"Mika the worst world champion ever"

[deeks6]

Mika was a good, but certainly not great driver. He did well in superior machinery, however the same thing could be said about Rosberg, Mansell, Villeneuve and to a lesser degree D.Hill. He did struggle to beat Irvine in a (much) better car which takes the gloss off 99.

In the big scheme of things, I rate him alongside Rosberg, Mansell, Scheckter,Hulme and Damon Hill, ahead of JV, Surtees, P.Hill and Hunt...but behind everyone else.

[Gt_R]

Mika is a great gentleman and a sporting guy.. He's pretty quick over a lap too.

Although i don't rate him as a Michael-equal (none of Michael's rivals are since Senna), i do rate Mika as a better driver than JV/Hill.

Similar to JV/Hill who both just won the WDC (almost losing it), Mika in both 98 and 99 also just won by a whisker... considering the 98 car started off with a 1s a lap advantage and 99 fighting against an inferior Irvine + off form Ferrari, those are WDCs nothing much to shout about, but WDCs all the same.

However, when Mika is fast, he is very fast, but sadly just let down by his inconsistency and proneness to just dip in form. It's good that Mclaren managed to just do enough to put together 2 WDCs, but it must be said that Mika deserve that extra attention he get at Mclaren over DC.

Mika's by no means a lousy driver... inconsistent maybe. incompetent never.

[Teretonga]

The comparisons are worthless. You can't change circumstances, you can't compare point scoring systems, you can't really quantify the inmportance of the car (P Hill in 61...) How good is Mika? When he was racing as good on sheer speed as anyone in the field including the people he raced against' JV, TGF,DC, DH,even Ayrton and yet that was in his early days. How well he would have done in a less supportive team is interesting. We'll never know. But was he a wothy champion? Was he one of the best of his generation? Did he deserves his championships? Of course he did. Any other suggestion is ridiculous.

[Irv the Swerve]

Ask Mick who his biggest rival was?

Mika is the one Michael feared the most I reckon, because, when it comes down to it, Mika, on his day, could beat Michael.

[Adam43]

1999. He was clearly the deserving champion. He won the championship despite losing three or four victories due to car/team mess ups (and through two away due to careless errors himself). He won by 2 points, but it could easily have been 40 odd without him doing anything different. Also I don't think his car was that much better than the Ferrari, although it was exaggerated by Ferrari losing decent input on set-up when Michael had his break.

1999, Mika was extremely unlucky, but still came out on top.

And 2000 he was close too and IMHO a inferior car.

Overall he isn't as good as Michael, but if that is his only problem then I hardly think it matters. Afterall the number of drivers, ever, who seriously compare to Michael in terms of talent and results numbers in the single digits.

However Mika was a contemporary and was pretty close.

[Adam43]

I suspect the guy writing to Ceefax has only been watching F1 since 1998. In which case he is right! Mika is the worse world champion out of the two champions that the last six championships have produced!

[DavidStHubbins]

I suspect the guy writing to Ceefax needs to get a life due to writing to Ceefax.

[DriverT]

If he honestly believes in what he is saying, he should be writing to a psychiatrist.

[santori]

Michael said Mika was his biggest rival, true. But I think there was more than a little mind-gaming there.
Mika's way of dealing with Michael was generally to agree with him, even when in private he was, apparently, not happy. Which let Michael, battered by the Hill/Villeneuve controversies and wanting an easier life, have a pretty cordial rivalry for a change - while taking the opportunity to stick it to Damon and Jacques.

[Adam43]

Ah, more Michael mind games, does he ever say anything he means? I reckon it is the less obvious alternative: Michael might have meant what he said! Apart from anything else it is probably true!

[Gaz]

A great driver in the right car in my opinion! His pass at Spa was awesome, the best move I've seen in my 20 years on the planet watching F1! His qualifying laps in the right car...sensational! His commitment when the car isn't on it...questionable!

Also his contribution to the most biased, one-sided season preview ever in F1 Racing this month. He slags near enough every other driver off bar Kimi as if he's the greatest driver ever to race F1. We all know Kimi's good, in fact very good. We all know he will one day be world champion but the way Hakkinen slags off every other driver and has complete bias for his fellow countryman and friend isn't really on!

[Adam43]

Granted he likes Kimi a lot, but did he really say anything that slagged (or indeed slammed as Autosport says) another driver. There are several positives about other drivers in there. And most of his small critisisms (no driver is perfect) aren't exactly outrageous.

[santori]

Hehehe. Of course, Michael also suggested that H2F and Ralf were more deserving of the '99 championship.

p.s. I think Surtees was one of the greats.

[Kicking-back]

Anyone who saw Mika in Formula Vauxhall, Formula Three, F1 in the Lotus knows he's the real deal.

I'm baffled as to why he gets so much stick - I can only assume it's because Schumacher fans don't like anyone who was a rival to their favourite.

Mika is a great driver, a great sportsman, a great champion and a heroic individual.

Anyone who went through what he did in Adelaide 1995 and comes back to win the title twice deserves praise, not criticism.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
And 2000 he was close too and IMHO a inferior car.

I think it's common knowledge that the 2000 Ferrari and McLaren were about as equal as can be. There was nothing to choose between them - sometimes Ferrari were better (Monza) sometimes McLaren (Austria) and sometimes they were dead equal (Imola, Suzuka). Still, that season proved that Mika could run Schumacher close in equal equipment.

[Kicking-back]

Ferrari had better reliabilty in 2000 - which makes McLaren an inferior car if they were equal on pace.

[Snrub]

IMO Mika is an excellent driver. However, I think there are plenty of non-WDCs who are better. It's certainly true that when Mika barely beat Irvine and HHF that there were problems that didn't relate completely to his car's pace. Mika never truely challenged when his car wasn't up to it. Hense why I will continue to insist that Mika is not of the highest echelon of F1 drivers. MS's main current four rivals all have proven they are capable of beating their competitors when their car is not the best in the field.

Another way to look at it: Compare the margin that Mika beat DC by to Kimi's margin. Coming straight from Sauber where Heidfeld beat him soundly, Kimi maintained a similar margin over DC. Heidfeld is barely in F1. Did Kimi improve massively from the end of his performance with Sauber to McLaren? Seems somewhat unlikely.

[BSchneiderFan]

Hakkinen was, and is, a great driver. For all that, champions fall into two categories. One, those who perform a feat no other driver could to win the title; two, those who maximise their opportunities. Mika was a worthy winner in 1998; but had his McLaren seat been occupied by, say, Villeneuve, Barrichello, Alesi or Irvine, I suspect any of those might have picked up the title. Similarly, as an historical parallel, Mansell's 1992 title was well-deserved, but if he'd never returned to Williams, Patrese or Boutsen would probably have been world champion that year.

[champcarman]

I agree with jj2728. I was standing at the top of the long uphill straight at Spa in 2000 and witnessed first hand the pass on Michael when they went either side of Zonta.It was a breathtaking pass on the best driver of the post Senna era. Mika was a worthy bworld champion but his criticism of current drivers is a bit mystifying.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Yoong Montoya
I think it's common knowledge that the 2000 Ferrari and McLaren were about as equal as can be.

Common knowledge? :confused: I do agree they were very close, and the general perception is that they were nip and tuck all year.

[tanalised]

Mika was a great champion, there are many moments that testify to his speed especially that pass at Spa, but I also recall him chastising the interviewer when MS was very visibly upset following his overtaking Senna for number of wins. At least I think that was the occasion. he showed that he was bigger than the "sport" and I believe MS respected him as a worthy foe and equal

[oziengineer]

Mika is the one of the last of the great drivers. After his retiring, Michael is the only great driver left. There are plenty of brilliant drivers on the grid now, but none have proved themselves yet.

[ljakse]

Dunno if this is out of topic, but anyway - 1999 McLaren was a superior car????????

Is that a year when Ferrari won WCC????? Is that a year when Mika Salo actually won the race in a Ferrari (he just let Irvine pass at the end)?????


And still McLaren is considered a better car that year????


I guess I'm waaay to stupid to understand technical side of F1.

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by ljakse
I guess I'm waaay to stupid to understand technical side of F1.

Basically, according to many here - if anyone but Michael wins, they had a superior car.

If Michael wins his car was little better than a Minardi but his supreme powers forced it to victory.

[ljakse]

That's not where I was going to...