See this is whats amazing about the forum moron.

i disagree with MUDD on his schumi assesment, he knows i disagree, we have a different take on him.

Yet, ive never needed to call him a fool - he has never patronised me, declaring me to young to know the nuances of F1.

So it is clear that having a difference in opinion isnt the issue. Perhaps it is how that opinion is generated.

Supporting MUDDS opinion is mesmerizing stats, common consensus, peer reputation and MUDDs own experience.

Supporting my opinion is - Stats are overstated due to an overly dominant car, when paired against roberg, he was beaten (i accept he was probably past his best), i dont believe in his Ferrari years he was overwhelmed with rival talent challenging him, or teammates.

Now im not stupid enough to declare, i am right, and everyone else is wrong. There are plenty of arguments back against my views, and plenty against mudds views.

We both come here knowing this, presented our point, and respected each others point.

My view is - schumi may have been the best ever, but its difficult to tell, due to the dominant car

Does mudd respect this opinion (may disagree)?

i respect Mudds opinion, its based on facts, its consistent in its application of logic.

Martial however contradicts his own standards of assesment. He then asks you to prove him wrong, however its impossible to prove somebody wrong, when they dont accept facts as solid base for an opinion. He then resorts to twisting the argument, then antagonising, then patronising. The whole thread goes from good humoured intelligent discussion, to his level of intelligence/stupidity, then he beats you with experience - previously pointed out.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

you missed out the one where the hamilton infatuation vegetable club think rosberg aimed his fragile little wing at hamiltons tyre at spa on purpose -
-------------------------------
The same incident where rosberg admitting to "not avoiding" a collision.

Apparently its ret/arded to use this as a basis of an opinion

Welshy you would have to ask martial about the vegetable thing, I do not speak retarrd

Champion for two different teams! That makes him one of a kind for the current F1 grid, not bad, not bad at all

Turning point seemed to be Spa, team chastised Rosberg and rather than fall into a rut Hamilton pushed on and came out so much stronger. Good on you lad

Well deserved success which all who are sane have congratulated. Also a big well done and mega kudos to Rosberg, no one wants to lose but the way he took it and acted afterwards was class. Big respect to act so mature and composed after what was a massive blow.

I think Rosberg left his wing in don't think he's quite intelligent enough to have actually aimed it at the exact point - that was purely his good luck . If he was that intelligent he'd have been a WC this season, just like the most intelligent driver (likened to Senna btw) Seb Vettel did

Now, now, we have 2 more members of the Hamilton vegetable club

Ye have to say Rosberg was a good man to congratulate Hamilton even though he must have been hurting bad

will it become unfashionable to be in the vegetable club if it grows too much?

Do we have to grow vegetables in real life? Like on an allotment or something?

I think there have been a couple of unsavoury things from Rosberg this season (just my opinion) but I think it doesn't sit with his character. I actually like the guy, and rate the guy in general.

Think he's kept Hamilton honest despite the gap in no. of wins, and think he's proven to be a genuine title contender Hamilton is by a good little distance the better driver imo, but maybe I've got a far greater opinion of Rosberg in terms of where he'd fit in amongst the very good drivers on this grid

comment by Welshy (U1348)
posted 5 hours, 30 minutes ago
of course Hamilton deserves this title

So Mercedes have had the dominant car, but that's not the first time or last time that will happen. McLaren late 80's, Williams mid 90's, McLaren late 90's, Ferrari early 00's, RedBull early 10's.

The difference being to most of those (with McLaren late 80's being an obvious exception, maybe Williams mid 90's too?) is that Mercedes let their drivers race each other with no team-orders, no No.1/No. 2.

If this championship is cheap then heaven forbid what that says about Schumacher's/Vettel's/Mansell's/Prost's 4th title
----------------------------------------------------------------------

yeh --- fair play to merc for allowing the drivers to race welshy hats must be doffed to merc for that as team orders do nothing for the credibility of the sport -

as to the other drivers you mentioned , you always got the impression that red bull played it fairly fair with both drivers and let them race ,

historically williams have always played it fair and in all honesty i just believe mansell truly mastered the active suspension on his FW14 and decimated patrese on merit in 1992

from the race footage of 1993 you have to also say that hill was allowed to fight prost for the title and did put up a pretty good show on occasions against such a master -

Must agree with you about schumacher , his whole career was just one big fake phoney manufactured farce of team orders and weak team mates that were never allowed to race him and for me his titles are phoney and have very little credibility --

I got the impression that all was fair in 2010 between Vettel & Webber, but the gap after that I can't personally put down purely to ability.

Webber indicated where the favourite within the team lay, and I darn well hope we have an autobiography soon - would be a fascinating read.

On Prost - I actually think Hill could have had Prost that year - 3 retirements in a row from Hill whilst leading?

Personally I think Prost is actually a tad overrated - think Mansell was just as good doubt if many would agree though.

As for Schumacher - I think 96/97 proved how good a driver he was, and would be in my top 3 since I started watching F1 in 1992.

Senna/Hamilton/Schumacher

I rate Alonso/Prost - just not as highly as others

MartialThcko is an embarrassment.

He judges other people's intelligence by posting his own utter stupid views.

Neanderthals were not intelligent, damp squids, dogs on leases, Gettysburg address was long drawn out, Monaco low downforce,

I will have pleasure in awarding the Marty award to the JA606 member that tried to get as much wrong about F1 as MartialDickhead. Tough call I know but AnfieldRap gets it by being right on his predictions but missing the deadlines.

comment by Welshy (U1348)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
I got the impression that all was fair in 2010 between Vettel & Webber, but the gap after that I can't personally put down purely to ability.

Webber indicated where the favourite within the team lay, and I darn well hope we have an autobiography soon - would be a fascinating read.

On Prost - I actually think Hill could have had Prost that year - 3 retirements in a row from Hill whilst leading?

Personally I think Prost is actually a tad overrated - think Mansell was just as gooddoubt if many would agree though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

you have to judge prost on his whole career and not just on 93 welshy , from what i gather his mindset for that year was he knew he was the red hot favourite with zero competition in the FW15 but with all the slightly unreliable cutting edge technology in the car just set out to win the title whilst being as sympathetic with the machinery as he possibly could -

yeh -- mansell was very good with similar ability and mentality to the current lewis hamilton , i actually think mansell was slightly better than hamilton but that is another story ,

----------------- in reality prost did have a little to much in his vast armoury for mansell when they were teamed up at ferrari in 1990 and the frenchman really should have sown up his 4th title that year given the superiority of his technology advanced 641 chassis over the rest of the field -

Nah Hamilton>Mansell imo but both proper racers

comment by WTCBU (U13662)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
MartialThcko is an embarrassment.

He judges other people's intelligence by posting his own utter stupid views.

Neanderthals were not intelligent, damp squids, dogs on leases, Gettysburg address was long drawn out, Monaco low downforce,

I will have pleasure in awarding the Marty award to the JA606 member that tried to get as much wrong about F1 as MartialDickhead. Tough call I know but AnfieldRap gets it by being right on his predictions but missing the deadlines.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry folks

you know who is following me around on here with his usual infantile mindless unprovoked abuse and bile towards other forum members for absolutely no reason -

---------- truly pathetic behavior by somebody in his mid 60s
--- sorry folks

comment by Welshy (U1348)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
As for Schumacher - I think 96/97 proved how good a driver he was, and would be in my top 3 since I started watching F1 in 1992.

Senna/Hamilton/Schumacher

I rate Alonso/Prost - just not as highly as others

----------------------------------------------------------------------

yeh must admit micheal was good in 1996 , but in reality the john barnard designed car was very , very quick with a brilliant chassis but ultimately fairly unreliable which prevented micheal from really challenging during 96

Micheals 97 310 chassis was also i believe the first rory byrne designed ferrari chassis that was designed around micheals driving style and make no mistake was an immensely quick machine that micheal could have won the title with given he was helped by williams not employing team orders for either HHF or j vill

---------------- but fair play to micheal he was very good in both those years -