How good were D. Hill and J. Villeneuve?

[henners88]

The problem is that Williams lost just about everything after 1997. The Newey cars were so well designed, even people like Hill and Villeneuve could win in them. Suddenly Newey was gone, the works engine, too and I doubt Winfield payed as much as Rothmans. There was a resurgence with BMW, but even then it was more the engine and the Michelin advantage that saved them. In engineering terms they never recovered from Newey's departure.
I think that is a disrespectful comment. Hill and Villeneuve may not be on a plain with the greats of the sport but they were still world class drivers. A driver has to be capable of extracting the potential and keeping his head under pressure in order to win a WDC and there are many examples of drivers who have driven championship capable cars but failed to win under pressure.

[BDunnell]

I think that is a disrespectful comment. Hill and Villeneuve may not be on a plain with the greats of the sport but they were still world class drivers. A driver has to be capable of extracting the potential and keeping his head under pressure in order to win a WDC and there are many examples of drivers who have driven championship capable cars but failed to win under pressure.

Including some outstanding drivers, such as another Williams pedaller — Carlos Reutemann.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I think that is a disrespectful comment. Hill and Villeneuve may not be on a plain with the greats of the sport but they were still world class drivers. A driver has to be capable of extracting the potential and keeping his head under pressure in order to win a WDC and there are many examples of drivers who have driven championship capable cars but failed to win under pressure.

Sorry, but Hill couldn't secure the WDC in 1994 in the best car of the field. He was beaten by Schumacher despite the chin being banned for two races and disqualified from a third and he still was in a position where a simple punt into the armco was enough to win the title. And even in his championship year he was beaten three times by Schumacher in a downright ridiculous Ferrari. Hill had no business even being mentioned in the same sentence as his father. What Villeneuve was worth, we saw once he was out of that all-conquering Williams. Even Vettel has a win in a Torro Rosso before he steam-rolled the field in the Red Bull. Villeneuve has bloody nothing. Both Hill and Villeneuve are the most ridiculous world champions ever. Schumacher had taken himself out of contention by going to a desolate Ferrari, McLaren was nowhere . Else those two would never have even gotten close to a trophy.

[zako85]

Sorry, but Hill couldn't secure the WDC in 1994 in the best car of the field. He was beaten by Schumacher despite the chin being banned for two races and disqualified from a third and he still was in a position where a simple punt into the armco was enough to win the title.

I won't argue how great or bad was Hill here, but in my personal opinion, Williams in 1994 was far from best. Schumacher's Benetton car was the faster car, however illegal it may have been. Schumacher won most races very comfortably and without being challenged a lot. By mid-season he won 6 out of 8 races. If Schumacher was not disqualified from two races and then banned from two additional races, he would have wrapped up the title pretty early in the season and it would have gone in the books as one of the seasons with a stronger single car domination.

[henners88]

Sorry, but Hill couldn't secure the WDC in 1994 in the best car of the field. He was beaten by Schumacher despite the chin being banned for two races and disqualified from a third and he still was in a position where a simple punt into the armco was enough to win the title. And even in his championship year he was beaten three times by Schumacher in a downright ridiculous Ferrari. Hill had no business even being mentioned in the same sentence as his father. What Villeneuve was worth, we saw once he was out of that all-conquering Williams. Even Vettel has a win in a Torro Rosso before he steam-rolled the field in the Red Bull. Villeneuve has bloody nothing. Both Hill and Villeneuve are the most ridiculous world champions ever. Schumacher had taken himself out of contention by going to a desolate Ferrari, McLaren was nowhere . Else those two would never have even gotten close to a trophy.
What a load of old blinkered tripe. I'm not even going to bother wasting any more time. :down:

[Ranger]

Sorry, but Hill couldn't secure the WDC in 1994 in the best car of the field.

Best car in the field that wasn't blatantly cheating.

By most accounts it was largely thanks to Damon Hill's testing work that the car was driveable. The car was highly unstable in the first part of the season - as seen by Senna's spin in Brazil.

He was also much better than Coulthard and Mansell, despite the latter being paid 3 times as much as Hill's annual salary per race.


He was beaten by Schumacher despite the chin being banned for two races and disqualified from a third and he still was in a position where a simple punt into the armco was enough to win the title.

First of all Schumacher was more talented than Hill - no arguments there.

Hill also had some brilliant races. Suzuka 1994 was one of the finest wins under pressure you will ever see.

The countless times that Williams had extremely poor or even completely unnecessary pit-stops are overlooked by mostly everyone.


And even in his championship year he was beaten three times by Schumacher in a downright ridiculous Ferrari.

Far from ridiculous. But Schumacher was excellent that season.


Hill had no business even being mentioned in the same sentence as his father.

I lost brain cells reading this sentence.


What Villeneuve was worth, we saw once he was out of that all-conquering Williams. Even Vettel has a win in a Torro Rosso before he steam-rolled the field in the Red Bull. Villeneuve has bloody nothing. Both Hill and Villeneuve are the most ridiculous world champions ever. Schumacher had taken himself out of contention by going to a desolate Ferrari, McLaren was nowhere . Else those two would never have even gotten close to a trophy.

Driver wins championship in the best car. Who would have thought??

Just because Schumacher was the most talented of them does not mean the other drivers were 'ridiculous' and did not deserve to win the titles they did.

Mika Hakkinen's first two wins were absolute gifts. He wouldn't have won the title without the fastest car either. His 1999 season was about equal with Damon Hill's 1995. He got beaten by Coulthard in all but one race they both finished in 2001. Does that make him ridiculous too?

Villeneuve's later career was pretty average but at no point did he have a front-running car beyond 1997.

As for the useless Monza comparison, Bourdais qualified fourth for that race and had his clutch fail on the SC start, losing a lap. He later set the second fastest lap of the race. Excellent as that win was, it was a front-running car that weekend. The fact that Massa, Kubica, Hamilton and Raikkonen started well down the field helped too.

[jens]

I remember watching races at the time and to me it often sounds unfair, when it is claimed that Villeneuve "showed nothing" once he was out of a top car. In my view his seasons in 1999-2000 in the BAR were absolutely fabulous. During that time a strong argument would have been made that JV was among the Top3-4 drivers on the grid. Yes, he scored zero points in 1999, but only because the car had atrocious reliability. Worse than any other car I can remember. However, JV was often challenging for points before retirements.

From 2001 he started going downhill a bit, struggling against Panis. But in his prime Villeneuve was very competitive.

[Don Capps]

Sorry, but Hill couldn't secure the WDC in 1994 in the best car of the field. He was beaten by Schumacher despite the chin being banned for two races and disqualified from a third and he still was in a position where a simple punt into the armco was enough to win the title. And even in his championship year he was beaten three times by Schumacher in a downright ridiculous Ferrari. Hill had no business even being mentioned in the same sentence as his father. What Villeneuve was worth, we saw once he was out of that all-conquering Williams. Even Vettel has a win in a Torro Rosso before he steam-rolled the field in the Red Bull. Villeneuve has bloody nothing. Both Hill and Villeneuve are the most ridiculous world champions ever. Schumacher had taken himself out of contention by going to a desolate Ferrari, McLaren was nowhere . Else those two would never have even gotten close to a trophy.

Please, we beg of you to please not hold back and let us know how you really and truly feel about Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve!

[D28]

... Villeneuve has bloody nothing. Both Hill and Villeneuve are the most ridiculous world champions ever.

Ridiculous compared to whom Mike Hawthorn, James Hunt, Keke Rosberg?
I would not label any WC ridiculous, the rules are well known at the outset and there is no asterisk saying the winner had a vastly superior car.
JV accomplishments before he ever got to F1 are impressive enough, Indy winner and CART champion, when CART really could be mentioned in the same breath as F1.
He is in stellar company as winner of 2 of the 3 Graham Hill Triple events (WC, Indy500, Le Mans) He was the last man with a realistic chance at achieving this, and though he didn't I can't see anyone else doing so either.

[SGWilko]

Sorry, but Hill couldn't secure the WDC in 1994 in the best car of the field.

That's right - the car that the undoubted best driver of the moment - Senna - was losing to Michael in.......

Then the whole team has the upheaval of Senna's death, the legal aspects etc.

Not to mention the fuel flow irregularities, option 13, launch etc that the Benetton had..........

[DexDexter]

Ridiculous compared to whom Mike Hawthorn, James Hunt, Keke Rosberg?
I would not label any WC ridiculous, the rules are well known at the outset and there is no asterisk saying the winner had a vastly superior car.
JV accomplishments before he ever got to F1 are impressive enough, Indy winner and CART champion, when CART really could be mentioned in the same breath as F1.
He is in stellar company as winner of 2 of the 3 Graham Hill Triple events (WC, Indy500, Le Mans) He was the last man with a realistic chance at achieving this, and though he didn't I can't see anyone else doing so either.

Keke may have won one only one race in his WDC season but he was a very good driver and had balls. Won the Monaco GP 1983 with slick tires while everyone else was on wets.

Hill on the other hand never beat a team mate with a proven pedigree (same goes for Villeneuve). Hill had his moments though, Hungary 1997 was probably his greatest drive - in an Arrows.

The fact that Hill & Villeneuve never drove against great drivers in the same team is probably the reason many people don't held them in high regard.

[BDunnell]

The fact that Hill & Villeneuve never drove against great drivers in the same team is probably the reason many people don't held them in high regard.

Michael Schumacher never drove against a great driver in the same team, either.

[truefan72]

Michael Schumacher never drove against a great driver in the same team, either.

or even a drvier teammate allowed to compete against him
I think he also did nothing for irvine in japan to help irvine win the title

he also made sure that rubens was nt allowed to challenge him for race wins either.
It was a dark chapter in the sporting ethics of F1

also lets not forget that Ferrari had prety much a tire company providing them exclusive tires, aprivate track for unlimited testing, the FIArrari cabal, and some highly speculative engineering opn the car.
Then there was schumi, who although is the greatest imo was alsoone of the dirtiest and coldest drivers out there. with a good number of reprehensible actions in his resume.

[wedge]

That's right - the car that the undoubted best driver of the moment - Senna - was losing to Michael in.......

Then the whole team has the upheaval of Senna's death, the legal aspects etc.

Not to mention the fuel flow irregularities, option 13, launch etc that the Benetton had..........

Not to mention Schumi being disqualified from 4 races - inept officiating at the British GP gifted Hill the win and championship points tally.

The Benetton was deemed legal - despite Max Mosley being at war with Flavio Briatore.

[SGWilko]

Not to mention Schumi being disqualified from 4 races - inept officiating at the British GP gifted Hill the win and championship points tally.

The Benetton was deemed legal - despite Max Mosley being at war with Flavio Briatore.

Well, the liiegal removal of a filter from the fuelling rig, with the sole aim of shortening fuel stops by increasing flow, could have killed not only Verstappen, but a number of mechanics......

[SGWilko]

The Benetton was deemed legal - despite Max Mosley being at war with Flavio Briatore.

History has proved Max's instinct on Flavio to be correct in respect of honesty......

[jens]

Created a new thread, because similarly to the Vettel discussion, it seems too juicy and interesting to people to just delete or stop the whole debate altogether.



Keke may have won one only one race in his WDC season but he was a very good driver and had balls. Won the Monaco GP 1983 with slick tires while everyone else was on wets.

Hill on the other hand never beat a team mate with a proven pedigree (same goes for Villeneuve). Hill had his moments though, Hungary 1997 was probably his greatest drive - in an Arrows.

The fact that Hill & Villeneuve never drove against great drivers in the same team is probably the reason many people don't held them in high regard.

As mentioned, Schumacher and certainly many other drivers didn't drive alongside a "great" either. Then again the term "great" is subjective. For instance Frentzen was considered to be a top talent before 1997 driving alongside Villeneuve. And in 1999 Frentzen certainly was a top driver. In addition to that Hill actually did drive alongside a great driver, two of them actually - Prost and Mansell. Though both of them were past their prime, especially Mansell. But Hill looked good alongside Prost in 1993. I don't know, what it was - maybe all those electronic aids suited him and he could give Prost a run for his money, but in my book 1993 is one of Hill's best seasons.

[pino]

Moved to Motorsport History, sorry :)

[wedge]

I think that is a disrespectful comment. Hill and Villeneuve may not be on a plain with the greats of the sport but they were still world class drivers. A driver has to be capable of extracting the potential and keeping his head under pressure in order to win a WDC and there are many examples of drivers who have driven championship capable cars but failed to win under pressure.

They were drivers of a high calibre but certainly not greats, right time and right moment - bit like Jenson/Brawn GP.

It's worth remembering David Coulthard was immediately called upon as number 2 driver. He was highly regarded and eventually being wanted by McLaren but at Williams he looked out of his depth at times (eg. famously crashed into Adelaide's pit entry), was rarely on the podium and only secured one win despite having the best car.


Well, the liiegal removal of a filter from the fuelling rig, with the sole aim of shortening fuel stops by increasing flow, could have killed not only Verstappen, but a number of mechanics......

Benetton blamed it on a rogue employee. Whether you believe it or not is down to one's opinion.

We've seen a number of accidents in the refuelling but none as spectacular as the 1994 German GP.

I'm not condoning Benetton but motor racing and sport is about pushing the limits to the point of cheating and compromising safety, teams trying to stay ahead of the rule makers; every car is illegal, the officials aren't looking hard enough.

If you take the 2011 Belgian GP the teams were advised not to go beyond x amount of camber yet RBR still pushed the limits, poo poo-ed and cried.

The point is safety can be a strange concept in motor racing.


History has proved Max's instinct on Flavio to be correct in respect of honesty......

Arguably Max abused his position in his vendetta.

Schumacher's points were erased from that season's British GP yet the blame lay firmly at the officials - including Charlie Whiting; Flavio won compensation and had his ban overturned after the Singapore/Piquet scandal.

Yet McLaren were allowed to compete for the WDC after systematic cheating.

[wedge]

A good read on JV's time at BAR F1 Rejects - Who Barred Jacques? A Controversial Opinion (http://www.f1rejects.com/centrale/villeneuve/index.html)


Sorry, but Hill couldn't secure the WDC in 1994 in the best car of the field. He was beaten by Schumacher despite the chin being banned for two races and disqualified from a third and he still was in a position where a simple punt into the armco was enough to win the title. And even in his championship year he was beaten three times by Schumacher in a downright ridiculous Ferrari. Hill had no business even being mentioned in the same sentence as his father. What Villeneuve was worth, we saw once he was out of that all-conquering Williams. Even Vettel has a win in a Torro Rosso before he steam-rolled the field in the Red Bull. Villeneuve has bloody nothing. Both Hill and Villeneuve are the most ridiculous world champions ever. Schumacher had taken himself out of contention by going to a desolate Ferrari, McLaren was nowhere . Else those two would never have even gotten close to a trophy.

Much could be said the same of Vettel.

And oh, BTW, Hill steam rolled the field at the 1997 Hungarian GP. In an Arrows.

1994 - Williams started off with an ill handling car. I have more contention for 1995. Hill was a donkey that year and should have won the WDC.

[SGWilko]

Benetton blamed it on a rogue employee.

Imagine that?

[steveaki13]

I think both were good drivers that found themselves in great cars, like Button.

There are levels of driver for me.

Legends - Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, Stewart, Clark and alike

Greats - Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Mansell

Good - Hill, Villeneuve, Button,

That sort of thing for me.

They were decent drivers who given the car could do the job.

[rjbetty]

An interesting topic this; I actually wanted to start a thread about this a while back.

There are some very interesting and valid opinions here to consider from both sides. Like most of us (I hope) I only want the truth and will be happy to change my mind, but right now my feelings are that Damon in particular was nowhere in the same league as Schumacher, despite the common perception at the time that they were on the same planet.

I actually think David Coulthard looked extremely impressive in 1995. Five pole positions against Damon's 7, and only 8-9 down in qualifying, and 20pts off him in the WDC. This is really not bad for a driver in his first full season. A great deal of wins were lost for DC thru unreliability etc.

Damon was soundly beaten by Frenten, R.Schumacher, and too often by Pedro Dini. Is what I'm saying unacceptable or is this the truth. Though it does have to be said he was advancing in years in F1 terms.

But I always disliked his attitude that he expected to be well paid and felt entitled to a top car. He turned down a McLaren drive for a fat Jordan salary. I need a good reason to respect that and I can't currently see one. And then there's the team orders thing at Spa 98. Just comes across as a manipulator in that youtube video of the radio transmissions, really only caring for his own bacon. That's how it looks.

I feel if drivers want to be well paid, they need to drive like a champion.

He did put in SOME great drives. I don't think Damon was really only a couple of tenths off Schumacher's pace in '94. I think much of that was the car, at least in qualifying.

As for Villeneuve, I was actually thinking today about how he actually was very good in 98-2000, qualifying in the top 3 on the low downforce tracks and challenging McLarens. He beat Frenten, but not as much as Trulli did. But then Heidfeld beat HHF too in 2003 (not on points), and Heidfeld beat JV himself in 2006, yet Jacques rated his season as a good one (till he ran scared at Kubica's speed)

Seems wrong that Kubica only has one win, while these two have 32 combined...

HILL SUMMARY (by season)
1992: Qualified twice in a crapham (sorry), but slightly beaten by more experiences van de Poele (who is actually acknowledged as a real good driver)
1993: Beat Schumacher(!) though had a substantial car advantage (surprise!). Even so, compared very well with Prost in races, though Alain had a year out and wasn't so young. He was also newer to the team than Damon was. Hill was robbed of several wins though. Only 3pts off Senna.
1994: Led the team, took his opportunities, winning ALL 4 races that Schumacher was disqualified from. Car advantage debatable but I can't believe he finished 1pt behind in an inferior car. You serious (question mark - sorry, my question mark and letter to the left of x aren't working)
1995: admittedly poor. DC pretty much equal despite less experience.
1996: Drove better though had rookie team-mate and bigger car advantage. Still took him till the last race to sew it up!!! Though 36 is maybe not peak age...
1997: Should have done better overall. Though Tom Walkinshaw signed him with promises but turned out to be full of it, as a WDC with massive cheque, Damon could have put more effort in. Dini a little too close, though his Hungary drive was great I think, Bridgestone or not (where was Pedro). His Jerex quali was brilliant too, 4th on the grid +0.05 off and would have got pole if not blocked in quali.
1998: Outqualified 10-6 by Ralf. Beat him in the points due to the Spa team orders. But Hill did start 3rd in that race.
1999: I'm sorry, just pathetic. I don't buy his fans excusing his season. His first 3 races weren't that bad. I think what really did it for him was realiing the truththat Frank Williams was right, that Frenten was simply better and he couldn't hack it. Is this true. Because that's when his performance really went off the rails. He was at his most down at Magny-Cours where (because) Frenten won.

Overall: Not bad, but not that great

I agree totally with StekeAvi above, except for Button, who I would put between the Great and the Good in a "Very Good" class.

[rjbetty]

Having said all that, I got a message a while back which made me consider some more stuff. I'll post some thoughts from another angle if I get time.

[Robinho]

They were both good enough to win titles in a very good car. That makes them well ahead of the curve for F1 drivers, exceptional in terms of general motorsport competitors and super human compared with the rest of us.

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

[steveaki13]

They were both good enough to win titles in a very good car. That makes them well ahead of the curve for F1 drivers, exceptional in terms of general motorsport competitors and super human compared with the rest of us.

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

This


People seem to dismiss these titles as though they are a nothing achievement.

Its still an incredible thing to win a F1 title.

[rjbetty]

They were both good enough to win titles in a very good car. That makes them well ahead of the curve for F1 drivers, exceptional in terms of general motorsport competitors and super human compared with the rest of us.

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited.

Sent from North Korea using the dark network

I think you're right guys, but the issue I have is that you can say the same for another 1,000 or so drivers. David Coulthard probably could have taken the title quite easily in their situation.

Out of the 1996 grid I WOULD have also included Jean Alesi, though I can imagine he would find a way to mess it up. Gerhard Berger on decent form could surely have too. Also, Frentzen had the TALENT I think (but had problems accessing it)

DRIVERS IN 1996 FIELD who in their career were also good enough to win the title (IMO)
Michael Schumacher
Mika Hakkinen
Gerhard Berger (but not THAT season!)
Rubens Barrichello (now there's an underrated driver IMO)
David Coulthard
Jacques Villeneuve
Giancarlo Fisichella (on talent, like Alesi and Frentzen)
Damon Hill
Jean Alesi
Heinz-Harald Frentzen
Eddie Irvine came close too

That's half the regular field. Add in Ralf Schumacher and Jarno Trulli (again on talent in a car he likes) from the following year, and suddenly, though Hill and Villeneuve were very good drivers (have to be to score 33 combined wins in any case), but they were just two of many very good drivers.

The 1996 field was quite weak I think, so there would be many more drivers who could have won he title in those guys shoes. That's the issue.



But in Damon's defence, possibly as few as 3 drivers in the 1996 field on their actual 1996 form might have been ready in themselves to mount a title winning campaign that year, and he was one of them.

[wedge]

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited

Yes, winning a championship is an achievement but there has to be a deep, deep sense of satisfaction of achievement from tested to the limit of your abilities against the very, very best opponents in the 'right' circumstances

Personally, I'd rather lose to Schumi than win a WDC because I had a better car.

[henners88]

It's all about having the best all round package. The best car doesn't always mean you'll win the championship, as Rubens and Heikki have found in the past. Hill didn't win because he had the best car, he won because he had the best package and was able to keep his nerve and drive it to victory. He was quite old coming into the sport and was faced against a brilliant driver in his prime. I say he did a damn fine job and was a fully deserving World Champion.

[BDunnell]

Yes, winning a championship is an achievement but there has to be a deep, deep sense of satisfaction of achievement from tested to the limit of your abilities against the very, very best opponents in the 'right' circumstances

Personally, I'd rather lose to Schumi than win a WDC because I had a better car.

There might equally be much satisfaction to be derived from reaching a level or attaining something that, to some extent, transcends one's own natural abilities.

[D-Type]

The "Well, he had the best car" type of arguments don't mean anything to me. Team managers ' as a breed' are not stupid - they employ the best drivers they can. So, to get in the driving seat of the 'best' car a driver must be more than good. And he must be capable of getting the best out of the car.

[BDunnell]

The "Well, he had the best car" type of arguments don't mean anything to me. Team managers ' as a breed' are not stupid - they employ the best drivers they can. So, to get in the driving seat of the 'best' car a driver must be more than good. And he must be capable of getting the best out of the car.

Those arguments do have some force, I think, if not as much as some suggest. Hill is a bit of an odd case given the extent to which we know Williams didn't really want him. 'Best driver they could employ under the circumstances until they could get rid of him', perhaps. And any success in motorsport has always to be set against the context of the opposition when one comes to analyse it. In that respect, 1996 was far from being a vintage year. This is not to do down Hill's achievement in becoming world champion, which remains considerable. Rather, I think it's a statement of fact.

[wedge]

Hill has openly acknowledged that he was not on the same level as Schumi. Japan 94 he admits to driving at a higher level than was normal and on that day he bested Schumi fair and square so personally I would rank that as highest achievement and satisfaction derived.

Brundle has admitted he did not get the best out of himself in F1. He may have won Le Mans but sportscars generally had drivers of similar ability (for sake of argument midfielders in F1) but Brundle fondly looks back on his F3 days with his epic battle with Senna. He too admits the rivalry pushed him to a higher level (arguably not since regained) - to the point that it pushed Senna to the edge and crashing into Brundle at Oulton Park and Snetterton.

[henners88]

I'm yet to see anybody claim Hill was on the same level as Schumacher too.

[rjbetty]

Hi, just dropping in before going to work. :)

To be fair to Damon, he was in his own words, at "a distinct disadvantage" having not done years of karting from infancy. I have to say I fully believe him. And only in F1 is 36 not young, the age at which he won the title. It's known that most drivers peak in their early thirties, at which time Hill had only just entered F1.

I actually admire Vitaly Petrov for having performed at the level he did in F1 having only started racing very late, and done no karting. Only a few years in "road car" championships and single seaters before F1, then he gets a podium in less than the best car, outperforming Nick Heidfeld, Bruno Senna and to some extent Heikki Kovalainen, even outqualifying Robert Kubica, who was having the season of his life, in his rookie year. His masterful driving in Abu Dhabi 2010 was one of the reasons DRS was introduced IIRC.

[vhatever]

They were both good enough to win titles in a very good car. That makes them well ahead of the curve for F1 drivers, exceptional in terms of general motorsport competitors and super human compared with the rest of us.

They might not be amongst the absolute greats, but its too easy dismiss their acheivements without considering the rarified atmosphere they inhabited

Sent from North Korea using the dark network


To paraphrase mansell, after reflecting on winning the WDC: "you could have strapped a chimpanzee in that car and won".

[D28]

To paraphrase mansell, after reflecting on winning the WDC: "you could have strapped a chimpanzee in that car and won".

H-H Frenzen was far from a Chimp, but in a team which allowed its drivers to race, Villeneuve almost doubled Frenzen's points, 81-42 in 1997.
He also scored 7 wins to Frenzen's 1. This cannot simply be dismissed, remember Frenzen finished 2nd in the title chase.
The WC does not come with an asterisk, "He had a vastly superior car", likewise JM Fangio in 1954. No I am not suggesting JV can in any way be compared with JMF, just that they both deservedly won the WDC.

[Rollo]

And even in his championship year he was beaten three times by Schumacher in a downright ridiculous Ferrari. Hill had no business even being mentioned in the same sentence as his father. What Villeneuve was worth, we saw once he was out of that all-conquering Williams.

By inference, any driver who wins the championship with the best car in the field, doesn't deserve to be world champion?
Jim Clark in '63 and '65, McLaren in '88, Mansell in '92, Schumacher in '01, '02 and '04 and Button in '09 are also non-deserving?

[D28]

By inference, any driver who wins the championship with the best car in the field, doesn't deserve to be world champion?
Jim Clark in '63 and '65, McLaren in '88, Mansell in '92, Schumacher in '01, '02 and '04 and Button in '09 are also non-deserving?

That would be Senna in 88, but I agree completely with your point. Once we start down the "best car" road, all championships become open to criticism.
Consider Denis Hulme, a good F1 pilot but seldom mentioned with greats, if anyone enjoyed a superior, reliable car it was he. Yet, I seldom hear anyone make the Hill- Villeneuve argument against him. I also would not denigrate his driving talent, as I saw lots of evidence of his talent in Can-Am cars. And there's the rub, as his McLaren rides there were not exactly in inferior equipment.

The first priority of any aspiring WC is to get himself into the best car in the first place. There are enough example of drivers who didn't, Gurney, Amon come to mind, so a discussion about X not deserving the title, becomes pointless after awhile.

[webberf1]

Can't say much about Hill as he was retiring just as I was getting into F1. But JV was a damn good driver. When I started watching I knew absolutely nothing about his '96, '97 or Indy Car successes but I could instantly tell that he was an excellent driver taking a badly performing BAR Honda to higher places than it deserved to be.

DJ byte at his hyperbolic best yet again.

[henners88]

I thoroughly enjoyed the 1996 season. Villeneuve was new on the scene and it was exciting to see the Williams pair fighting it out for me. I thought JV adapted to F1 very well and being given the best car doesn't always mean the driver will reach their potential. We've had many drivers come from single seater categories in America and not hit the ground running. Villeneuve took pole in his debut race and finished second. Hill was a likeable character and for me it was justice to see him win the WDC after the events of two years previous. It might not be the toughest fought championship in history, but it was a good year and the best driver package won the championship. That can't be taken away from Hill and nobody has tried to say he was ever better than Schumacher.

[airshifter]

By inference, any driver who wins the championship with the best car in the field, doesn't deserve to be world champion?
Jim Clark in '63 and '65, McLaren in '88, Mansell in '92, Schumacher in '01, '02 and '04 and Button in '09 are also non-deserving?

Even most drivers admit the large portion of a championship is the car, but the problem is even with a dominant car you can really only compare to a team mate IMO. Without driving the competitors car even the drivers don't know who has the best.... it's somewhat assumed really.

But for the most part, drivers earn a seat in a good or great car. So even if that car is dominant in any season them being in it is a result of previous performance, and if that gives them the advantage of a better car, so be it.

If the cars were ever really that far apart in performance we would always be seeing new names winning WDCs. A manufacturer could pay very little or even find a pay driver to win in a car that dominant.

[wedge]

By inference, any driver who wins the championship with the best car in the field, doesn't deserve to be world champion?
Jim Clark in '63 and '65, McLaren in '88, Mansell in '92, Schumacher in '01, '02 and '04 and Button in '09 are also non-deserving?

You have to put things in context as well having the ability to consistantly drive at a very high level.

Clark drove for Lotus which were quick but fragile and was regarded as head and shoulders above his peers and by his peers.

Senna was highly rated and went on to become an all time great.

Mansell showed his worth in '86 and his fierce rivalry with Piquet was much more formidabke than DH and JV.

By the turn of this century Schumi was already established the man to beat.

Button had a car advantage for the first half of '09 and then struggled to extract performance compared to Barrichello. Hamilton was arguably the quicker driver at McLaren - JB himself has mentioned how quick Hamilton was.

[steveaki13]

Any idea that any World Champion doesnt deserve their title in a superior car is laughable.

Afterall each team has two cars and thus you have beaten another decent driver in most cases. Also as pointed out already a Title is a title and whether you win everyrace in the best car or scrape a 1 point win in a dog of a car. It is not worth anymore.

It is beyond me how anyone could try to devalue a Championship. I mean its a F1 title. End of.

[wedge]

Any idea that any World Champion doesnt deserve their title in a superior car is laughable.

Afterall each team has two cars and thus you have beaten another decent driver in most cases. Also as pointed out already a Title is a title and whether you win everyrace in the best car or scrape a 1 point win in a dog of a car. It is not worth anymore.

It is beyond me how anyone could try to devalue a Championship. I mean its a F1 title. End of.

No, I am not trying to devalue it at all. WDC is an achievement but it doesn't necessarily mean you are the out and out best driver ie. Hill is a WDC but is he equal or better than Schumi? No.

[Garry Walker]

By inference, any driver who wins the championship with the best car in the field, doesn't deserve to be world champion?
Jim Clark in '63 and '65, McLaren in '88, Mansell in '92, Schumacher in '01, '02 and '04 and Button in '09 are also non-deserving?
Button is the last world champion in F1 who won the title in the not-best car of the season.

As for Hill and Villeneuve, they were just regular drivers. Pretty good, but not great. Sure they were better than most of the grid, but they were not great drivers and in equal cars they were very beatable as history often showed. They only were able to win due to Newey cars. Pretty much like the current world champion really.

[D28]

Sure they were better than most of the grid, but they were not great drivers and in equal cars they were very beatable as history often showed. They only were able to win due to Newey cars.

True enough as far as F1 is concerned, but if we expand the discussion as allowed on the History forum, JV did not always enjoy a distinct equipment advantage. In his CART champion year, 1995, he had the right package, as opposed to the best package. 6 other teams had similar Reynard-Ford equipment yet JV did most of the winning; 4 wins to 2 for Robbie Gordon the other Reynard-Ford winner. His real competition came from the Penske team with the exclusive Penske Ilmore-Mercedes package, 4 wins for Al Unser Jr.
JV was a winner in every N A series regardless of equipment, that's what interested Frank Williams and Patrick Head in the first place.

[vhatever]

Button is the last world champion in F1 who won the title in the not-best car of the season.

LOL. You should start a comedy routine and post it on youtube or something. Just act normal and talk into the camera. Show that profound "special" intellect your mum is always bragging about of yours.

[Garry Walker]

True enough as far as F1 is concerned, but if we expand the discussion as allowed on the History forum, JV did not always enjoy a distinct equipment advantage. In his CART champion year, 1995, he had the right package, as opposed to the best package. 6 other teams had similar Reynard-Ford equipment yet JV did most of the winning; 4 wins to 2 for Robbie Gordon the other Reynard-Ford winner. His real competition came from the Penske team with the exclusive Penske Ilmore-Mercedes package, 4 wins for Al Unser Jr.
JV was a winner in every N A series regardless of equipment, that's what interested Frank Williams and Patrick Head in the first place.
While that is true, the reality is that the competition for example in IndyCar in 1995 was very weak. Let's look at who his rivals were - Al Unser, Bobby Rahal (over 40 years old), Michael Andretti (F1 failure), Paul Tracy. Heck, even Emerson Fittipaldi won a race that season and he was 50 years old. So his rivals were weak drivers who might have done well in that series, but would never have amounted to anything much in F1 (let's forget Fittipaldi being a 2X WDC, that was 20 years before 1995). Mansell showed in 1993 how much better than the IndyCar guys he was already in his first season.


LOL. You should start a comedy routine and post it on youtube or something. Just act normal and talk into the camera. Show that profound "special" intellect your mum is always bragging about of yours.
If you attack someone, you really should formulate your sentences better. I award you no points for the failed attempt at insulting me, but you can always try again. Imagine it is like the 4th grade for you, if you try it 3-4 times, maybe you will get it right one day.

[vhatever]

If you attack someone, you really should formulate your sentences better. I award you no points for the failed attempt at insulting me, but you can always try again. Imagine it is like the 4th grade for you, if you try it 3-4 times, maybe you will get it right one day.


There is no need to attack someone who says the daft things you say, like button having a car a second faster than the rest of the grid is somehow not the best car. He lost during the second part of the season because people started to catch up and his lack of ability caught up with him, and 90 year old rubens started to school him.

[Garry Walker]

There is no need to attack someone who says the daft things you say, like button having a car a second faster than the rest of the grid is somehow not the best car. He lost during the second part of the season because people started to catch up and his lack of ability caught up with him, and 90 year old rubens started to school him.

I think your credibility ended right when you said Button had a car that was one second per lap faster than the rest of the grid. There were no such races in 2009 for Brawn GP, although there was one for Red Bull. Over the season the Red Bull was a faster car, but the perfect season start for Button helped him to win the title, whereas the RB guys were making errors (their "precious" crashed out of 3 GPs and Webber was Webber, besides that he broke his leg before the season).

[vhatever]

I think your credibility ended right

Your credibility never began. You make the mistake in thinking that no one on planet earth ever watched 2009, when in reality, though, it seems you were one who did not watch it. Like usual, you just make **** up as you go.

[Garry Walker]

Your credibility never began. You make the mistake in thinking that no one on planet earth ever watched 2009, when in reality, though, it seems you were one who did not watch it. Like usual, you just make **** up as you go.

As expected, you have no arguments, only your fantasy world.

[vhatever]

As expected, you have no arguments, only your fantasy world.


Talking to yourself again, Garry?

[D28]

While that is true, the reality is that the competition for example in IndyCar in 1995 was very weak. Let's look at who his rivals were - Al Unser, Bobby Rahal (over 40 years old), Michael Andretti (F1 failure), Paul Tracy. Heck, even Emerson Fittipaldi won a race that season and he was 50 years old. So his rivals were weak drivers who might have done well in that series, but would never have amounted to anything much in F1 (let's forget Fittipaldi being a 2X WDC, that was 20 years before 1995). Mansell showed in 1993 how much better than the IndyCar guys he was already in his first season.

One can only compete against rivals who show up and at the time the 95 CART field was reckoned to be very competitive. Andretti and Tracy between them have 73 American OW wins, and I haven't looked up Unser's totals.
Robbie Gordon was considered a very talented runner in all kinds of series. Any of these racers could have been expected to prevail, yet JV emerged as champion and Indy winner. His wins were not achieved with superior racing equipment, which is all I am saying.

[D-Type]

Gentlemen please!

Cut out the personal insults. If you disagree the content of a post refute it and say why. But do not attack the poster personally - if anyone uses the word "you" it becomes personal.

Any more and I'll have to suspend someone, albeit reluctantly.

[/Moderator]

[wedge]

While that is true, the reality is that the competition for example in IndyCar in 1995 was very weak. Let's look at who his rivals were - Al Unser, Bobby Rahal (over 40 years old), Michael Andretti (F1 failure), Paul Tracy. Heck, even Emerson Fittipaldi won a race that season and he was 50 years old. So his rivals were weak drivers who might have done well in that series, but would never have amounted to anything much in F1 (let's forget Fittipaldi being a 2X WDC, that was 20 years before 1995). Mansell showed in 1993 how much better than the IndyCar guys he was already in his first season.


1994 Penske were the team to beat and JV was capable of staying on their tail/mix with the Penskes and even got a fabulous win at Road America whereas Mansell was performing similar but he over drove his car at times.

[Doc Austin]

JV winning the title set the balance right for those of us who were so heartbroken that Gilles never did.

[journeyman racer]

The problem when discussing drivers is that there's actually no criterion for judging them. Having said that, if Hill and Villeneuve were cricketers, batsmen at international level, and the truly great batsmen of current days averaged 47+ in tests. Then they'd average around 36 to 44.

How about that for an analogy???