Hill, Mansell, Schumacher

[Merlin5]

Hypothetical question for fun. If Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell and Michael Schumacher were all young drivers today, ie, all the same age as alonso, hamilton and vettel, with the same skill level they had back in their day, would they be good enough to beat today's elite crop of top drivers? Naturally the car technology has changed, but given just skill alone, would they stand a chance? Obviously Schumacher is currently competing, but perhaps it would be a different story if he were still in his twenties.

 

[ZG002]

I believe so yes, It takes a special something to have the drive to become WDC.

 

[Merlin5]

I believe so yes, It takes a special something to have the drive to become WDC.

But is the skill level higher today than the skill held by those older legends?

 

[ZG002]

I wouldn't say higher, Just different perhaps.

 

[arknor]

But is the skill level higher today than the skill held by those older legends?

how is it? schumacher was already past his peak when alonso won his 2 championships and even with a better car alonso still struggled and was pretty lucky all things considered.

now many people consider alonso to be the best driver or atleast as good as vettel and hamilton.

i think its safe to say the field isnt any better than it was in the 90's.

also schumacher murdered massa by a lot more than raikonnen did and kimi is considered the best thing since sliced hovis by many, i think schumacher beat massa by a lot more than alosno managed last season aswell but cant be bothered to check all the quali sessions

 

[JRS]

Hill was a great development driver, a real tiger on his day, and certainly wasn't overawed when he faced world champion team-mates.

Mansell was without question one of the bravest drivers ever to race a Formula One car, and one who could go wheel-to-wheel with anyone and pass them cleanly (a skill that young Vettel would do well to develop).

Schumacher was the fittest, fastest, most ruthless driver out there and also one who could rally the entire team solely around himself (something that Vettel already has sorted I would think).

Skill-wise - they all won titles. They all beat other champions to win titles. I don't see why all three in their prime wouldn't stand a decent chance against the current crop of drivers. Of course, put them all in '50s/'60s machinery and pit them against Stirling Moss in his prime, and they're all going to get schooled

 

[Merlin5]

Interesting to know. I only ask because often people say that footballers today are faster or more skilled than the famous players of yesteryear and likewise with tennis. So I just wondered if that was the case with F1.

 

[Shimmy]

Interesting to know. I only ask because often people say that footballers today are faster or more skilled than the famous players of yesteryear and likewise with tennis. So I just wondered if that was the case with F1.

Well the fitness aspect is much higher now in F1 than even 20 years ago, never mind 40/50 years ago due to the increased G force loads in the corners. Drivers back then no doubt could become fit enough to drive the cars of today, there just was no need to back then.

The skills haven't changed much over the decades though.

 

[sunama]

Hill was a great development driver, a real tiger on his day, and certainly wasn't overawed when he faced world champion team-mates.

Mansell was without question one of the bravest drivers ever to race a Formula One car, and one who could go wheel-to-wheel with anyone and pass them cleanly (a skill that young Vettel would do well to develop).

Schumacher was the fittest, fastest, most ruthless driver out there and also one who could rally the entire team solely around himself (something that Vettel already has sorted I would think).

Bang on.


Hill would've been the weakest of all the 3 drivers you listed. Mansell would probably be very similar to Hamilton. And MSc...the most complete driver ever to have driven an F1 car...'nuff said.

Skill-wise - they all won titles. They all beat other champions to win titles. I don't see why all three in their prime wouldn't stand a decent chance against the current crop of drivers. Of course, put them all in '50s/'60s machinery and pit them against Stirling Moss in his prime, and they're all going to get schooled

I'd disagree with this, though. It is of course extremely difficult to compare a driver in machinery which is completely different. Also consider nutrition, knowledge about exercise/fitness and all the other qualities which a driver in the 21st century possesses, a driver from half a century would not have a hope in hell competing against the likes of MSc.

Had MSc brought his professionalism, attention to detail and all the other skills he had in 2000, he would've creamed the guys in the 50's. In the 50's it wouldn't be out of the ordinary, to see a driver smoking/drinking before a race. If you asked the older generation to string together 20 qualifying laps, on the trot, they would've struggled (if only due to the fitness/concentration required to do this). For MSc, this would've been quite routine.

MSc and pretty much any top class driver in the modern era would whip those guys who drove in the 50's. Take away the advantages of living in the 21st brings (ie. training, nutrition, etc)...then I'm not so sure.

The real battle that I think the F1 world was robbed of was the 1994/5 championship: Senna Vs MSc. Senna seemed to have finally met his match in MSc and MSc was improving all the time. That would've been an unbelievable fight.

 

[sunama]

Interesting to know. I only ask because often people say that footballers today are faster or more skilled than the famous players of yesteryear and likewise with tennis. So I just wondered if that was the case with F1.

Exactly.

It always makes me laugh when people talk about a football team of 30 years ago, being able to compete against a top team of today. There wouldn't be any contest. I would be amazed if a top team of 3 decades ago, didn't lose by at least 5 goals (unless they decide to "park a bus" in front of goal).

For the reason you have mentioned, it is unfair to compare a team/sportsman of yesteryear to their modern counterpart.

 

[sunama]

... i think schumacher beat massa by a lot more than alosno managed last season aswell but cant be bothered to check all the quali sessions

Based on points scored, you are correct.

However, in 2006, Massa had only just arrived at Ferrari and was very much in the early part of his F1 career. Massa was still learning. He continued to improve until mid-2009.

It could be argued that had MSc raced with Massa in 2010, he would not have been able to demolish Massa in the same way that Alonso did.

Of course, we will never know.

 

[arknor]

Based on points scored, you are correct.

i once read on another forum massas average qualifying difference to michael was greater than what its been to alonso.

im to lazy to gather all the data and do the maths though

 

[Flibster]

Of course, put them all in '50s/'60s machinery and pit them against Stirling Moss in his prime, and they're all going to get schooled

Possibly. But little Jimmy will be well up road from all of them.

 

[Glaucus]

Out of all the f1 drivers you selected nigell and hill.

 

[JRS]

Possibly. But little Jimmy will be well up road from all of them.

Maybe! Though given that Jimmy thought that Dan Gurney was the one driver capable of giving him a really hard time, maybe we should include R&T's nomination for the Presidency as well....

Well the fitness aspect is much higher now in F1 than even 20 years ago, never mind 40/50 years ago due to the increased G force loads in the corners. Drivers back then no doubt could become fit enough to drive the cars of today, there just was no need to back then.

Exactly.

 

[FrankJH]

Skill-wise - they all won titles. They all beat other champions to win titles. I don't see why all three in their prime wouldn't stand a decent chance against the current crop of drivers. Of course, put them all in '50s/'60s machinery and pit them against Stirling Moss in his prime, and they're all going to get schooled

Totally agree - but I personally would have said Jimmy Clark instead of Moss (not that I dont like Moss, I think he was fab, but Clark had the best car control ever imo)

-edit and Ive just read your reply above

One thing which Ive thought of - back in the 60's/70's especially the drivers had much more direct control over the car (much less if any electronics etc) , Im wondering if they would have got on with taking that control away from them (ie I think some of their skill would have been deminished by this aspect - ie a very bad thing indeed)

Of course they would adapt but even so.....

 

[arknor]

back in the oldern times when it was pretty much a richmans sport i doubt the competition was that great even an average f1 driver of today might have stood out back then.

its still a richmans sport but you know what i mean

 

[Slam62]

I think the current crop are way better, I would even go so far as to say a different league and I was a Mansell fanboy.

I think Senna and Prost, possibly Schumi would have brought themselves up to the current level,. I'm not convinced about Schumi because at his peak he was never up against decent opposition in the same car.
I think he's too old to compete now.

 

[sunama]

back in the oldern times when it was pretty much a richmans sport...

This is a very good point.

 

[Flibster]

back in the oldern times when it was pretty much a richmans sport i doubt the competition was that great even an average f1 driver of today might have stood out back then.

Yes...richmens sport.

Like used car salesmen, mechanics, people who had their offices in phone boxes...

Richmen all...