Who was better? Damon Hill or Jacques Villeneuve?

[Yoong Montoya]

I'd say Hill was better, mainly because I feel he coped better with uncompetitive machinery than Villeneuve did. I know he had a poor final season in 1999, but Villeneuve's final season in 2003 was just as bad. Hill and Villeneuve were also team mates in 1996 and Hill outqualified Villeneuve 13-3 and outscored him 98-79.

[BARrouette]

J.V for shure he made Hill looks bad when they were at williams.

[Mr V]

Damon for sure, plus he got a win in the 4th best car on the grid (Jordan 1998) and came awfully close with a car much worse than that (Arrows 1997) Something Villeneuve never got close to doing.

[grumpy1]

Damon for me.He had more years in lesser machinery.Besides he knew how to keep his mouth shut when he had nothing good to say.

The Grumpy1

[Adam43]

Originally posted by BARrouette
J.V for shure he made Hill looks bad when they were at williams.

This argument could go either way and while I think Hill has the edge I don't think I wouldn't strongly argue too much with a result that reflected Villeneuve was better.

However, this remark goes too far. Looked bad? Interesting! Hill wasn't a rookie, granted, but he put it on the front row for every race. He never qualified it tenth for instance!

When they were both at Williams Hill had Villeneuve covered. It went to the final round due to Villeneuve's good drive in Estoril, but considering the season (i.e when they were at Williams) Damon had him covered.

Both had periods of having poor starts. Both had misfortune (although Hill 1 more retirement and in good positions).

Hill's average grid position: 1.44 (9 poles)
Villeneuve's average grid position: 3.06 (3 poles)

Hill laps lead: 480
Villeneuve laps lead: 285

Moving on to years other than 1996: Without thinking I thought that Villeneuve would have the advantage here, and maybe he does. However I can't think of a Hungary 1997 or Spa 1998 performance from Villeneuve when in a mediocre car.

[Alex K]

Surely Hill
Hill's performance in Arrows and than in Jordan 1998
In 1998 Hill started making points in (AFAIR) ninth round, and he ended just one point behind Villeneuve

[Woolley]

At what? is the obvious question.

Hill was possibly one of the best development drivers of his era, with sufficient pace to convert that into results. Someone once said he was only quick because the car was perfect, to which he rightly replied that since he was the test driver,t hat was why it was perfect!

JV was probably better at dragging something nearly good enough to the result, but could set it up well enough in his own way (although not according to Patrick Head!)

Whatever you decide, they were certainly both deserving champions. Perhaps JV was slightly better at fending off errant Germans...

[pirenzo]

Difficult to call really.

But Hill has to edge it for me. Basically because he always had much more determination, if not as much skill. He was determined to win a race in a car other than a Williams, and as far as i'm concerned he did it twice. The best performance obviously being Hundary '97. It wasn't his fault he didn't finish. Spa '98 he had no real competition, and he asked for Ralf not to race him, and he didn't pass schumy on the way

[deeks6]

Not even close as an overall package. Although not a "huge" difference in actual race driving skill, Damon murders him for development, setup, consistency and even in the "nice guy" stakes.

You only have to ask one or two questions:

Would JV have got that sh*tbox Arrows to the line in Hungary in 2nd spot (should have won)? Jeeze, JV was in a Williams at the time and couldt keep up.

Would JV have won a GP in a Jordan?

[Meroo]

Hill, his driving did most of the talking.

[Snrub]

I don't know. IMO '96 doesn't prove anything either way. I don't critisize Hill for not beating Prost in the points (even though I think he showed signs of being better!) so it's hard to blame JV for not beating Hill. That said, Hill's performance was certainly substantially better in '96.

IMO JV's lack of speed in 2003 did not mean that he was that untalented earlier in his carear. JV didn't strike me as he gave up in his last year while Hill didn't seem to care in his final season. JV's first couple of seasons at BAR showed that he had lots of determination and he did far better than his teammates and clearly did some impressive things with his car. Also, how many BARs did he crash at Eau Rouge? Point is I don't think 'determination' is a factor in this discussion.

Both had some very impressive performances in their careers. I think they were both excellent drivers and I think neither are given the credit they deserve by people today. I can't honestly vote for one over the other.

[Nivola]

there something people forget here.

By the time JV moved into williams Hill was the core of the team. Been tester then picked up the team when Ayrton died. Everyone was behind him.

JV had everything to prove and did it at the first event.
Noone could really have a base setup. JV out drove Hill that day on pure ability. Hill was so like Prost. JV so like his father.

To fight till the last round was something that in a rookie year had not happerned for along time. In 1997 the tittle would of been takern alot earlier if it was not for the mister meaners that where really pathetic

[DriverT]

Mister Meaners? Eh???

[Smokey 6 litre]

Originally posted by Woolley
JV was probably better at dragging something nearly good enough to the result.

obviously the BAR wasn't worth dragging round into points postions!

I think Damon Hill was a great driver, and never gets the credit he deserves, the '94 and '96 world champion (although i wont start that again) he did some stupid things, like diving for gap that weren't there but he made that Williams what is was, and made his own titles.

[Katieknight1984]

jv was the better,by far.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Nivola
there something people forget here.

I think the majority, if not all, of people here know that.

Originally posted by Nivola
In 1997 the tittle would of been takern alot earlier if it was not for the mister meaners that where really pathetic

Sorry?

[DriverT]

I think JV was slightly better. But you don't win 22 races, as Hill has, in Formula 1 if you're a bad driver. Jacques has wrecked his career and he doesn't really have anyone to blame but himself. Hill had the sense to stay at a multiple-championship winning team for several years.

[steve_r]

They were (are??) both great drivers. Both took it to Michael Schumacher, and therefore deserve respect.

I voted for Hill, as I was a big fan, and his greatness was proved driving the Arrows at Hungary. However, if I was Canadian I probably would have gone for JV!

The vote is 20-20 at the moment, which I think is fair.

[BootsOntheSide]

Do you mean misdemeanors? Which ones?

Consdiering that 1996 is widely seen to be Damon's best seaosn, yet he rode his luck in defeating a rookie, there's a strong case for Jacques. Hungary 1997 was an isolated excellent performance from Damon, on a track he was truly superb at. The next race, at Spa, he was outqualified by his team-mate - Diniz.

Jacques' 2003 was nowhere near as uncompetitive as Damon's 1999 - Frentzen demolished Damon having been roundly beaten at Williams for 2 years and arrived demoralised and disregarded, at a team where Damon was lionised. Last year Jacques was basically unwanted at BAR (although that was partly his fault) yet still beat Jenson on occasion.

In Damon's favour, he held Williams together after Senna's death, and his testing ability was legendary - virtually every car he drove improved as the season went on. He did well to keep his morale together in 1997 (which Jacques arguably hasn't done recently). However, my vote goes to JV.

[Mattracer]

Hill by a mile.

Development wise, not in the same street and when the chips were down Hill seemed to dig deeper as if by sheer determination that he should be out there.

Williams (and Villenueve) can thank Hill for their dominance and success 1992-1997 and most of 1991 while we're at it, the brilliance of Ayrton Senna notwithstanding.

[Pitbabe]

Damon Hill. He was a lot better racer than most people give him credit for, and as others have said, was an excellent test driver and knew how to set up a car. The fact that Jordan have been no-where since he retired is a case in point.

And that drive on Hungary on '97 was just fantastic!

[EERO]

Hill, no question.

Not only for developement of the 1996 Willys, but also for the '92 (Mansell) and 93 (Prost) and nearly was WDC in 1994 in a car that wasn't the best in the season in which he was thrust into a leadership position on a team in which the best driver in the world had been killed. A heroic performance which is completely lacking in JV's CV.

[Barny]

Do you remember when Hill made TGF look ordinary in the wet, Japan 94 or 95, two part race, result on aggregate. TGF looked shocked by Hill's speed that day.

[Mr V]

1994, watched that only the other day, and was proberbly his best ever win, or at least, among the top 3.

[Damon]

Japan 94 was indeed the stuff of legend. Conditions don't come much worse and under massive pressure he beat Schu at his own game.

Now obviously I'm a little biased but it's got to be Hill really. For a driver with "no talent" he sure did well to achieve what he did and in cars far from capable. He was part of the old guard that believed smoothness and consistancy would win out. He was never spectacular in an obvious way but, much like Prost, got the job done.

However, if the pro-JV lot can give good reasoned examples as to their opinion other than "JV was the better, by far" then I'm willing to listen.