban from the mods, i guess trolling is no longer a problem on this board.
if acting like a 12 year old makes you happy though, fine, but take it elsewhere, reddit or something,
i'm sure there's some anti-hamilton group there.

Likewise.

[ringo]

Aslo which year would you draw the cut off point?

You know, it wasn't that long ago when a Formula 1 driver lost his life in a crash (2014 RIP). Also, Anthoine this past year (RIP).

Yes the risk used to be higher in the older years, but trying to make a cut-off argument is in my opinion moot. Because going by that logic, the greatest driver then must be one of the greats of the 50s/60s/70s; however for that to be absolutely and irrefutably true, they must be taken at their prime and put into a contemporary cockpit to battle with the now greats, in which case they might be found out to not be the absolute greatest ever. Neither Fangio, nor Clark had the same level of intense preparation the greats of today had; thus, it might not be realistic to expect they'd be at the same level as them.

And that is exactly the reason Hamilton is about to take over the mantle of the 'most successful driver ever' from Schumacher, and not the 'greatest ever".

You are the one making the claim that back then should not be compared because of safety. I am saying that F1 is first and foremost a competition. A competition of numbers in the form of time and points which earns wins and championships respectively. Shumacher was the greatest "statistically" and "successfully". That is more objective than what we feel was better back then. These men compete with all having the same factors to deal with equally. The men from the 50s were not any greater than men now. They compete equally with each other in the same environmental factors. Its the same for everyone on the grid. A man who has the brain and talent to be competitive in today's F1, will be competitive in the olden F1. He already has the mindset and bravery and talent to apply to any form of motorsport competition. So i don't buy your argument about the past drivers being greater. They were as safe and daring to an acceptable level in their times. Just as much as these drivers today are. Maybe in 2050 a driver will be able to slam into a competitor at 200 mph in the pitlane because of safety technology, and you will say back in the Max Verstappen days.. they had to be careful not to touch cars at 200mph and they had to rejoin the track carefully, becuase someone could get sore back. It's all relative.
Hamilton will be the greatest ever. if he is not the greatest ever, then who is? and who gave you the authority to determine what is a great competitor?
I am looking at it a sportsman's perspective. The man who beats his competition the most, the man who won the most, has the most poles, is the most successful sportsman. The success is relative to the competition, and all men in the formula had to play by the rules. So i am not sure what measure you will use, but it would be disputable.

[Jolle]

Many people tent to forget that Schumachers first two world titels came in a time without much competition. At the moment it’s quite normal that there are 3 or 4 world champions at the start of any GP, not in 94/95. His only competition was Damon Hill, good fellow but no Alonso.

[Moore77]

Many people tent to forget that Schumachers first two world titels came in a time without much competition. At the moment it’s quite normal that there are 3 or 4 world champions at the start of any GP, not in 94/95. His only competition was Damon Hill, good fellow but no Alonso.

Define competition please.
1. Two good drivers in two good cars?
2. One good driver in a good car and the other good driver in a bad car?
3. One average driver in a good car and a good driver in a bad car?

[Jolle]

Many people tent to forget that Schumachers first two world titels came in a time without much competition. At the moment it’s quite normal that there are 3 or 4 world champions at the start of any GP, not in 94/95. His only competition was Damon Hill, good fellow but no Alonso.

Define competition please.
1. Two good drivers in two good cars?
2. One good driver in a good car and the other good driver in a bad car?
3. One average driver in a good car and a good driver in a bad car?

The competition in 94/95 was:
- Williams with a decent car, despite stalling issues with a average driver
- McLaren with a bad engine (Peugeot) or a not fitting driver (Mansell)
- Ferrari with... well... old style pre PMI with a dodgy V12 and midfield at most

[Moore77]

Many people tent to forget that Schumachers first two world titels came in a time without much competition. At the moment it’s quite normal that there are 3 or 4 world champions at the start of any GP, not in 94/95. His only competition was Damon Hill, good fellow but no Alonso.

Define competition please.
1. Two good drivers in two good cars?
2. One good driver in a good car and the other good driver in a bad car?
3. One average driver in a good car and a good driver in a bad car?

The competition in 94/95 was:
- Williams with a decent car, despite stalling issues with a average driver
- McLaren with a bad engine (Peugeot) or a not fitting driver (Mansell)
- Ferrari with... well... old style pre PMI with a dodgy V12 and midfield at most

Well then we can also regard 1992, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020 on the competitive reasons.

Does it matter if there is no good driver on the grid or a champion driver on the grid OR if that good driver or that champion stuck in a bad car. If there is no equal equipment to compete, no one can compete.

[Jolle]

Looking at the calendar by the way... there is a chance he will equal the 91 at Mugello and his 7th WC in Imola...

[El Scorchio]

Looking at the calendar by the way... there is a chance he will equal the 91 at Mugello and his 7th WC in Imola...

Bloody hell. Imola would be all sorts of coincidence and emotion for him.

That weekend as a whole is going to be a strange one.

[tangodjango]

Looking at the calendar by the way... there is a chance he will equal the 91 at Mugello and his 7th WC in Imola...

Bloody hell. Imola would be all sorts of coincidence and emotion for him.

That weekend as a whole is going to be a strange one.

Yes it's a little unlikely though. He would need to win the next 6 races and get the fastest lap for all of those with Bottas/Max splitting 2nd place in either a 3:3 or 4:2 ratio either way between them as after Imola there will be only 104 points up for grabs and if he wins the next 6 it would already put him out of reach of being tied on wins. Probably more realistic at Istanbul which would also be great given his history in GP2 there.

[dans79]

. Probably more realistic at Istanbul which would also be great given his history in GP2 there.

That is still One of the best comebacks I have ever seen!