Posts from Which athlete do you consider to be the best in the world?

Yes, in 2000, McLaren was at least as good as Ferrari, they only lost the title due to their own stupidity.

McLaren was fast, but unreliable, that's why Coulthard only competed with Schumacher until Monaco, when his car stalled on the starting lap of the warm-up, and instead of pole position, he started from the last place, and Mika also stalled on the last lap in his favorite Spain and instead of winning, he got 9th place.

In 2003, many teams were good, McLaren, Williams, and even Renault showed good races at times, but overall, Ferrari was still slightly better, and that slight advantage was enough for Schumacher to beat Raikkonen.

But despite all this, I don't consider him the GREATEST athlete in the world. Even in Formula 1, there are those who are not inferior to him, and if they are inferior, it is insignificantly. Fangio, Stewart, Lauda, Prost, Senna...

although in each individual championship, I cheered for them in their rivalry with Schumacher.

2Catch
It's just that you wrote "clearly the best car" for 5 years in a row, but when analyzed, it turned out to be only 2 out of five. Of course, the concept of a "car" should include not only speed, but also reliability, tires, mechanics, etc., but

I think the issue is not stupidity, but simply that Michael is faster than Mika. With everything else being almost equal, that was the deciding factor.

Yes, he stalled, but he was leading by a solid margin on the most indicative track of the championship, so Ferrari was better, though not critically. In a similar situation, but with the opposite polarity in 2000, Schumacher managed to pull through and became champion; I won't even mention 1994.

Better remember. Speed was more or less okay, but there were some problems every other race, if not more often. On the other hand, Williams had a period when they should have done 3-4 double wins in a row, but didn't because of infighting and their own mistakes. And Schumacher took advantage of this, unlike Kimi, although there are no particular complaints about him, after all, they had incomparably different experience.

You cannot compare Fangio and Schumacher—completely different eras. As for Prost and Senna, I am not particularly enthusiastic for at least one reason. They raced back when the minimum weight of the car was taken WITHOUT the driver (whereas now it is WITH the driver); it's not a fact that they were the fastest, but it is a fact that they were very light. Compare Senna, 160+ and just bones, with Mansell, nearly 190 and by no means a small boy in terms of build. So they had a difference of 25kg on board; I think I don't need to explain what that translates to per lap. Yes, Prost won 1993, but he was still a good driver, though even a monkey could have tried its luck in that Williams.

Key words. It's very difficult for you to be objective.

I don't consider myself a fan of Schumacher (I'm not prone to fandom in general), but he always fought passionately, at the limit. Yes, sometimes breaking the rules, but he only did it openly. Everyone talked about team tactics at Ferrari, but almost no one said that Irvine clearly let him pass only once—in the penultimate Grand Prix of 1997—and in return received an absolutely identical gift in Malaysia 1999. Barrichello let him pass twice, and in return received it at least four times. Mika himself enjoyed no fewer bonuses from Dennis (if not more), but everyone remained silent and hypocritically pursed their lips.

I liked watching Michael COMPETE, because does anyone really like watching movies or reading books about white and fluffy bunnies or about tricksters wearing an angelic mask? No, people love and hate (which is often almost the same thing) direct and open heroes. Those are the ones who are remembered. That's why I look at the current Formula characters, and most of them don't please me at all.

Problems started immediately, just like with other teams – either the fuel wouldn't reach the tank, or they wouldn't tighten a nut. This simply didn't happen with Todt.

In that year, McLaren probably had the third-best car, and Williams was simply unstoppable in the middle of the season. The fact that Schumacher became champion even with problems shows that he had a great car, especially since the problems weren't related to reliability, but rather to circumstances, like crashes or punctures.

The fact that the driver is now also gives an advantage to the smaller teams.

And regarding the "monkey" – Hill tried it in '94 with the same car.

Explain why? The fact that I'm not a fan of one driver or another doesn't prevent me from being objective.

In 2006, I was actually rooting for him.

I wasn't silent. I always cursed in front of the TV, especially at the end of '97 and the beginning of '98, when David gave the favorite, Ron, the victories.

Well, you said you were rooting against it, but this is already a hindrance.

You weren't silent, but McLaren and the peloton were silent. And in my opinion, David was faster, but his time, unfortunately, has passed.

Of course, it's faster, but I disagree about the time; while he's driving, I'll keep believing in him. By the way, my faith was rewarded with his podium finish in Canada. Now I'm waiting for his victory in Magny-Cours.

And about the 25 kg. Kubica lost 6 kg in the offseason and genuinely believes that it helped him improve his speed.

Self-suggestion is a powerful force. Besides, he has gained more experience, and the team is working for him (it's financially more advantageous with young drivers; if they don't quickly become champions, they are written off, while GP-2 actively produces young and promising drivers). We already saw team tactics in action by BMW in Montreal with 100% certainty; just remember how easily Kubica overtook Heidfeld, and the latter's face on the podium.

Well, here's my list, I can't choose just one
Garry Kasparov
Michael Jordan
Mario Lemieux
Michael Schumacher
Pete Sampras
Valery Kharlamov

I'd probably choose Kasparov from them.