FORUMula1.com

[FerrariFan63]

We get this sort of statement every year from the opposing side when someone wins. That LH might be a championship, but a "weak" or "unworthy" one. Smacks of sour grapes to me. He had to work hard for it, and deserves it.

[dant]

I think this thread is particularly stupid.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Tony_sa]

Get over it

WE WON

Who's we ??? I think glock sucks !!!!

[bud]

Get over it

WE WON

Who's we ??? I think glock sucks !!!!

[KyrosV]

Schumi is the greatist all time. Lewis doesnt compare, and I dont think he will. Next year will be the year for him to prove he is a great. Most drivers who become champions find it hard to become 2 times champions (kimi is a recent example) my top 5 list of greats are:

1.M Schumacher (unquestionable)
2.A Senna (maybe could of achieved more but was cut short )
3.A Prost (he proved his worth with every team he joined)
4.F Alonso (I tip him for a 3rd)
5.JM Fangio (dont know much about him but I know he was a legend of his time)

Hill, Villeneurve, Hakkinan & Kimi were weak champions tbh. they had a good car but wernt anything special

[bud]

Hakkinen a weak champion? X2? yet you put Alonso up there with Fangio?

[KyrosV]

Hakkinen a weak champion? X2? yet you put Alonso up there with Fangio?

1998: It was given to him. McLaren had a superior car.
1999: schumacher broke his Leg and Irvine wasnt allowed to win it.

[bud]

Hakkinen a weak champion? X2? yet you put Alonso up there with Fangio?

1998: It was given to him. McLaren had a superior car.
1999: schumacher broke his Leg and Irvine wasnt allowed to win it.

and Alonso's were so much worthy in comparison then? he had the constructor winning car in both his championship years!

But to me there is no such thing as a weak champion, that term is an oxymoron said by morons

[KyrosV]

Hakkinen a weak champion? X2? yet you put Alonso up there with Fangio?

1998: It was given to him. McLaren had a superior car.
1999: schumacher broke his Leg and Irvine wasnt allowed to win it.

and Alonso's were so much worthy in comparison then? he had the constructor winning car in both his championship years!

But to me there is no such thing as a weak champion, that term is an oxymoron said by morons

Alonso deserved both victories. Renault won the championship but were not the best car in 2005. In 2006 Alonso was challenging Schumacher in all the races. It was the best 1 on 1 racing seen for a long time in most of the races.

[big ron]

If Lewis is the weakest champion (?) then this must have been the weakest ever F1 pack, despite having two fomer champs in there. And I'm not so sure that the MP-23 was light years ahead of the F2008.

Still, if it gives the sore losers something to focus on, go ahead.

[FerrariFan63]

Alonso deserved both victories. Renault won the championship but were not the best car in 2005. In 2006 Alonso was challenging Schumacher in all the races. It was the best 1 on 1 racing seen for a long time in most of the races.

Strongly disagreed. The Renault was the best car in 2005. The McLaren was fundamentally a faster car but was considerably less reliable. I can't understand people who say that one car was better than another while ignoring reliability. Particularly with the modern points system.

[McLaren Fan]

Hakkinen a weak champion? X2? yet you put Alonso up there with Fangio?

1998: It was given to him. McLaren had a superior car.
1999: schumacher broke his Leg and Irvine wasnt allowed to win it.

Ferrari went all out to win the title for Irvine. In fact, we saw an extremely rare glimpse of Schumacher allowing his teammate to win a race!

Hakkinen was a brilliant driver. In his early career, he was not so great at developing the car, but he quickly ironed that out and not long after he was in a race seat at McLaren he was the finished article. In my view, two titles does not do Hakkinen's ability justice. He was saddled with rubbish cars for most of his career. When McLaren give him a decent technical package, he showed what he could do. In 1998 to 2000, McLaren had the fastest cars, but their reliability was poor. That was the only thing keeping Schumacher and Ferrari in the title race. Also of note, Schumacher, who you deem the greatest ever, regards Hakkinen as his greatest rival and one of the greatest drivers ever. His opinion is worth far more than your uneducated bile.

[McLaren Fan]

Alonso deserved both victories. Renault won the championship but were not the best car in 2005. In 2006 Alonso was challenging Schumacher in all the races. It was the best 1 on 1 racing seen for a long time in most of the races.

Strongly disagreed. The Renault was the best car in 2005. The McLaren was fundamentally a faster car but was considerably less reliable. I can't understand people who say that one car was better than another while ignoring reliability. Particularly with the modern points system.

I agree. The MP4-20 was another of Newey's works of art. The car was beautifully designed, but was far too fragile, like most McLaren cars he produced for McLaren. Newey is the most overrated designer in Formula One. His ideas are the stuff of genius, but he is not capable of designing a car on his own. He needs a good mechanical engineer to keep his artful ideas in check and make his cars able to pass the finish line. Renault did the basics right in 2005 - with a much smaller sum of cash, so I don't begrudge them their title. I do feel sorry for Raikkonen, though. He was really unlucky.

[KyrosV]

Hakkinen a weak champion? X2? yet you put Alonso up there with Fangio?

1998: It was given to him. McLaren had a superior car.
1999: schumacher broke his Leg and Irvine wasnt allowed to win it.

Ferrari went all out to win the title for Irvine. In fact, we saw an extremely rare glimpse of Schumacher allowing his teammate to win a race!

Hakkinen was a brilliant driver. In his early career, he was not so great at developing the car, but he quickly ironed that out and not long after he was in a race seat at McLaren he was the finished article. In my view, two titles does not do Hakkinen's ability justice. He was saddled with rubbish cars for most of his career. When McLaren give him a decent technical package, he showed what he could do. In 1998 to 2000, McLaren had the fastest cars, but their reliability was poor. That was the only thing keeping Schumacher and Ferrari in the title race. Also of note, Schumacher, who you deem the greatest ever, regards Hakkinen as his greatest rival and one of the greatest drivers ever. His opinion is worth far more than your uneducated bile.

In the Final race of 1999 Schumacher only had to let irvine past for the the point he needed to win. But of course schumacher didnt want Irvine to win and be #1 in the ferrari team & and win the drivers title before him for Ferrari.

Hakkinen being schumachers greatest rival? That was said the year Mika retired right? when michael beat him? before Alonso was in the frame? And to be honest MS has not had many great drivers come up against him. If you Mclaren Bias can look past it all. Mika wasnt that great, just the right team at the right time. He was good, but not that good. 2 titles flatter him

[bud]

http://www.tesora.com.au/flash/bullpoo_button.swf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

so Kyro the one year Fernando and Schumacher had a head to head makes them great rivals?
Mika and Mike had pre F1 rivarly as well not just their F1 careers!

one could say to you to get over your Alonso bias he isnt that good he was just at Renault at the right time, his two titles flatter him......