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

[NathanOlder]

a driver that landed in dominant cars, ramping up easy wins and championships without any competition. One line definition of Schumacher's greatness. Is that the qualification to be a GOAT?

There fixed it for you. Not mentioning the contractual number 2's lapdog drivers (far worse than Bottas), superior machinery in the same team, unlimited testing, custom tyres, fraudulent FIA protection, general thuggery and criminal behaviour on track. Also was pasted by Hakkinen in 98-99 when he cracked and bottled it under pressure much like Vettel in 17-18. So much for being 'untouchable' from 1993-2002.

None of that will change the fact that, Hamilton got into easy wins with a lucky decision that landed him into dominant cars with absolutely and best lapdog of all time with which this so called greatness is being achieved.

Why was it a lucky decision ?

[Moore77]

Me personally, I think Lewis in his prime is every bit as fit and as fast as Schumacher was in his prime. What sets them apart IMO is that Lewis is generally a very clean racer. Michael has had some really questionable moments. Also, I firmly believe the field of drivers competing in the modern F1 era (last decade) are at a higher level than the field of drivers during Schumacher's era.

When there is nobody around the car as the car is far ahead, it allows clean driving isn't it? When there are drivers around, then all of 2011, Spa 2014, Spain 2016, Austria 2016, Brazil 2019 and Austria 2020 happens.

[Moore77]

There fixed it for you. Not mentioning the contractual number 2's lapdog drivers (far worse than Bottas), superior machinery in the same team, unlimited testing, custom tyres, fraudulent FIA protection, general thuggery and criminal behaviour on track. Also was pasted by Hakkinen in 98-99 when he cracked and bottled it under pressure much like Vettel in 17-18. So much for being 'untouchable' from 1993-2002.

None of that will change the fact that, Hamilton got into easy wins with a lucky decision that landed him into dominant cars with absolutely and best lapdog of all time with which this so called greatness is being achieved.

Why was it a lucky decision ?

He was frustrated at McLaren that he was unable to win championships, Red Bull who were dominant weren't ready to offer a seat and he badly wanted to leave McLaren's restricted environment and there was nowhere to go except Mercedes, who offered bagful of money. Nobody knew if Mercedes would even given him a decent podium car, but then everything happened!

[Caesar.]

Rosberg beat michael three years in a row.

I don't recall an off season in 2013. You made that one up!

Even for 2011 his speed nor race craft was not off. He was in red mist all year. Pushing like a hell and getting into accidents with Massa. Still 3 wins, only non-redbull pole and finished ahead equally with his WDC teammate.

Off season by his standard maybe.

For 2013, he had by his own admission a very poor race in Spain, he lost a podium at Monaco for falling too far behind Rosberg and got undercut by the RB's, was eliminated in Q2 for 'driving like an idiot' at Monza, at Korea he struggled heavily with his tyres unlike his teammate, also made a mistake at the start at Japan which cost him a puncture.

Imo in 2013 Rosberg and Lewis was quite close. Lewis wasn't particularly close to being the best driver of that season, nor even the second best driver of the season. The team bosses rated him at 4.

[Caesar.]

Me personally, I think Lewis in his prime is every bit as fit and as fast as Schumacher was in his prime. What sets them apart IMO is that Lewis is generally a very clean racer. Michael has had some really questionable moments. Also, I firmly believe the field of drivers competing in the modern F1 era (last decade) are at a higher level than the field of drivers during Schumacher's era.

Couldn't agree with this more, and it shouldn't be understated. Lewis is arguably the safest pair of hands when it comes to wheel to wheel duels out of this generation. He has proven that he does need to stretch the absolute limits to be successful.

And that's a reason why Alain will be always be one of my favourites. He always had something extra in reserve the little master.

[Moore77]

Me personally, I think Lewis in his prime is every bit as fit and as fast as Schumacher was in his prime. What sets them apart IMO is that Lewis is generally a very clean racer. Michael has had some really questionable moments. Also, I firmly believe the field of drivers competing in the modern F1 era (last decade) are at a higher level than the field of drivers during Schumacher's era.

Couldn't agree with this more, and it shouldn't be understated. Lewis is arguably the safest pair of hands when it comes to wheel to wheel duels out of this generation. He has proven that he does need to stretch the absolute limits to be successful.

And that's a reason why Alain will be always be one of my favourites. He always had something extra in reserve the little master.

You should ask Massa, how clean Hamilton has been. A small tribute here for the clean driving. When he got into dominant cars, where he used to disappear from the competition, he was obviously clean.



Because of being in dominant cars, when battling it out, it allows a driver better chances to be conservative as in the next races he can score all the lost point and hence allows him to be clean. That is no big deal. Drivers become more involved in equal car competition.

Look at the mistakes when under pressure.

[Caesar.]

Schumacher was very beatable in 2010-2012. Lewis hasn't been that bad at all. You have to count the whole career in F1, not just pick and choose. In my opinion, Lewis can't be the GOAT until he retires for good as a driver in F1. You have to be judged on his whole career. Schumacher damaged his greatness by coming back. It was his call, he was probably warned against it. Coming back usually damages your legacy.

a driver that landed in dominant cars, ramping up easy wins and championships without any competition. One line definition of Schumacher's greatness. Is that the qualification to be a GOAT?

There fixed it for you. Not mentioning the contractual number 2's lapdog drivers (far worse than Bottas), superior machinery in the same team, unlimited testing, custom tyres, fraudulent FIA protection, general thuggery and criminal behaviour on track. Also was pasted by Hakkinen in 98-99 when he cracked and bottled it under pressure much like Vettel in 17-18. So much for being 'untouchable' from 1993-2002.

How did he bottle in 98? the freak incident at Belgium? or the stall at Japan that wasn't his fault? Ferrari were minimum 6 tenths off Mclaren heading into Australia?

The rest seems to be coming from an emotional perspective, not even worth addressing.

[SiLo]

Picking apart some incidents from Hamiltons career is easy, as it is for almost every single driver on the grid that's been driving for 13 years. Has Hamilton made some mistakes? Yes. Have they appeared to be on purpose? No. That's the real differentiator between Hamilton and Schumacher, Schumacher did it on purpose. And whilst Hamilton has made mistakes, generally he is one of the cleanest and best on the grid. The only person I think is better is Kimi, who is always seems to race clean and fair and almost never gets in trouble.

[Caesar.]

Me personally, I think Lewis in his prime is every bit as fit and as fast as Schumacher was in his prime. What sets them apart IMO is that Lewis is generally a very clean racer. Michael has had some really questionable moments. Also, I firmly believe the field of drivers competing in the modern F1 era (last decade) are at a higher level than the field of drivers during Schumacher's era.

For me this is 100% spot on. The pair were probably equal in their prime (maybe we havent seen Lewis prime yet lol) but Schumacher resorted to the dirty tricks multiple times. Then add the drivers they faced during their prime times (Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Montoya, Alonso) vs (Alonso, Massa, Raikkonen, Button, Vettel, Rosberg, Max) I feel the second group as a whole was stronger. Not by much, but stronger. So unless Lewis stays for many years and wrecks his legacy, I can see him as the GOAT.

Are we forgetting when Schumacher went head to head with Senna, holding his own in a traction control-less Benetton for the first third of the 93 season, while continuing to have Senna's measure for the rest of the season.

While I do agree the 1994-2003 grid wasn't as strong, Hill, Jacques, Mika simply were no match for Schumacher when Schumacher had the car. You can only beat who you play. Michael still reigned supreme in the F1 paddock without any championship from 96-99, while the same can't be said about Lewis from 09-13.

Plus, Alonso and Max were non-factors in Lewis' championship winning campaigns.

[Moore77]

Picking apart some incidents from Hamiltons career is easy, as it is for almost every single driver on the grid that's been driving for 13 years. Has Hamilton made some mistakes? Yes. Have they appeared to be on purpose? No. That's the real differentiator between Hamilton and Schumacher, Schumacher did it on purpose. And whilst Hamilton has made mistakes, generally he is one of the cleanest and best on the grid. The only person I think is better is Kimi, who is always seems to race clean and fair and almost never gets in trouble.

Whether it's on purpose or not, is left to anyone's imagination. Neither did Schumacher came out and said it was on purpose, nor did Hamilton. How do you know? Popular opinions are not truth.

[NathanOlder]

Me personally, I think Lewis in his prime is every bit as fit and as fast as Schumacher was in his prime. What sets them apart IMO is that Lewis is generally a very clean racer. Michael has had some really questionable moments. Also, I firmly believe the field of drivers competing in the modern F1 era (last decade) are at a higher level than the field of drivers during Schumacher's era.

For me this is 100% spot on. The pair were probably equal in their prime (maybe we havent seen Lewis prime yet lol) but Schumacher resorted to the dirty tricks multiple times. Then add the drivers they faced during their prime times (Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Montoya, Alonso) vs (Alonso, Massa, Raikkonen, Button, Vettel, Rosberg, Max) I feel the second group as a whole was stronger. Not by much, but stronger. So unless Lewis stays for many years and wrecks his legacy, I can see him as the GOAT.

Are we forgetting when Schumacher went head to head with Senna, holding his own in a traction control-less Benetton for the first third of the 93 season, while continuing to have Senna's measure for the rest of the season.

While I do agree the 1994-2003 grid wasn't as strong, Hill, Jacques, Mika simply were no match for Schumacher when Schumacher had the car. You can only beat who you play. Michael still reigned supreme in the F1 paddock without any championship from 96-99, while the same can't be said about Lewis from 09-13.

Plus, Alonso and Max were non-factors in Lewis' championship winning campaigns.

Alonso and Max both won multiple races in Lewis title winning years, that can hardly be classed as non factors. Senna was a non factor in Schumachers winning years though.
How many titles did Senna prevent Schumacher winning? 0. Alonso probably cost Lewis a title in 08 (not in a bad way, just as Fernando was so strong) Max had a big influence in 2016 races, so could easily be classed as a major factor. So I stick by my original post.

[tangodjango]

a driver that landed in dominant cars, ramping up easy wins and championships without any competition. One line definition of Schumacher's greatness. Is that the qualification to be a GOAT?

There fixed it for you. Not mentioning the contractual number 2's lapdog drivers (far worse than Bottas), superior machinery in the same team, unlimited testing, custom tyres, fraudulent FIA protection, general thuggery and criminal behaviour on track. Also was pasted by Hakkinen in 98-99 when he cracked and bottled it under pressure much like Vettel in 17-18. So much for being 'untouchable' from 1993-2002.

None of that will change the fact that, Hamilton got into easy wins with a lucky decision that landed him into dominant cars with absolutely and best lapdog of all time with which this so called greatness is being achieved.

I do admire your persistence in targeting people defending Hamilton when you exhibit the very same in extolling Schumacher. Why the hatred though. If you think he's never the GOAT fine, why relentlessly go on about dominant cars and 'Lapdog' teamates when MSC had the same thing?

[Just_a_fan]

Look at the mistakes when under pressure.

There were some mistakes in that video, some even under pressure, but there were also a number of mechanical failures (the second crash in that video was a tyre failure, for example), as well as other people hitting him. So an interesting video but a poor example if it was supposed to show lots of pressure-related mistakes.

Not sure anyone has said that Hamilton hasn't had self-induced failures, be they pressure or stupidity, but I'm not aware of him ever deliberately hitting another car or parking his car to prevent others from qualifying. Schumacher, Rosberg and Vettel have all done some/all of those things, however.

[Phil]

The thing that makes me want to shy away from placing Hamilton ahead of Schumacher is that I feel Lewis was beatable, and that there is larger gap between his best and worst seasons. Michael from mid 1993 to 2002 was consistently untouchable, while Lewis had off seasons in 2011 and 2013, while also losing the championship in the quickest car.

Schumacher was very beatable in 2010-2012. Lewis hasn't been that bad at all. You have to count the whole career in F1, not just pick and choose. In my opinion, Lewis can't be the GOAT until he retires for good as a driver in F1. You have to be judged on his whole career. Schumacher damaged his greatness by coming back. It was his call, he was probably warned against it. Coming back usually damages your legacy.

Tbh, i don't really consider Michael's second career, maybe that's my bias kicking in, and yes, he was beatable. And yes, these goat debates are all relative because we all have different frameworks as what constitutes as the goat.

It's a stupid argument, the GOAT one. Schumacher, as any competitor before or after him, was as good as he needed to be. No point in comparing him to different drivers of different eras. Hamilton is as good as he needs to be in his generation.

I also think that perception is very flawed, because how good one is or is perceived, depends on his relative competition. Hamilton's achievements can only be weighed against his directest competitors. That being Alonso, Kovaleinen, Button, Rosberg and Bottas. While many might argue Bottas isn't the fiercest competitor, there's really no argument that Hamilton within his career as faced very tough competition inside his very own team in Button, Rosberg and Alonso and officially no number 1 contract or benefits.

Schumacher, as great as his records may be, well, I don't really think he had much competition inside his own team nor did he race for a team that regards equality within the team very high. In fact, Michaels period of dominance is very much the defacto benchmark of how a team could have been built around a driver and the trio of Brawn, Todt and Michael. Ferrari, unfortunately for every driver that has driven for them, has shown their willingness to sabotage the 2nd driver for their first far too many times.

Michaels "dominance" that you mention simply shows his performance in his vacuum that the team built for him. Sure, from the competitors that raced him during that time, he was by far the most consistent, in also the most stable environment. I think it's why many still regard the likes of Senna or others to be "greater", except for the numbers.

Then there is also the point that F1 drivers have become way more competitive in recent years than it ever has been. To be frank; when Michael came back after retirement, I don't believe for a second it was "age" playing its part. He was just racing cars of a different era (with different characteristics and very different tires) in a way more competitive field and no longer in a car and team (with unlimited testing) built around his sole needs. Times have changed. To be fair, I don't think he performed bad, certainly his race craft was a sight to behold (not being sarcastic), but him losing out to Rosberg isn't a detriment to his own ability but more complement to Rosbergs. Rosberg was fast.

He beat Hamilton multiple times in qualifying and across an entire season too in numbers (to some degree, Hamilton had a few issues with brakes etc), but to come close to someone who is widely regarded as one of the very best qualifiers is nothing short of astonishing IMO

[Caesar.]

For me this is 100% spot on. The pair were probably equal in their prime (maybe we havent seen Lewis prime yet lol) but Schumacher resorted to the dirty tricks multiple times. Then add the drivers they faced during their prime times (Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Montoya, Alonso) vs (Alonso, Massa, Raikkonen, Button, Vettel, Rosberg, Max) I feel the second group as a whole was stronger. Not by much, but stronger. So unless Lewis stays for many years and wrecks his legacy, I can see him as the GOAT.

Are we forgetting when Schumacher went head to head with Senna, holding his own in a traction control-less Benetton for the first third of the 93 season, while continuing to have Senna's measure for the rest of the season.

While I do agree the 1994-2003 grid wasn't as strong, Hill, Jacques, Mika simply were no match for Schumacher when Schumacher had the car. You can only beat who you play. Michael still reigned supreme in the F1 paddock without any championship from 96-99, while the same can't be said about Lewis from 09-13.

Plus, Alonso and Max were non-factors in Lewis' championship winning campaigns.

Alonso and Max both won multiple races in Lewis title winning years, that can hardly be classed as non factors. Senna was a non factor in Schumachers winning years though.
How many titles did Senna prevent Schumacher winning? 0. Alonso probably cost Lewis a title in 08 (not in a bad way, just as Fernando was so strong) Max had a big influence in 2016 races, so could easily be classed as a major factor. So I stick by my original post.

I'll rephrase myself. Non-factor seems like a bad description. Alonso and Max were not in championship contention in any of Lewis' 6 championships.