Damon Hill in review

[fly_ac]

On ability. How does a driver win with the best car? By having the ability to make use of it.

errr......That is the same as what I said.

.......because he had the way better car at the time and were capable of driving that car.

[raphael123]

fly_ac, in reply to your comments made in the other topic, I must be honest your reply saying you've been an F1 fan since 91 surprises me. I'll take your word for it But it's quite surprising you don't recall Belgium 98! Though not many cars finished that race, the only retirement which benefited Hill was Schumacher (who made a driver error), so that isn't really relevant to his win. And the fact you don't believe Hill to be in a position to make a comment on Alonso's move to McLaren as a good way to prove himself, when I think Hill managed to do exactly that, suggested you weren't aware of Hill's achievements during the 97-98 seasons. Both teams made radical performance gains during the course of the seasons, and Hill drove argueably one of the greatest race performances in recent history in Hungary 97, only a mechanical failure letting him down on the final lap, and gave a team who'd never won a GP a victory! And I notice you say here that he only won the title because he had the best car. And hasn't shown ability of being a top class driver since then, further suggests you weren't aware of his final years in the sport, unless you were watching it from another perspective.

[fly_ac]

fly_ac, in reply to your comments made in the other topic, I must be honest your reply saying you've been an F1 fan since 91 surprises me. I'll take your word for it

It is a surprise to me as well, especially that it is such a long time.

But it's quite surprising you don't recall Belgium 98!

What gave you that idea, would that be, because I asked questions to get a reaction?
Would it be the following comments/questions from myself?

1) Did he won any race after Williams?
2) So what were Hill's excuse when he left Williams?
3) Did Hill win any WDC after Williams, my good man?
4) I weren't drawing any similarity between anyone. The argument were that Hill isn't in the best of possitions to judge, if it is a good move for Alonso to have gone to McLaren or not. I think the best judge of that is Time.
5) Ohhh 1 more question, how many cars completed that race.

I think basic answers to this could have been.
1) Yes, in 1998 at Spa, with Jordan.
2) He was told that his contract would not be renewed, and all the top teams were sorted at the time, so he had to settle for Arrows.
3) No, given the teams he was in.
4) Please take note, I didn't say that Hill were in no position to judge, I said best of positions and that the best judge of that is time.
5) 8 cars to be precise

Though not many cars finished that race, the only retirement which benefited Hill was Schumacher (who made a driver error), so that isn't really relevant to his win.

Read no 5) above. And there were 14 retirements that benefited Hill.

And the fact you don't believe Hill to be in a position to make a comment on Alonso's move to McLaren as a good way to prove himself, when I think Hill managed to do exactly that, suggested you weren't aware of Hill's achievements during the 97-98 seasons.

Read no 4) above. And I were very much aware of Hill in 97,98 and even 99

Both teams made radical performance gains during the course of the seasons, and Hill drove argueably one of the greatest race performances in recent history in Hungary 97, only a mechanical failure letting him down on the final lap, and gave a team who'd never won a GP a victory!

Well yes that is arguable, and mechanical failure is and will always be part of the sport.

And I notice you say here that he only won the title because he had the best car. And hasn't shown ability of being a top class driver since then, further suggests you weren't aware of his final years in the sport, unless you were watching it from another perspective.

Obviously I am/were looking at it/Hill/F1 from a different perspective, how boring would it be if everyone were to agree about everything all the time.

As I said before, Hill is/were capable of driving a F1 car.
If Williams didn't want him and Mclaren didn't want to give him a proper contract it tells me they had their doubts as to how good he really were.

[Narr]

Read no 5) above. And there were 14 retirements that benefited Hill.

If you are driving in 1st and 2nd position 14 retirements behind you don't hand you the lead. Only Michael's retirement helped Damon.

[raphael123]

fly_ac

What gave you that idea, would that be, because I asked questions to get a reaction?
Would it be the following comments/questions from myself?

It was because you asked whether he won a race after, and a title etc basically. I didn't realise you were trying to get a reaction. I'm no mind-reader - I admit it!!

Williams regretted him leaving. The decision to get Frentzen was made in 95, which in fairness Hill didn't do a great job. I'm not sure how accurate this was, but it's reported that in 96 Ferrari and Benettons (the then champions) were keen to sign him after he had been dropped by Williams. This is according to wikipedia, but from my memory I thought he signed with Arrows because there were no other top seats available. Can anyone who was watching F1 then recall differently?

And McLaren did offer him a contract, I suppose it depends on your defination of a 'proper' contract. I don't think the fact they didn't offer him a fixed salary due to not rating him highly enough, it was Dennis's committment to give DC and Mika (in particular Mika) a chance to drive a car that would be a title winning car, after being at the team for a while now rather than not rating Hill.

And then as Narr said, Hill benefitted from one retirement, which was driver error/accident rather than mechanical

[Mark]

Well Hill also had an offer on the table from Jordan for the 1997 season. And remember Jordan was a pretty good team at the time.

He took the Arrows offer instead, he said because he felt like he was being "shoehorned" into a deal with Jordan

[fly_ac]

It was because you asked whether he won a race after, and a title etc basically. I didn't realise you were trying to get a reaction. I'm no mind-reader - I admit it!!

Williams regretted him leaving. The decision to get Frentzen was made in 95, which in fairness Hill didn't do a great job. I'm not sure how accurate this was, but it's reported that in 96 Ferrari and Benettons (the then champions) were keen to sign him after he had been dropped by Williams. This is according to wikipedia, but from my memory I thought he signed with Arrows because there were no other top seats available. Can anyone who was watching F1 then recall differently?

And McLaren did offer him a contract, I suppose it depends on your defination of a 'proper' contract. I don't think the fact they didn't offer him a fixed salary due to not rating him highly enough, it was Dennis's committment to give DC and Mika (in particular Mika) a chance to drive a car that would be a title winning car, after being at the team for a while now rather than not rating Hill.

And then as Narr said, Hill benefitted from one retirement, which was driver error/accident rather than mechanical

If I maybe used the wrong words/sentences to try and get a understanding as to what the big fuss surounding Hill as a WDC is, then I appologise.

The big thing for me were always the fact that the British media made Hill into some sort of a F1 god when he won the WDC. I could and still can't see him as being that great then and today.

Yes, I believe for someone to be a WDC that person had to do something very special, and Hill did he's share to do that, however I don't think I was that special. Well at least not to me.

The fact that almost every time I read how great a race Hill had at Spa 98, just strengthens my believe, as to how good he was, because I hardly ever read of how good he drove in 96 to become WDC. Sometimes, but very seldom.

[raphael123]

If I maybe used the wrong words/sentences to try and get a understanding as to what the big fuss surounding Hill as a WDC is, then I appologise.

The big thing for me were always the fact that the British media made Hill into some sort of a F1 god when he won the WDC. I could and still can't see him as being that great then and today.

Yes, I believe for someone to be a WDC that person had to do something very special, and Hill did he's share to do that, however I don't think I was that special. Well at least not to me.

The fact that almost every time I read how great a race Hill had at Spa 98, just strengthens my believe, as to how good he was, because I hardly ever read of how good he drove in 96 to become WDC. Sometimes, but very seldom.

Apology accepted

I don't regard Hill as a great. Without a doubt he wasn't as talented as the likes of Schumacher, Alonso, Senna, Prost etc. I don't think anyone is claiming that. In actual fact, I don't think anyone was really discussing how talented the guy was. I think he was a very very good driver. I think he's actually under-rated by F1 fans, who simply think he got into F1 through his surname, and then got his 20 odd wins by driving the best car at the time. I think when you look at his achievements, especially from his debut season to '96, to achieve over 20 wins in just 4 seasons, and his first 4 seasons as well, was mighty impressive, especially when during that time he had to compete against Senna, Prost and Schumacher, though admittedly only Prost and Senna for a season and a bit. When you include coping with the death of Senna and taking the role of team-leader in the team considered the No1 team in F1 at the time, in only his 2nd full season, is mighty impressive. To take the title down to the wire, and only to lose through his competitor cheating his way to the title (though he helped win the constructors lets not forget!) was more than admirable! Add on top the way he conducted himself, even after his 'incident' in the final race, he was a true sportsman, something his competitor couldn't say. And as has been said, Japan 94 was one of his greatest races ever.

Regarding 96, I agree with you in a way. I think Hill drove very well, especially the first half of that season. He simply maximised the situation he found himself in. He qualified on the front row for every single race that year, no one has ever managed that. And out of the 12 races he completed 10 of those were 1st (8) and 2nd (2). I think that's pretty good, Brazil was probably his greatest race that season, though Suzuka was a very sweet moment for him. I think though he did a very good job in 96, he did have the best car, and his team-mate was a rookie, and his biggest rival had a poor car, so it was his perfect opportunity. Though I think he deserved a championship, and 96 was a just reward for 94 in particular.

Mark, I heard about that too. He should have gone there. From what I understood at the time is it was a 2yr deal? And he wanted the McLaren drive in 98, therefore he accepted the Arrows deal, rather than going to Jordon. Though saying that, if he knew what kind of contract was to be offered by McLaren, I'm guessing he would have gone straight to Jordon, because as you rightly say I think Jordon had a pretty neat package in 97.

[ShiftingGears]

A bit off topic from the current discussion, but how do you rate Damons talent (compared to his competition) to Grahams talent (compared to his competition)?

It's strange how history repeats itself how Damon was in the same position after Senna's death as Graham was after Clark's death. They were never the most naturally talented drivers (despite Graham managing to win 2 WDCs, first driving a car at age 24!!) but worked hard with what they had.

[raphael123]

I wish I could comment in detail, but I don't feel I'm in a position to talk much at Graham when I wasn't watching F1 at that time.

But I have heard the comparison - in that Clark was the naturally more gifted driver compared to Graham, just like Schumacher and Hill. Hill should have won 2 titles too, shame really.

Any fans of F1 back in Grahams day care to comment? I know I'd find it interesting