Yeah that’s why he was a 3 time WDC and he could sustain high level of pain. Fat asses can’t sustain f1. Basic Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Schumacher took it several steps further. He had a whole program designed around him that made him the optimal fitness for an F1 driver, and he was incredibly dedicated to following it. Even went as far as regular bloodtests to see how diet/type of training affected fitness. How he found the time to do all the testing he did and all other things is beyond me.
This is why Jean never won a thing... crashes even in historical races Not his fault and to be honest still would rather watch this ! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So far I've seen Jim. 'Seen Jackie.....Niki, Alain, Ayrton, Michael and Lewis. (Fangio in my lifetime too, but I didn't see him.) I no longer know what "once in a lifetime" means when that's eight (so far, perhaps?) of the greatest in mine......
A) Shear folly. No one can make a car do something it's incapable of doing. If a driver makes a car do anything, it is capable of so doing.....physics allows no more. B) Apples and oranges. You're neglecting to extrapolate. Clark was in far fewer races than Hamilton..... Jim's poles/total races is 33/72 (45.83 %).....Lewis'? 99/268 (only 36.94 %). Fastest laps? Jim 28/72 (38.89 %).....Lewis'? 54/268 (again only 20.15 %)..... Agree with you, Ham is a great, but........ BTW.....Mansell in the "groups of legends"? Goodness.....'in what parallel universes are we....?? 187 races.....32 poles (17.11 %); 30 fastest laps (16.04 %)..... You just blew your credibility all to hell.....
There is also the manner in which a driver wins to consider. Mansell had ballsy wins against fierce competition when cars were still dangerous and carrying an injury. Mansell is not in the Top 10 statistically, but statistics alone are not the complete story.
A) Oh. Edumacate me, please, what good are they if they're so few? B) Fantasy is great fun. Ballsy wins, only Mansell, right? I take it Jim, Graham, Jochen, Ayrton, Niki.....even Michael....had no clue about danger, injury, and, sorrowfully, death......... Auto racing remains the same, no matter how many safety features. It's got a little.....just a little.....to do with the nature of the sport. Ask Romain. C) Greatness, however, is the results one delivers; not how excitingly (or whatever you're "complete story" implies) one doesn't.
A) These are the battles that most people remember B) Yes I agree Jim, Graham, Jochen, Ayrton, Niki, Michael and more also know about injury and worse. C) Greatness is judged by a person's content of character, when things get tough.
Greatness is usually also related to what drivers were "the best" during the childhood of the observer. Back in the day before... Statistics are only thrown in because of the brain's cognitive bias to judge itself as a rational, intelligent entity which only forms truthful opinions based rational facts. This does not gel well with fond memories, so adjustments are necessary
Totally true. In the end, however, this type of analysis is as valid as so-called rational analysis based on statistics which are not weighted by contexts.
Interesting. A) Remebering tough battles is wonderful. 'Didn't win him too many races and championships though, did it? B) I was hoping you would. C) That's fine for rating one's personality traits. For rating one's ability in auto racing, it's results, results, results. That's why it's the sport of F1 auto racing, not a Mr/Ms Character popularity contest.
I'm 67 years old. Been following auto racing since 5 and am not rating by "the best during my childhood". I'm rating the greats by their production, Their performance, netting results, not just "throwing in statistics". I'm basing their greatness on those statitics. Fangio (beofre my time), Clark, Stewart, Prost, Lauda, Senna, Schumacher, and Hamilton are the greats to me. Pretty much...nay...literally all...through my lifespan. Absolutely. As a character /personality rating. There are personalities I favored, and those I didn't, throughout the fields (pointy end of grids to rear, and amongst my choices of greats). Those personalities have nought to do with "race driver's greatness" in performing their chosen profession. As stated above (post 370, C) ), we're talking F1 racing here, specifically Lewis Hamilton (see the subject, not a character competition.
No doubt I am limited intellectually or because of my very limited English, but I must admit that I have some difficulties in grasping all the subtleties of your thought ..
As simply as I can state it......I separate a driver's personality/character from their performance on track results when rating drivers. Those are two totally different rating endeavours. For example, of my choices for greats, I do not care at all for Senna's, Schumacher's, or Hamilton's personalities. I highly respected Fangio's, Clark's, and Stewart's. The others......eh.....no major opinion one way or the other. Having said that, however, I would rate Stewart, Prost, and Lauda lower than Senna or Schumacher for their driving ability, but would place them far ahead for their personality/characters if that were what I was doing on this thread. There were awesome personality/character wise, "not so" awesome, and in between, throughout, as I stated ealier.. Same for drivers' ability throughout.
