How good were D. Hill and J. Villeneuve?

[Garry Walker]

There is no need to attack someone who says the daft things you say, like button having a car a second faster than the rest of the grid is somehow not the best car. He lost during the second part of the season because people started to catch up and his lack of ability caught up with him, and 90 year old rubens started to school him.

I think your credibility ended right when you said Button had a car that was one second per lap faster than the rest of the grid. There were no such races in 2009 for Brawn GP, although there was one for Red Bull. Over the season the Red Bull was a faster car, but the perfect season start for Button helped him to win the title, whereas the RB guys were making errors (their "precious" crashed out of 3 GPs and Webber was Webber, besides that he broke his leg before the season).

[vhatever]

I think your credibility ended right

Your credibility never began. You make the mistake in thinking that no one on planet earth ever watched 2009, when in reality, though, it seems you were one who did not watch it. Like usual, you just make **** up as you go.

[Garry Walker]

Your credibility never began. You make the mistake in thinking that no one on planet earth ever watched 2009, when in reality, though, it seems you were one who did not watch it. Like usual, you just make **** up as you go.

As expected, you have no arguments, only your fantasy world.

[vhatever]

As expected, you have no arguments, only your fantasy world.

Talking to yourself again, Garry?

[D28]

While that is true, the reality is that the competition for example in IndyCar in 1995 was very weak. Let's look at who his rivals were - Al Unser, Bobby Rahal (over 40 years old), Michael Andretti (F1 failure), Paul Tracy. Heck, even Emerson Fittipaldi won a race that season and he was 50 years old. So his rivals were weak drivers who might have done well in that series, but would never have amounted to anything much in F1 (let's forget Fittipaldi being a 2X WDC, that was 20 years before 1995). Mansell showed in 1993 how much better than the IndyCar guys he was already in his first season.

One can only compete against rivals who show up and at the time the 95 CART field was reckoned to be very competitive. Andretti and Tracy between them have 73 American OW wins, and I haven't looked up Unser's totals.
Robbie Gordon was considered a very talented runner in all kinds of series. Any of these racers could have been expected to prevail, yet JV emerged as champion and Indy winner. His wins were not achieved with superior racing equipment, which is all I am saying.

[D-Type]

Gentlemen please!

Cut out the personal insults. If you disagree the content of a post refute it and say why. But do not attack the poster personally - if anyone uses the word "you" it becomes personal.

Any more and I'll have to suspend someone, albeit reluctantly.

[/Moderator]

[wedge]

While that is true, the reality is that the competition for example in IndyCar in 1995 was very weak. Let's look at who his rivals were - Al Unser, Bobby Rahal (over 40 years old), Michael Andretti (F1 failure), Paul Tracy. Heck, even Emerson Fittipaldi won a race that season and he was 50 years old. So his rivals were weak drivers who might have done well in that series, but would never have amounted to anything much in F1 (let's forget Fittipaldi being a 2X WDC, that was 20 years before 1995). Mansell showed in 1993 how much better than the IndyCar guys he was already in his first season.

1994 Penske were the team to beat and JV was capable of staying on their tail/mix with the Penskes and even got a fabulous win at Road America whereas Mansell was performing similar but he over drove his car at times.

[Doc Austin]

JV winning the title set the balance right for those of us who were so heartbroken that Gilles never did.

[journeyman racer]

The problem when discussing drivers is that there's actually no criterion for judging them. Having said that, if Hill and Villeneuve were cricketers, batsmen at international level, and the truly great batsmen of current days averaged 47+ in tests. Then they'd average around 36 to 44.

How about that for an analogy???