Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam43
Oh and as well as that Jim Clark is better than both.
|
And none of them are/were as good as Senna was/could have been.
After all Senna had a dominant car but also drove some pikers. He had to fight an all-time great team-mate but also ensured he was #1 at other times. He and Clark were also killed in their prime, robbing them of the chance to improve/tarnish (delete as preferred) their records.
And Hamilton's cars have been more reliable than Schumacher's, whose were more reliable than Senna and Clark's (except the McLaren, which was bullet-proof). Oh and except for Hamilton's 2016 Mercedes breaking enough times to cost him the WC, which wouldn't have been a problem for Schumacher because his team-mates weren't as good as Hamilton's even though Hamilton's car was better except when it wasn't.
McLaren was totally dominant but not as totally dominant as Ferrari who weren't as totally dominant as Mercedes and all of Ham, Sen and Sch also won championships in less dominant cars so maybe it's not all about the car. Or maybe the best drivers always somehow end up in the best car except when it's the driver who makes the car better than it would have been otherwise and sometimes drives the car better than anyone realised was possible.
Mercedes team rules gifted Hamilton some wins but cost him others, while Schumacher had a contract clause making him #1, except when he drove as a #2 returning from injury.
Hamilton and Clark also never deliberately drove their rivals off the track, ignored black flags or used cheat software.
And none of them has the win-loss record of Ascari, who drove far fewer races and had a totally dominant car until he didn't, at which point he retired,
It's all completely clear. I'm surprised there's still debate tbh.