If Mika is so good then answer this!

[neutral]

People on the panel are now starting to whinge whenever Mika is said to be inferior to MS. But the fact remains that Mika was never able to show us any of this talent in previous years. When Michael first went to Ferrari, he was driving just as bad a car as that years McLaren, and was able still to bring home two wins, even though they were in the wet(all the more reason to be considered better than MH). Surely If Mika is so good then he would have been able to notch up at least one special performance before the Mclaren domination. This is a summary of Mika's past 2 championships

1998- McLaren starts the season with a 1.5 sec advantage over Ferarri. This lasts until about the last 3 races and it still takes him to the last race to secure the championship

1999- Schumi crashes out. Mika takes it to the last race to beat Eddie Irvine!! whats worse is that Mclaren also started the season with over a 1 second advantage.

The difference between MS and Mika is that when Shuey won his championships, his opponent(Damon) had the better car!and this is undisputed!

[downforce]

3 wins in '96 for Michael, Neutral !!!

[Tristan]

AT LAST someone is seeing sense here. Michael shumacher is statistically and reallalistically a better driver than Mika Hakkinen.

I have NO particular favourite of either driver, I've just been stating the facts.

I could go on. Take the blue pill and I'll never say a bad word against Mika Hakkinen again. Take the red pill and see how far down this rabbit-hole goes. Rember, all that I am offering you is the TRUTH!!!

[Sharky]

Of course...Shu is still the best driver in F1....I don't think that anyone could disagree with that....we could hate him but we can't deny it. But that dosn't mean that Mika is just some mediocre driver that got a good ride. He's a very good driver....maybe not as good as schu but good enough to deserve a championship.

[KC]

I don't understand why this continues to be an issue? One fan is propping up his driver by putting down another. It does not matter how good a driver is or how great his car might or might not be. If he wins the WDC then he is World Champion, nothing more and nothing less. He is not suddenly granted Sainthood or Humanitarian of the Century, he is just another race driver who wants to win. After this championship is decided, it is history and has no relevance on next years championship. Why is it so imperative that everyone must argue on who is the best? Every driver on the circuit wil tell you that you are only as good as your last race.

[slicktoast]

Well put KC. Watch'm race and have fun!

[Gerard]

Well said KC.
Although we like to see as much discussion on these forums as possible, the 'driver X is the best and I hate driver Y' topics are getting a bit repetitive.
I wouldn't mind though (repetition is the mother of all learning) but it would be good if the insults stopped.
There will always be comparisons, it's part of the sport, but since Mika and Michael respect each other, why can't we?

[Minardi fan]

But TGF has been in a top car for virtually all his F1 career - Hakkinen has not.

And in a way it proves how vital the car is in a driver's success.

[Valve Bounce]

"Mika absolutely is a top driver.....". Says who?? None other than "the michael". You don't believe me? Go to autorace.com to read the article.

[gomick]

we all love f1 and know how good each driver is...its all bs, good writing kc....

[Mr.S]

Can everyone agree, Mika is excellent, with some shortcomings, but Michael is a little more excellent with some short comings.

[IAM]

Right behind you KC!

And Neutral; I think you need to change your handle as it does not seem to be in the right gear

Ian

[Valve Bounce]

Hey Gerard!! I have read your post above more than several times, and I feel guilty that I have not replied just because I agree with you. The reason I like this BB is because of all the insults and bad language at several sites. There will always be threads as to who is good and who is better and who is not so better, and as long as there are no insults, I sometimes enjoy them and I do try to inject a little humour into them (however unfactual they may sometimes be). So, I agree with Gerard!!!

[Tristan]

The person who's got it right here is that post from Sharkey. Sums up what I've been (attempting) to say!!!! Nice one!!

Minardi fan: jibberish. Utter utter jibberish.

[Rated R]

Well, Well, Well-finally some support for Schu ha! Because for the last several weeks this has been the "How Great Mika Is" BB.
Gerard, you are fighting for a lost cause. Plus, there hasn't been a really biased discussion for some time now, so I'd say-it's healthy every once in a while

[Minardi fan]

Mika has been in less competitive cars than before now - ie. the '95, '96, '97 McLarens etc... Whereas Schumacher has been in a championship winning Benetton and race winning Ferrari.

However, I'm with KC on this one. Who cares??!!

[Bononi]

TGF drove a inferior Benetton during 91/93. At that time Piquet (the 1st driver) was working on the development of the car. Benetton only came to be a challenger in 94, and for myself, Williams was better than ever. I could believe that something strange happened that year... anyway still Williams were superior.

[Tristan]

Indeed, TGF, like Mika, has run in some inferior hardware before. However, TGF has managed to WIN RACES in those Benettons (and indeed a WDC) Bononi mentions PLUS the Ferrari before it came good.

What did Hakkinnen do with the McLaren pre-Newey? Not a lot really.

HOWEVER!!! Don't get me wrong, Hakkinnen is a v. good driver. Better than some, but not the best by any means. who have we had to compare him to in recent years?? DC, a man who, despite regularly having the best car, has consistently failed to make his name as a top driver and, come his retirement, will fade into obscurity if he is not VERY carefull in the next few years and starts driving with some CONSISTENCY.

[Dino IV]

1994 Williams better than ever, Bononi?

Do you actually know how Mika performed in the pre-Newey McLaren, Tristan? If you do please tell me how you feel how he did in the McLaren-Ford, McLaren-Peugeot and McLaren-Mercedes. And then explain that's not a lot.
Not a lot in terms of WDC's and racewins ofcourse but that couldn't be expected from those cars, could it? Nor could it be expected from the Lotus he drove back in the days. He nevertheless showed a lot of impressive performances. But that's just my impression of the pre-Newey Häkkinen days.

[JeremySmith]

I aggree with you Gerard...Both MS and MH are amazing at what they do....Who is the better pilot? Is that realy important? Does it realy matter...In my opinion MS will win the WDC this year.. DC's bid is over...More "driving" David,and a LOT less talking about other pilots, and their shortcomings(whinning Scot)...Thank you for the help you guys gave me concerning " live" internet broadcasts..

[Bononi]

Ok Dino IV. We can't compare 94 Williams with the turbo days. But in 94 Williams was the best team, following the 93 championship with 10 wins in 16 (7 A.Prost/3 D.Hill), Hill raised from the tragedy surrounding the team, with 6 wins and 5 second places, bringing the decision to the last race, with the show down we all know very well. Coulthard just poorly replaced the second seat, as I think he was not well prepared for that. So Williams was the best as always, back on those days.
Back to Crancky Mika X TGF... Those pre-Newey days, in fact Mika did a lot as it is expected from a driver on those conditions. He is a great driver and as I said once in another topic, even if you get the best car of the grid, his driver must have the skill to master it, and we can point many drivers that won't get the same results in a McLaren as Cranky gets. What I think is that there are classes of drivers, and what puts them together is the whole of their skills, background and statistics. In this way how can we put Gilles with Prost, Senna, Fangio... or Stirling Moss with all those above ? None of the two won WDC or can challenge them in numbers of wins, poles and etc... But they are THERE with them, no doubt about it...
[Sorry if I forgot to mention anyone else...]

[R]

Originally posted by Bononi
Coulthard just poorly replaced the second seat, as I think he was not well prepared for that.

How could ANYONE have been prepared for that... All in all I think the Williams team did an excellent job in 94, especially Damon Hill, he really won my respect with the way he conducted himself both in and out of the race car that year.

As regards to TGF, what I think has happened is that he is no longer as competitive as he was before. As was stated in another topic, he now has a family, and perhaps has other values and priorities than before. That's why I think Mika has been able to catch up, and we also see how close Rubens is to TGF, a lot closer than his previous team-mates.

I actually enjoy these "who's the best"-topics. Since 94 and up until the middle of this season, I've never been in doubt about TGF being the best driver in F1. But in the last races, doubt has entered my mind, maybe, just maybe Mika now is the best. But I'm not sure. But I certainly think the gap has closed, TGF was better a couple of years ago than he is now, that's for sure.

[Dino IV]

Well I don't know about the best team, Bononi. My perception was that McLaren always was the non-plus-ultra team since halfway the eighties. Maybe except for the catering, but regarding facilities, policy and personnel always on top. That's no guarantee for continuous succes but the infrastructure always kept great quality.
Williams certainly showed best inguinity the previous two years and built unbeatable cars even a chimpanzee could become WDC in, as a professor who worked at Renault in those days claimed when he gave a lecture at the uni here.

Anyway regulation changes between '93 and '94 where almost equally drastic as between '97 and '98. Maybe not so obvious from the oputside but technically really major changes. And Williams didn't cope very well with those changes. The car was very very troublesome and although the strong points as Renaults high-end power covered up a lot of performance trouble, the car was still very hard to drive. Very nervous, rear suspension troublesome all year. Well we know what Senna said about the car bottoming out all the time. Only thanks to his abilities he made the car fly and during the season they sorted out the car more and more. Damon's performance was very pale compared to Senna's but his smooth style eventually found the right way to go with the car. As did DC, who's on an similar smooth driving style. But claiming the Williams as thé best car of the season seems like an equally all-conquering machine the Didcot-crew produced the two years before '94 and that's absolutely not true. It's strong points were sometimes good enough to be on top on some tracks, mostly due to Renaults phenomenal V10 but the margin was very small and sometimes not enough on other tracks. Benetton's B194 was much better sorted out suspensionwise ánd featured Ford's torqy and fuel economical V8 which sometimes was a better solution compared to the high-end power and thirst of the Renaults, so it really was close in 1994 and the B195 was slightly better, at least that's my perception.

And that's only talking about the part the cars played let alone fussing about Hill and Schumacher. But that's arbitrary and of less importance coz it's the car that gives a driver the ability to drive upfront, not the other way around. Ofcourse a very able driver does get noticed and may be driving a better car the year after because of that (unless he's signed a cut-throat contract with Flav) but that's not always the case and a lot of fine drivers have wasted some years with downhill teams like that.

I guess Mika was thrilled when Dennis signed him as a replacement for the F1 God ... well we know how that went.
Which leads back to the topic (how odd): it for sure was not because Dennis just felt like signing some average guy who drove deteriorating Lotusses but because he proved very very fast and showed some really impressive performances. It for sure wasn't his fault that Team-no-engine-McLaren completely lost momentum in '94 and '95 - exactly the period that one team pushed out one last gasp of budget and performance to push one driver to two WDC's after the team spent eight years and a lot of podiums in the sub-top. The fact that Schumacher was there and then ánd Mika was not there and not then has anything to do with their skills? I don't think so, but it for sure gave Schumacher a statistical advantage from which some tifosi even today claim the same thing unfortunately.

[Bononi]

Ok, we agree in most points. The rule changes 93/94 was trouble for Williams, and they could solve this through the season.
And sure Ron Dennis knows what he does, and he has the pay back now ! So, your opinion Cranky Mika and TGF are in the same class, or better ?

[Dino IV]

Performance seems to be equal now so that would be something like a same class. But I don't think there's a same class. Some people throw all the old champions together and declare them the best ever. That doesn't do anyone justice I think. Some drivers are hopelessly overrated and others unjustifiable underrated that way. Personally I wouldn't call Fangio and Senna in the same class ... it would hopelessly underrate Ayrton for instance. Drivers have evolved through tougher selections and ever more demanding autosports. Fangio probably would like tin tops nowadays and I bet he would give Peter Mallet a run for his money in a Capri but I don't think he would be any good in an aero bullet like we know today. The formula demands different skills now ... skills today's drivers are selected for and that's uncomparable through the different era's.

Comparing two drivers from the same era poses other questions. What skills do they have, different ones, similar ones? I think Häkkinen and Schumacher, although featuring the same driving style, are very different drivers, with different plusses and minuses. Both have immense reflexive and corrective skill. TGF is very analytical, agnostic, smart, very fit, adaptive and extremely determined for instance. Mika is not like that, he is determined but has to charge himself. Not in the past but probably since his near-death experience. Agnostic? Not at all. Smart? probably. Adaptive? not very, has to reassure himself and find confidence first. Analytical? To some extent. So what's his strongest point then? His natural speed, that instinctive speed that seems to be all over him and still gives you the feeling he's using only half of it if he doesn't feel like pushing. As TGF could be described as the thinker, Mika is more the intuïtive natural. The result seems to be a match, but the way it's conceived is very very different, I guess. Trulli is thé man though