Schuey vs. Lewis: Who's the Greatest?

[CNR]

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6221088/motorsports/schuey-vs-lewis-whos-the-greatest/index.html




Yes, that was my reaction too when I saw the above headline in a British mag: They have got to be kidding!

Make no mistake, 22 year old Lewis Hamilton, the guy who nearly won the Formula 1 World Championship in his rookie season, is quite a talent. But to compare him after just 17 races with seven time world champion Michael Schumacher? Oh puh-leeeze...

[ArrowsFA1]

It's far too early for such comparisons to be made.

[SGWilko]

It's far too early for such comparisons to be made.

How do they compare if you look at their stats after their first (full) season in F1?

That will give you a baseline.

Then, when Lewis hangs his helmet up, a true comparison can be made.

But, given the first year in the Benetton (when Schuey took out Ayrton a couple of times), I guess you could say they are both on a par - learning from their mistakes.

[ioan]

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6221088/motorsports/schuey-vs-lewis-whos-the-greatest/index.html

I agree with the author of that post.
You can't compare them without taking into account lots of factors (that we don't even have), which would make the comparison very very difficult.

In y opinion Hamilton can't hold a candle to MS from what I've seen till now, but we better wait and see what happens in 14 years.

[SGWilko]

In y opinion Hamilton can't hold a candle to MS from what I've seen till now, but we better wait and see what happens in 14 years.

Schumi been on the beans again? :laugh:

[Dave B]

Ask again in 10-15 years and it'll be possible to answer. Until then it's a stupid question.

[Andy65]

Sorry but I'm a bit lost on this one, why should we be making comparisons between Schumacher and Hamilton anyway ? no one knows how good he's going to be next year, what if Raikkonen takes a second title next year, what if Hamiltons new team mate blows him away next year, what if ...what if ...and so on !! Raikkonen won the championship yet we have comparisons with Hamilton, the driver that went in to the last two races with a 17 point advantage.. and lost !!, Ha Ha .

[F1boat]

This is very dumb. Michael Schumacher is the most successful driver in the history of Formula 1 and to compare him to a rookie, no matter how great, is ridiculous. Sorry, but I don't remember Canadian press so obsessed with JV after 1996. This is very stupid.

[markabilly]

There is only a little bit of merit to this question, and that merit seems the only disagreement from forum members is that should it be 10 to 15 years or 14 years from now as to when that question should be posed.............................if then.....

[airshifter]

Really even if Lewis is around as long as MS raced there still won't be any fair direct comparison.

No matter who has better stats they won't properly weigh the luck, skill levels of the rest of the field, car comparisons, etc, etc. There have been good drivers who never got the right car, had a lot of bad luck, and such things that make their statistics look not as impressive. Likewise there have been instances when not so great drivers got a break.

[Dave B]

For me, "greatness" extends to more than just the results. I consider JYS "great" not just becuase of his 3 Championships and 27 wins - which have been beaten by several drivers - but for his professionalism, attitude, business savvy and his safety crusades.

Prost was a statistically more sucessful driver, and there are many reasons to consider him "better", but for my money Stewart is "greater".

Whether Lewis goes on to be "greater" than Schuey depends not only on what Hamilton achieves on track, but also how he goes about it - and furthermore on the direction MS's career goes in the future.

I retract my "10 to 15" year timeframe, and suggest that it may only be possible to measure "greatness" once both drivers are well into their old age.

[V12]

Oh god this chestnut again....Lewis Hamilton has had a very good rookie season in the best car on the grid - which at this present moment means he's up there with the likes of Damon Hill (if you don't include his Brabham outings), Jacques Villeneuve and Clay Regazzoni - no more no less - that's my view anyway.

[Big Ben]

alonso

[Tazio]

For me, "greatness" extends to more than just the results. I consider JYS "great" not just becuase of his 3 Championships and 27 wins - which have been beaten by several drivers - but for his professionalism, attitude, business savvy and his safety crusades.

Prost was a statistically more sucessful driver, and there are many reasons to consider him "better", but for my money Stewart is "greater".

Whether Lewis goes on to be "greater" than Schuey depends not only on what Hamilton achieves on track, but also how he goes about it - and furthermore on the direction MS's career goes in the future.

I retract my "10 to 15" year timeframe, and suggest that it may only be possible to measure "greatness" once both drivers are well into their old age.You left out one thing!
When JYS raced To be the fastest you also needed to have B@!!$

[Trqster]

M. Schumacher although brilliantly fast from his 1st ever race in a F1 (in a Jordan in 91 at Spa) used to make often mistakes, basically overdriving, on his rookie year, nothing but natural anyway for a young (24/25 year old) wolf trying to prove himself back in the day.

Hamilton in comparison, even being much younger, seems much more matured and relaxed behind the wheel, mostly showing great class and rarely overdriving and making mistakes. It reminded me more of the 95 era more matured MS driving style.

Who will be the greatest in statistics, it's deffo too soon to say, but it's fair to say that Hamilton has had a significant head-start so far.

[leopard]

Aside from their capacity developing the car and implementing the strategy, I got the feeling that Lewis has better skill than Alonso, while I can't say that Schumi was better than Alonso, although this doesn't mean automatically Alonso is better than Schumi. So logically who was the best among of them?

McLaren's mistake was only promoting Lewis too early, unconsciously 'neglecting' the reigning champ, and let them were fighting one another.

If only they applied the more beautiful strategy, they should have had bigger opportunity winning the title perfectly one and two, and get ready to face the more prosperous season of 2008 for Lewis, if they want winning the title trough his hand.

[passmeatissue]

In many ways the main thing is that the comparison is being made.

My feeling is that Hammy can possibly become "greater" than MS, if he is a sportsman. For most, MS' achievements are reduced by his unsporting moments; I would think more highly of him if he had won only 5 championships, for example, and not taken Hill out, done Jerez etc. Because in a sporting contest, obviously, if you don't stick to the rules, in the ultimate you can win by just shooting all your opponents on the grid.

Hammy I think was hard but fair on the track last season, up to the limit of the rules but not beyond. All his moves were clean, really amazing for a rookie. I have had a slight anxiety about his sincerity in what he's said sometimes, but my jury is out on that. He's being given a lot of advice about what to say, which tends to have that effect.

Also some of the media are being really bad, for example the whole Senna's grave thing was started by a question out of the blue in the Driver's press conference. Lewis handled that really well saying "that would be cool", then the next day he was being criticised for staging a publicity stunt, and on the day after that for doing a U turn!

[ShiftingGears]

In many ways the main thing is that the comparison is being made.

That's what I think the main thing is as well. In any case, greatness can only be measured objectively using statistics, and even then, they can be twisted to suit peoples views.
My view is that Schumacher is a great driver, and Hamilton is on his way.

[Valve Bounce]

I'll wait until I see how SchM does in the McLaren next year. :p :

[Trqster]

BTW, MS will probably share the racetrack with Hammy next 4th of December in Jerez tests. Maybe they'll arrange a friendly "race" for the fans...hehe..

[Dave B]

Greatness can only be measured using statistics, can it?

Westlife have had something like 10 number ones in the UK. Would anybody say they are a "great" band?

Trivial example, maybe, but it illustrates a point.

[passmeatissue]

Greatness can only be measured using statistics, can it?

Westlife have had something like 10 number ones in the UK. Would anybody say they are a "great" band?

Trivial example, maybe, but it illustrates a point.

Excellent example :D though at least they can sing, I suppose. But in fairness to theugsquirrel, he did say "measured objectively".

[ArrowsFA1]

I'll wait until I see how SchM does in the McLaren next year. :p :
Calm down Valve :D


"My love for this sport has never faded and to drive the F1 car is the best you can do as a motorsportsman. It has nothing to do with my decision to retire though, that is irrevocable.
Michael Schumacher (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64084)

[leopard]

That's what I think the main thing is as well. In any case, greatness can only be measured objectively using statistics, and even then, they can be twisted to suit peoples views.
My view is that Schumacher is a great driver, and Hamilton is on his way.

Statistic is very useful in drawing conclusion and mapping out the next program of a project. But it couldn't be representative in uncompetitive season, there wasn't too much great driver at his level or those smart enough developing competitive car and implementing marvelous strategy.

[SGWilko]

Greatness can only be measured using statistics, can it?

Westlife have had something like 10 number ones in the UK. Would anybody say they are a "great" band?

Trivial example, maybe, but it illustrates a point.

Westlife? Which team were they driving for last year?

[Garry Walker]

Greatness can only be measured using statistics, can it?

Westlife have had something like 10 number ones in the UK. Would anybody say they are a "great" band?

Trivial example, maybe, but it illustrates a point.

Irrelevant comparison, totally unrelated.

As for the question, schuey vs lewis, who is greatest, let me ask you a question.
Ferrari Enzo or Skoda Octavia, which is the better car? It is a similar comparison i.e there is no comparsion.

[Tazio]

It is thoroughly obtuse to try to compare the talent, and or the quality of these two!
I can think of one absolute comparison.
They are both Homo sapiens!

[BDunnell]

Irrelevant comparison, totally unrelated.

As for the question, schuey vs lewis, who is greatest, let me ask you a question.
Ferrari Enzo or Skoda Octavia, which is the better car? It is a similar comparison i.e there is no comparsion.

I genuinely don't understand how Dave's comparison, which strikes me as extremely pertinent, can be dismissed in such a way. Mere statistics cannot be used in 'which was the best?' discussions.

To be honest, this thread is just as pointless because, at present, Schumacher is clearly the better of him and Hamilton because of his lengthy F1 record. Ask the question in more than a decade's time and it may have a bit more of a point to it, but not much. After all, it's equally as futile to compare Schumacher and Fangio, or Clark and Senna.

[passmeatissue]

I genuinely don't understand how Dave's comparison, which strikes me as extremely pertinent, can be dismissed in such a way. Mere statistics cannot be used in 'which was the best?' discussions.

To be honest, this thread is just as pointless because, at present, Schumacher is clearly the better of him and Hamilton because of his lengthy F1 record. Ask the question in more than a decade's time and it may have a bit more of a point to it, but not much. After all, it's equally as futile to compare Schumacher and Fangio, or Clark and Senna.

I have been more interested in this thread than I expected at the start. Yes it is definitively pointless, far too soon, and futile. However, this description pretty much sums up F1 forums :) . Doesn't mean it's not amusing :D .

What is has done is make me think what it is about them that makes us link them when it is far too soon. It is that they are both exceptional, but the thing is, the more I think about Hammy, the more exceptional he seems.

It's not just the speed, the ability on the brakes, the incredible judgement that has let him pull all those overtaking moves in his debut year without touching anyone (if you say that Massa touched him at Monza).

It's the glow, the confidence, the total lack of fear. He is absolutely unembarrassed by success, and so his focus is not diluted by thinking about it. He expresses himself, talks openly (most of the time), and describes, for example, how it feels to pull up next to a bus and see his own picture on it.

And Michael, a bit of an enigma to me, who on the one hand is too inclined to cheat, but on the other is a genuine caring person to has always had great relationships with all the people in his team, and when his mechanics were throwing things at a stray dog, rescued it and adopted it. And is also fabulously fast, as well as possibly the most intelligent driver ever.

And so I think for us, pointless forumers, it is for us to admire them both. I think they admire each other.

[Valve Bounce]

Anthony!! is that you??

[jas123f1]

It’s not possible to compare a seven times world champion with one who missed one. It’s not even fair against Lewis (and Schumi don't care).
Lewis is a young guy and only in beginning of his carrier, so I think it’s better to wait couple of years before any comparisons. He is a good guy and was a "super rookie" in his first ever F1 season, but to compare him with Schumacher ... :dozey:

[passmeatissue]

Anthony!! is that you??

:laugh:

Actually I am Ross Brawn's mum (watch this space...) :D

[ioan]

Anthony!! is that you??

One very pertinent question! :up:
I was actually going to ask him if he's Anthony or Ron! ;)

[passmeatissue]

One very pertinent question! :up:
I was actually going to ask him if he's Anthony or Ron! ;)

Two positive people, thanks, good to see the forum is finally mellowing you ioan :p

[ioan]

Two positive people...

Depends on what you consider positive. :p :

[ioan]

:laugh:

Actually I am Ross Brawn's mum (watch this space...) :D

That doesn't explain your unlimited love for Hamilton and McLaren. :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

That doesn't explain your unlimited love for Hamilton and McLaren. :rolleyes:

You neatly side-step the fact that the same post contained a paean of praise for Michael Schumacher, too.

I thought the whole thing was a lot more reasoned than many a post on here.

[Garry Walker]

I genuinely don't understand how Dave's comparison, which strikes me as extremely pertinent, can be dismissed in such a way. Mere statistics cannot be used in 'which was the best?' discussions.

In racing, stats and success show quality, that is undisputed. If you win races and titles, it shows your talent. In music business it does not work that way too often, unless you want to say Spice Girls members are really better singers than Placido Domingo for example. Looks, PR and many other things are far more important than ability to sing. Those comparsions between singers and athletes are embarrasing to read from grown-ups.

[raikk]

Senna....

[Ari]

Raikk, you think the 'Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes Ferrari' should have won the championship even after integrating stolen plans into their car? Interesting.

[ShiftingGears]

Greatness can only be measured using statistics, can it?

Westlife have had something like 10 number ones in the UK. Would anybody say they are a "great" band?

Trivial example, maybe, but it illustrates a point.

It can only be measured objectively using statistics. But it's different for music because all the statistics are based off the tastes of the people that listen to the music.


F1 statistics ignore the nature of driver victories, which I think matter a lot more in determining greatness(in my view) than sheer quantity of victories, which is why I think that, for instance, Gilles Villeneuve is a greater driver than David Coulthard, even though DC has won more races.
And also why I think Hamilton isn't as great as Schumacher.

[ArrowsFA1]

In racing, stats and success show quality, that is undisputed. If you win races and titles, it shows your talent.
But statistics do not explain the relative lack of success for the likes of Moss, Villeneuve(G) and Peterson who all won races but no titles. They also do not explain how someone as talented as Chris Amon never won a GP.

Equally Senna & Prost have 7 WDC's and 92 GP wins between them, which is almost exactly the totals MS has achieved alone. Jim Clark has a "paltry" 2 WDC's and 25 wins. All of those drivers are recognised greats, and yet if you just look at the statistics there are huge differences between their numbers.

I always stand by this view of statistics - "Statistics are like bikinis. They reveal what is interesting and conceal what is essential.” Or, how about the story of the scientist studying frog behavior. With exact measurements and careful recording, the scientist shouts “jump” to a frog five times, each time removing one leg to see the difference in distance leaped. Because, by the end of the experiment, the frog does not move at all, the scientist concludes that: “When one removes all four legs of a frog, it goes deaf.”

[leopard]

Sweet euphemism, They are interesting, but what's concealed more interesting. :D ;)

People would rather consider Ali was better than Tyson despite of having better statistic.

[Valve Bounce]

Sweet euphemism, They are interesting, but what's concealed more interesting. :D ;)

People would rather consider Ali was better than Tyson despite of having better statistic.


Tyson definitely had the better bite.

[markabilly]

It can only be measured objectively using statistics. But it's different for music because all the statistics are based off the tastes of the people that listen to the music.


F1 statistics ignore the nature of driver victories, which I think matter a lot more in determining greatness(in my view) than sheer quantity of victories, which is why I think that, for instance, Gilles Villeneuve is a greater driver than David Coulthard, even though DC has won more races.
And also why I think Hamilton isn't as great as Schumacher.

Good point

When one looks at how and when, I have to say that while I remember car failure and tires that caught debris and went flat at the end of a season, and certain bumps between cars at the last race of a season, not once in his career did MS ever blow a WDC lead by simply choking, and certainly never ever by that many points, by such as running off the pitlane and running off the track.......

so it is way too early to even think of a comparison where MS does NOT dominate LH at this point in their careers--at presnet LH is just a mere pretender to the throne, and of the current field, the only one for comparison to MS is Kimi :D

[markabilly]

:up:

If anyone seeks to disagree with that, I don't think their views stand up to much scrutiny or consideration.

Is Damon Hill, a one-time world champion, a better driver than Stirling Moss, a no-time World Champion? On balance, I wouldn't say so, yet I don't feel it's possible to compare them because they competed in such different eras, just as the inevitable Fangio/Schumacher comparisons are invariably simplistic and pointless.


Actually the key is how they drove against the competition they faced at the time they drove. Did they dominate? Did they set standards that others struggled to meet and failed?

To win 25 races was a massive accomplishment at the time, but what was unreal was how he drove against the competition at the time.

To say one would beat the other in a heads up race when they drove in entirely different cars and competiton is rather pointless and speculative...........esp considering that the F1 cars of Clark's day were nervous creatures requiring great sensitive touch, the heel and toe----- and traction control? Heck they did not even have wings, so driving through a very fast corner, meant less traction (unlike now where the faster the coner the more the downforce, and as Mario Andretti once said, having the benefit of driven both types in competiton, that it used to be the real key to success was going faster than anyone else in fast corners, but with wings, it had now become the key to be able to go faster than anyone else in the slow corners.

And none of those drivers mentioned ever choked anywhere close to how LH choked while being on the cusp of a wdc-- :D

so if the true mark of greatness starts at the very basic beginning with NOT choking when the pressure is the highest and overcoming severe adversity to win despite the odds, then LH has much further to go than Kimi or FA before one starts comparing him to the likes of Schumacher (and hence by implication, to the likes of Moss, Clark, Fangio.........) :rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

Actually the key is how they drove against the competition they faced at the time they drove. Did they dominate? Did they set standards that others struggled to meet and failed?
By that criteria LH hasn't done too badly so far. One point away from the WDC suggests he compares well with the competition. While he didn't dominate he did match his 2xWDC team-mate in points, qualified ahead of him more often than not, and scored the same number of wins. Also as a rookie he set standards that others may struggle to meet in the future.

[F1boat]

By that criteria LH hasn't done too badly so far. One point away from the WDC suggests he compares well with the competition. While he didn't dominate he did match his 2xWDC team-mate in points, qualified ahead of him more often than not, and scored the same number of wins. Also as a rookie he set standards that others may struggle to meet in the future.

JV was not much worse than him.

[passmeatissue]

I also seem to remember Schumi put the Ferrari in the armco at Monaco one year at the start of a race while leading in the damp...........

So, everyone makes mistakes, not just the rookies.

Michael's was a classic choke - final race, leading the championship by one point, several seconds clear, and just went off. It's not widely remembered as a choke because it didn't cost him the championship.

Lewis had quite a number of factors that combined to cause his. If even the gravel at Fuji had been normal aggregate gravel that compacts in the rain, instead of the round balls that are lubricated by rain, he would have survived. Not to say, the only pitlane gravel in the year, otherwise his slight rear-end lockup would have been trivial. Likewise the two team strategy errors, and the gearbox problem, made much more difference than his move on FA, which was just a bit over-aggressive and only cost a few seconds.

Lewis' wasn't really a choke, actually, but called that by a few people with dubious agendas of their own.

In terms of their first shot at the championship and how they coped with the pressure, I'd say Lewis was ahead of Michael. But when Hill came up his inside Michael had the opportunity to cheat his way out of it, and, sadly, took it.

[ioan]

If even the gravel at Fuji had been normal aggregate gravel that compacts in the rain, instead of the round balls that are lubricated by rain, he would have survived.

I'm sure you meant Shanghai, not Fuji. :rolleyes:
But as I said before don't let the facts get in the way of the bias, better yet don't even care if your facts are right or not, you would risk becoming another serious forumer.

[janneppi]

Good show people, let's get get back to this subject when Lewis retires from racing.
And If you wish to discuss the chokings of former F1 racing drivers, there's the History and Boring Stuff section.
I even made thread for you there.