Who was better? Damon Hill or Jacques Villeneuve?

[jonnyrickett]

Villeneuve and Hill was the ultimate partnership. the best partnership i have ever seen and will certainly stick in my mind for decades to come. i wish we could go back in time and relive those superb moments. JV and Hill in the gorgeous rothmans williams renault, fantastic.

[jonnyrickett]

damon started at 19 but this doesnt really matter. it does show that he had the skills to win and that if he had started earlier, who knows what he could have achieved. His motorbike racing experience gave him an edge when it came to positioning the car and cornering etc. but JV was far more aggressive and could push harder than anyone else. pehaps you could say, JV could get more out of the car. in 97, jv struggled but still one and if williams had been competitive in 98, perhaps JV would have carried on getting better and better. however they both kicked MS and thats all that matters to me. JV never lost to MS in a championship in a competitive car, but hill did. i think they are just as good as each other.

hill and villeneuve are superb drivers. i am british and i was a hill supporter from day one, but my no.2 driverwas JV. now JV is the only driver left and the only driver who can bring the old formula 1 spirit back to life. i am hoping so much that he returns. williams made a mistake in dropping hill and now i hope they dont make the same mistake by leaving JV out.

He could still beat most people out there, well everyone obn a good day including the likes of schumacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by jonnyrickett
Villeneuve and Hill was the ultimate partnership. the best partnership i have ever seen and will certainly stick in my mind for decades to come. i wish we could go back in time and relive those superb moments. JV and Hill in the gorgeous rothmans williams renault, fantastic.

Well hopefully we'll have Raikkonen and Montoya together at McLaren in 2005 - that should be even better.

[BARrouette]

Originally posted by jonnyrickett
damon started at 19 but this doesnt really matter. it does show that he had the skills to win and that if he had started earlier, who knows what he could have achieved. His motorbike racing experience gave him an edge when it came to positioning the car and cornering etc. but JV was far more aggressive and could push harder than anyone else. pehaps you could say, JV could get more out of the car. in 97, jv struggled but still one and if williams had been competitive in 98, perhaps JV would have carried on getting better and better. however they both kicked MS and thats all that matters to me. JV never lost to MS in a championship in a competitive car, but hill did. i think they are just as good as each other.

hill and villeneuve are superb drivers. i am british and i was a hill supporter from day one, but my no.2 driverwas JV. now JV is the only driver left and the only driver who can bring the old formula 1 spirit back to life. i am hoping so much that he returns. williams made a mistake in dropping hill and now i hope they dont make the same mistake by leaving JV out.

He could still beat most people out there, well everyone obn a good day including the likes of schumacher.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abselutly true.If ... maby in 2005

[krt917]

It's a tricky one! I used to put Villeneuve ahead of Hill because I thought him to be inherently faster. In the right frame of mind, in the right car, JV can be absolutley awesome. But that is the point. When things haven't been right, JV has been known to vanish without trace. Apart from his last season with Jordan, Damon did a better job with inferior equipment. He was also a better wet-weather driver, which I think is quite a good indicator of driver talent.

Final clincher is that Damon was able to use his technical skills to improve cars. To be on the pace in the Arrows by the end of the season (he was almost on pole at Jerez), after being over 5 seconds off at the start of the year, shows how much of an impact Hill had on the car and the team. I can't help but feel that if Damon had had 'his own team', as JV had at BAR initially, he would have steadily increased the car's competitiveness.

I agree with those that say both drivers are underrated, but my vote goes to Hill.

[woodbine]

Originally posted by EERO
I've seen this idea vetted here a few times over the years, and I don't mean to pick on you woodbine, especially as you have said you don't wish to diminish Damon'rs abilities, but isn't the abilty a set up a car and to get the most from your machine a fundamental aspect of being a racing driver?

Hill may not have been spectacular, but he was fast and scientific.

This was the point I was trying to make. Hill didn't produce as many memorable moves as JV but that was because he didn't have to, he'd done a large part of the job before the race had even started

[BootsOntheSide]

My vote remains with JV, especially on account of some of Hill's performances at Spa, which is perhaps the ultimate driver circuit. Diniz outqualified him there in 1997, as did Jacques in 1996 at his first attempt, and he came up second best to Michael there in 1995. The 1995 season in general marks Hill out as inferior to Jacques - he had the best car but didn't really use it, especially when the pressure was on.

Damon's other big advantage was that he had a chance to learn from so many good drivers in his early years of F1 - a season with Mansell when he was Williams' tester, a season racing with Prost, and an all-too-short time with Senna. Plus, he took a long time to reach F1, and his lower-formula record was patchy - he never won in F3000 despite many attempts.

[garcon]

I think the current standings in the poll shows how close it is.

I say Hill. Why? Cos I'm biased!

If I tried to be objective, I'd find it hard to split them. There's good arguments either way. They were certainly different. But neither capitalised on their WDC by going on to win more and join the true greats.

One thing, that probably doesn't push the argument in either direction but is perhaps an interesting contrast: Hill was a real hard worker, but not as talented as Jacques. I think Hill probably fulfilled his potential as an F1 driver, I'm sure Villeneuve hasn't.

[Jordi]

Boots, the point you make about lower formulas isn't really important because Jacques wasn't able to win anything before CART. Yet when both got to F1, they showed they had what it takes.

The other day I was revising some old newspaper cuttings and I found one from mid 1998 saying that Villeneuve and Hill were the leading candidates for BAR. Makes you wonder what could have happened.

[Pitbabe]

Of course, the REAL clincher is that Damon is a much better guitarist

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by Jordi
I found one from mid 1998 saying that Villeneuve and Hill were the leading candidates for BAR. Makes you wonder what could have happened.

If they had Hill, how much further would BAR be now?

A long way ahead.

[Hazza]

Originally posted by Pitbabe
Of course, the REAL clincher is that Damon is a much better guitarist

I was thinkging about this the other day, and the reason I think that Champ Cars and F3000 work as feeders is because if you look closely enough diamonds will shine in the rough.

Jaques won ChampCars in his 2nd year, Montoya his first, and if you look at Webber, he won in his 2nd start in F3000 (I'll admit that I don't know the situations of the win and or/ what effect his team accounted for it.)

I totaly digress though! I think that when Villeneuve was firing he was good for the sport - watching him qualify with renued vigor at melborne last year made you think...man...

I think they are both "Good drivers who fell by the wayside", as opposed to say Mansell (Who is still feel would've shown Hill up in '95)

But I say Hill on the fact that he would be "Driving his nuts off" in the Arrows where as Jacques sort've gave up heart...

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Pitbabe
Of course, the REAL clincher is that Damon is a much better guitarist

He certainly is!

[kdr]

has to be villeneuve....i mean the guy is such a character.

[krt917]

Originally posted by BootsOntheSide
The 1995 season in general marks Hill out as inferior to Jacques - he had the best car but didn't really use it, especially when the pressure was on.

I think that is a little unfair. Damon's 1995 season was hardly impressive, but Villeneuve's '97 season was also a bit dodgey given the car he had. In both years of course, Williams made some errors which hampered their drivers, maybe more so in 1995. And, I think that Schuey's B195 was - over the whole season - maybe closer to the '95 Williams than the F310B was to the '97 Williams, though I realise that's debatable.

[steve nielsen]

Hill, at least he managed to win in a car that was not built by Williams

[Jordi]

Oh, but Damon's Jordan 198 was better than any of the BARs Jacques drove.

About the speculation I made earlier, Damon could've improved the BAR, but would he have had enough motivation with all the failures the BAR 01 suffered...

[corkholio]

That Jordan 198 started out far worse than the BAR did. That thing was fighting with the Minardis early in the season, and it wasn't due to driver error. Instead of giving up on a team built specifically for him like another driver would have, Damon rallied the team to 4th place in the WCC with a 2nd half surge.

[Wrex]

Lets not turn this into a JV bash please. This is about Jacques and Damon at Williams, nothing to do with BAR or Jordan.

[BootsOntheSide]

The first BAR was achually quite quick at some tracks - Jacques qualified on row 3 at Imola and Barcelona, and there were top 10 grid spots at Nurburgring and Monaco (for Salo). The car's only real problem was reliability, as he lost at least 10-15 points that way. The lowest Dmaon's 1998 Jordan qualified was 16th, and it was in teh top 10 right from the first race.

Giving up when the car isn't good is bad enough. Giving up when your team-mate is fighting for the title and you can't be bothered is worse. Damon's 1999 season is perhaps the worst a world champion has ever put up.

[Barny]

I would just like to say what an enjoyable discussion this is, well thought out arguments and no slagging off, rather like to the two drivers in qusetion, clean and honest.

[ralf fan]

if we are talking about their stay at Williams then id say JV and Hill were even. A WDC a piece and almost the same no. of wins.

However i voted Hill like most because of his ability with lesser cars like Jordon and Arrows who he won and almost won GP's with

[ASCII Man]

Wow, he get's one lucky win in Spa and he's an instant god...

[Adam43]

Any single win can be described as lucky, but Damon had a great weekend. He qualified ahead of Michael and was the second quickest guy in the race easily. He clearly played an important role (both over that weekend and the rest of the year) in gaining Jordan's first GP victory.

No an instant God, but not just a lucky so and so either.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by ASCII Man
Wow, he get's one lucky win in Spa and he's an instant god...

With the exception of Michael, Damon was the quickest driver on the circuit, by a considerable margin. Not sure i get what you mean by an instant god though.

What people are basiaclly saying is that he was good enough to win in a car that was 4th/5th best, and nearly win with a car that was 6th/7th (maybe lower) best. Something his rival in this poll could not manage to do himself.