In defence of Damon, he started racing cars at 25. He possessed natural talent inherited from his father, who also started racing very late at 29. Two outstanding races should be the title. Although it has to be said, his work ethic as a test driver and leadership in the aftermath of Senna's death earned him his success. Better prepared drivers like JV, Jenson & Nico Rosberg had more or less the same career (only Nico won more than Damon). In F1, being lightning quick is not sufficient. Race management, technical know-how and political acumen are vital. If speed was the only asset, Alesi, Grosjean & Hulkenberg would be multiple champions.
In the superb Sky F1 documentary, "The Last Team Mate," which talked about the awful events of Imola 1994, Damon Hill reflected on that tragic weekend, in a sad and tragic way, as the moment where his career began to take off, conceding: "I don't think Frank and Patrick ever saw me as a potential candidate as a number one driver," After that ill-fated weekend, he drove the most consistent that he ever did in his career. Innocent victim in Monaco collision with Hakkinen, winner in Spain, second in Canada, second again in France, winning at Silverstone, out of the points in Germany, second in Hungary, inherited the win in Belgium, then won on the road in Monza and Estoril, second in Jerez, brilliantly won in Japan and could have won in Australia if he had not collided with Schumacher (who had already made an error that resulted in potentially terminal suspension damage to the Benetton). He was voted Sports Personality of the Year in the UK for 1994 because of his performances that helped lift Williams from the dispair of Senna's death to not only just miss out on the driver's title, but help the team win the Constructors Championship for the third year in a row
What I'll say is, I probably would rate D. Hill over Jacques Villeneuve in Formula 1 but simultaneously; he's probably luckier that Senna died if anything. That being said, credit to D. Hill for his hard work and perseverance and doing just about enough with the circumstances he had.
@@saiyerugara9038I think (well, I’m sure really) that Villeneuve was better than Hill. He started racing at 24, and he NEVER dreamed of becoming F1 champion. He was happy with being the nr.2 learning from guys like Prost and Senna and win a race here and there. Then Senna dies, all of a sudden he’s the nr.1 driver supposed to fight for the championship. In his second F1 season. The pressure was gigantic and he wasn’t prepared for that at all. Frank Williams and Patrick Head didn’t help him really… Read his book… So no, Damon wasn’t “lucky” with Senna’s death at all.
@@nedzosf1gridbox he nailed it in the right car. Lets pretend schumachers collision was legit and he deserved that championship, Hill still was right there, then was given a car that even the designers admit they screwed up that ended up killing a world champion that wasnt fixed until late in the season, just in time for the current indy champion to do a few rounds, and win, in that car that had been a complete dog all year. Then gets paired up with another indy champion. I think Hill was far more a victim than bullcrap circumstances than a lack of ability or talent, more by people around him with bigger priorities. He absolutely proved his place and did his name well by his run, and i will still go ahead and say he proved it again a year later when he came within spitting distance of BEATING Villeneuve.... driving an Arrows with a YAMAHA engine in it, then wins a race in a Jordan after that.
Harsh but fair, I always said Hill was the most average world champion...its factual that he was average. Just compare him to his contemporary champions
To offer a different take…he helped develop some of the most dominant machinery of all time (part of how he got the opportunity at Williams in the first place). He had a couple of great races (and a lot of good races, for I don’t think you get to 20+ wins by being a mediocre driver), but perhaps his brilliance was with car development.
He played guitar in a punk band called “Hitler, sex and endorphins”. He raced motorbikes. George Harrison gave him like a million pounds to keep his racing career going. And he became F1 champion! And come on, he had more than two “good” races. Only two “outstanding” races maybe.
I don't think people are really fair to Damon. He made his debut at 31. 31! At that time, 31 was an age when drivers were already thinking about retirement. He was nearly 40 when he retired. And he was still quite fast in 97. I think he would be better remembered if he had made his debut in the 80s rather than the 90s
Like Lewis Hamilton, Jacques Villeneuve was lucky enough to join F1 in the dominant team, plus he had so many practice and test sessions, he had a reputation of being by far the most prepared rookie to ever enter F1, bashing Damon is unfair as unlike Villeneuve, Damon had a great 96 season and did actually manage to win a race after leaving Williams, if not for the hydraulic failure in Hungary 1997 he would have also won when driving for arrows, whereas Jacques post Williams career was a downward slump where he constantly failed to deliver the expected performance from the machinery he was given, this was especially highlighted when Jenson Button joined BAR and outshined Villeneuve
@@nedzosf1gridbox Crushed? 1998 Hill ended year in 6th place (not bad wit truly mediocre car), higher than Heinz. OK, 1999 was worse but Hill was almost 40 and already leaving the circus.
Preface I think Hill was a good driver. However, my arguments on his season performances is... 93- he came up against Prost who'd taken a year out in a vastly more technical car than Prost was used to and one which Hill himself helped developes and was comfortably out done. Now fair enough Prost is arguably top 3 drivers ever but still to be beat by him in a time year when most people didn't even think he did that well is damning. 94- I'd argue the Benneton was the better car at the start of the year just that Senna was making it look close. After Newey got around to fixing the car after the crash it was probably the best car. Hill beeing very lucky the FIA gave him a helping hand. Schumacher did probably turn in on him deliberately but yes there was no need to dive bomb him going into a tight right hander when you see he's just come out the previous corner slow even if he didn't see him hit the wall. 95- I mean 2015 Nico would be proud 96- Yh he finally got his head down and won a title but Villeneuve while a very good driver (joining BAR essentially a back marker damaged his reputation) And then the other 3 years much of a muchness probably would've done better than Frentzen. Still though I'd say he was a good driver if one of the weaker ones.
yup, Hill's championship was served on a silver platter; schumacher was tired of winning and went to Ferrari, Senna died, Prost retired. All he had to do was basically beat his rookie team mate to be champion, and even then it took him all year to claim it
I wouldn't I'd say Senna's in a league of his own in qualifying but I'd give Schumacher an edge in the race in equal cars prime for prime. So I would still say the Williams was a little quicker but Senna's qualifying pace can flatter. Both drivers had the capacity to make their cars look better than they really were, with some of the most unique driving styles seen in the sport to strangle those extra tenths of a second out of the car. I would still argue that Schumacher would of been Champion as the dq's and bans probably wouldn't of occurred in a timeline where Senna was still alive and would of been the emergence of another great rival for Senna in the coming years. But at the same time, 95, 96 and 97 may of gone to Senna, despite how great Schumacher was in those years.
@@nedzosf1gridbox there's different opinions and then there's insulting, click-bait titles like this. DH only ever had two good races? Bullshit. I get it, engagement and playing the algorithm, you want to grow the channel. Sure. But don't defend it as your opinion. You clearly know DH had far more than two good races.
@Divefire where’s your evidence? Enough with the cliché patronising comments, if you’re going to complain, come with receipts. You don’t get to tell people what their opinions are, nor what they should or shouldn’t be.
@@nedzosf1gridbox your video is the receipt. In my opinion that's not the content of someone who thinks a person only ever had two good races. But your right I don't get to tell people what their opinion is, only that I vehemently disagree with the observation and that I find it to be untrue as to be insulting to the person it is about. Your title isn't click bait and is what you believe? You can have an apology on the assumption but it makes your judgement all the more disagreeable and distasteful to me. You get to have your opinion, but you don't get to have it with out criticism.
@Divefire if I don’t make a click bait title I don’t get views, it’s as simple as that. Embellishment is common and acceptable as long as you clarify any misconceptions in the video itself which I did
Some good points I think but if I remember correctly you've previously stated a dislike of Hill so I'm not sure this is the most unbiased take. In his autobiography Damon did struggle with expectation and 95 was a bad season for him, highlighted by the British GP clash with the Michael. I think 2 good races is not the case with Damon but I'll agree he underachieved in his career.
I don’t have a dislike for him really, I don’t like his punditry I just think his career was a bit naff, not necessarily coming from a bad place though
I am a bit biased as a childhood Damon fan but I appreciate that your video made me have a good hard think about Damon's career and change my view on a few things. That's the kind of content that TH-cam needs and I thank you for that.
Glad I could change your mind, at least partially. Many people find my videos too harsh or just plain wrong but kind, level headed anecdotes like these encourage me to push on. Thank you too mate
Harsh on Damon, he wasn't the best, but claiming he only had 2 good drives is bollocks, he won 22 times, you don't do that being rubbish. No, Hill had only 2 great races. Japan 1994 is for me his best.
The fact that Damon was always so good at Hungary which is said to be like Monaco (where his dad was king) without the walls, begs the question: Can a driver actually inherit particular driving skills/strengths from a parent, not just simply the ability to be quick? 🤔
@@eaurouge27 very good question. The fact he wasn’t particularly outstanding, nor overly good at Monaco discredits that theory but I guarantee overall driving prowess will pass down. It’s likely that the son of a great racing driver who enters the world of motorsport seriously will at least reach a top level even if they aren’t the absolute best. You could argue stable financial backing and great coaching feed into that but it’s surely not a coincidence that most of the offspring of great drivers who go into racing of their own will are more likely to do well than any regular driver
I was a Hill guy back in the day and even myself thought his championship was almost a gift from the circunstances. Schumacher took himself out of 1996 contention signing with Ferrari. Benetton was a deeply tailored to his needs car that Alesi and Berger could never truly adapt to, and in the other car there was a newcomer from the US that struggled greatly with street and wet tracks. I was happy that he did it, but it didn't fooled no one that Schumacher could run circles around him and he even did that two or three times that season, with that Ferrari. I do think his performances on Japan 1994, Brazil 1996 and Hungary 1997 were above the rest, but yeah, nothing on the level of Schumacher's Spain 1996, just strong performances and nothing else.
It surprised me that Williams kept Damon on after those loses to Schumacher. He had the best equipment on the grid and I think any other driver would have been shown the door a lot sooner. I think your assessment is fair, Damon could pull out a good drive here and there but was just to inconsistent.
@@nedzosf1gridbox Benetton won the Constructor's championship in 1995. The '94 Williams was so difficult it literally killed Ayrton Senna. And in 1992 Hill drove for Brabham. What I stated IS a fact. Learn what that is if you want viewers and respect.
@@fiarandompenaltygeneratorm5044 What does it matter that he drove for Brabham in 1992? He did literally nothing in that car and almost all of his career wins came driving for Williams, which he began to drive full time for in 1993.
@fiarandompenaltygeneratorm5044 I already have viewers and respect. Benetton only won 1995 because Schumacher outperformed the car. The ‘94 Williams lost its difficulty to drive after Monaco as I detailed. While Hill drove for Brabham in 1992 he had 4 out of five seasons in the fastest car, while Michael wasn’t in the fastest car at all in my opinion. Even if you added 1995 to Benetton being better that’s 3-1. In 1995 Williams got 12 poles to Benetton’s 4, the latter of which were all Michael. It was most definitely the fastest car it’s just Hill and Coulthard were nowhere near Schumacher’s level in an inferior car. If having “respect” means I lose the ability to critically think for myself and instead just follow what people want me to say, I’d much rather delete my channel than lose my right to a different opinion. You’re allowed your beliefs, I’m allowed mine, we obviously use different metrics to measure drivers, and ones that are obviously subjective so I don’t think we will ever agree. But I hope this video made you think nonetheless.
@@nedzosf1gridbox The problem with fans like yourself: you want to degrade Hill while propping up Schumacher. You can't have it both ways. If Hill was so inept, Schumacher must have been pretty mid too because he struggled to beat Hill often--and even had to crash into him to win one WDC. When Hill does well--it's the car--but when Schumacher does well he "outperforms it." I guess you'll just conveniently ignore that Johnny Herbert won 2 races with the Benetton in 1995. The car won 11 out of 17 races, and you're going to really claim it wasn't the best? That's laughable and classic Schumacher fan hypocrisy. "Michael wasn’t in the fastest car at all in my opinion." Now wait a second. In a previous comment on this thread you claimed it was a FACT that Hill had a better car 80% of the time. Now, after I've called you out, it's just your opinion. I think this says it all about the quality of your opinion, critical thinking, and honesty regarding Damon Hill and this era of Formula 1.
Guys, when you're talking about a former world champion with 22 wins, as many fastest laps as Senna, more poles than Raikkonen, both in far fewer races, a better win rate than Vettel and Mansell, and you're having to come up with excuses at a rate of 10 per minute to explain away every good result he ever achieved and cast the shadow of your extreme bias over these facts, you very well may be suffering from Damon Hill Derangement Syndrome.
@@zigzagwandrr imagine determining a drivers ability by fastest laps. There were no excuses here. If you disagree then that’s ok, but you don’t get to accuse someone of lying and being biased just because you disagree with them
@@nedzosf1gridbox Come on, I didn't accuse you of lying at all. I said biased and coming up with excuses to explain away his achievements, which is a lot different. I wasn't solely aiming the comment at you either because you're far from the only one doing it. But I think it's very clear that you (and others) don't like him for some reason and therefore take a mostly negative view of everything he did, so I'm simply outlining the shape of the man being dismissed as having only had two good races ever.
I don’t have anything against Damon, I met him in 2015 at an event for disabled children receiving electric wheelchairs. I was one of the kids and I was the only one who recognised him, he was a very nice guy. Doesn’t mean I can’t criticise him. If anything I should mention him in a kinder light but my ability to think critically isn’t affected by my own personal experiences of people
@joshualamp2438 wow, that’s a high bar you’ve set for me! I personally don’t think I’m at that level yet but it’s comments like these that push me forward
@@nedzosf1gridbox yeah, the speed and pronunciation combo is a bit hard to follow for a non-native speaker like me. I can get used to it eventually, but it takes more effort than 1 video :)
Damon Hill, My childhood hero. Overcoming the incredible expectation on his shoulders due to his name and the horrifying circumstances after his full first F1 campaign to win an F1 Championship. All after only committing to a motorsport career at an age when many wannabees wash up as a waste of effort. I was incensed after realising this video's sensationalist title was about him...... I stand by that feeling. Your appraisal of 1994 being Hill throwing away an open goal, against a team who used illegal traction control. A very biased account. A not conclusive list of Good/Exceptional races by Damon Hill (You said good! A very broad term): Britain 1993 - Dominated Prost, cruel engine failure. Britain 1994 Japan 1994 (Experienced the same out of body, almost spiritual driving experience that Senna described in Monaco 1988. An with a worn tyre on one corner.) Australia 1995 (The birth of the future champion, refocused and imperious. I accept that 1995 was not good enough on the whole, but here winning by 2 laps. Never mind the remaining opposition.) Japan 1996 (That pressure, he smashed it) Canada 1996 (Beating Villeneuve in his own back yard.) Hungary 1997 Belgium 1998 (Never mind the team orders, he worked his way to the lead in the first place.) I get you need to be sensationalist to get views and subscribers...... But: No. I'll leave with a comment made by Jock Clear., Villeneuve's chief race engineer in 1996 and 1997. Had the pleasure of meeting him at an event about 9 years ago. In his own words, 'All world champions need a certain quality to achieve it, a focus and drive, both Damon Hill and Jacques had that, they were exceptional.' His description from hands on experience stuck with me, and rise above this opinionated version of events. Finally: I counter your argument he never met his performance ceiling consistently. This is impossible to judge due to the cars he drove at his peak. Easy to dismiss that possibility when in the best machinery. He was the ceiling at that point. And breathe, i'm done.
It was never proven Benetton used traction control. Even if it did, it was undoubtedly the second best car after Imola, and still lost despite having four races extra. Some of your claimed great drives are dubious at best. Australia 1995 he won by two laps because no one else who finished was competitive. Japan 1996 we can’t say for certain because Villeneuve DNF’d, and any drives you point out in 1996 are against a literal rookie. “That pressure, he smashed it.” I disagree. He created that pressure by not absolutely destroying a rookie like he should’ve. Canada 1996 might’ve been on Jacques home turf but I don’t think he’d driven that circuit before. Hungary 1997 was great, but any race where you’re 3.5 seconds a lap off your teammate is not good, at Spa 1998. The only thing he did well was the second restart, the rest was just luck. The fact he constantly got outperformed by faster drivers in slower machinery and only won 1 out of 4 championship winning cars is enough for me. If he really was great he’d be a three time champion. He gained 36 points on Schumacher in 1994 gifted by the FIA and had a dominant car in 1995 that was squandered by mistakes. I’m not really bothered by his age when starting, because although he did well considering this, he didn’t do well overall. If you judged every driver “by their circumstances” you could find an excuse or five to make any driver seem better or worse than they actually were
@@nedzosf1gridbox You couldn't counter all the races I mentioned. He had more then two merely good races, didn't he. Couldn't argue with Jock Clear, either. I consider your viewpoint biased. Any further chat is just playing from here. Thanks for the diversion tonight, but I doubt we will agree. Coming from two very different standpoints.
@colinbrown8316 the reason why I didn’t counter the first few was because I don’t know enough about Silverstone 93 or 94, and Japan 1994 was in the top 30 drives in F1 history. When I put “good” in the title I knew it would get views. I didn’t necessarily mean good. Also I’m not biased, I’ve met Damon in real life, at an event for disabled children receiving their first electric wheelchairs, I was the only kid who recognised him. Nice guy, in my opinion not the best of drivers
Totally agree, Hill definitely had something if it could be accessed but he never really mamaged it. Suzuka 94 was a damn good drive though despite my raw hatred for Damon and the commentary team that duped people into thinking he was a world class superstar
@@nedzosf1gridbox one point I should make is that Hill never talked about a mid season retirement with Jordan and that EJ and Mike Gascoigne would have let him go without any quibbles due to his poor performance so he brought the miserable end to his career on himself
I think it was. Only Schumacher contended for wins compared to both Hill and DC for Williams. The Williams got 12 out of 17 pole positions too. It was definitely easier to drive and the fact that Herbert was nowhere in races either Hill, Schumi, or both of them retired from I think it kind of proves the Williams supremacy
Interesting video tbh, positives of Damon Hill's career; 22 wins, 20 poles of course won that title and tbf, he did well to lead a big team like Williams after such a high-profile death and challenged in 94. Negatives tbh when I think of 20+ winners usually he's the only 1 I forget and that is saying something really. In terms of tiers, I had him back of S probably around where Alboreto is.
Please don’t forget that Damon started his (car) racing career at the age of 24. Yes 24 (!!!) Michael Schumacher was like 5, Senna about 8 I believe. Jacques Villeneuve was considered “late” at about 13 😉
If there was one race that differentiated Hill and Schumacher, it would be '95 Spa, where the latter held the former with slick tyres...on wet surface!
Williams lost the edge over other teams, first and foremost because of FIA banning active suspension, traction control and ABS were just secondary reasons.
Japan ‘94 was his best ever. Some other standouts would be Hungary ‘97 obviously, Jerez ‘97 fourth in qualifying, a solid second half of ‘98 with the Belgium performance (remember safety cars brought Ralf into play) and a fourth place at Suzuka with a last corner overtake on Frentzen to give Jordan 4th in the constructors for the first time. There was a fourth place at Imola ‘99 and a few good drives but otherwise that was a dire season. His career was strange and ended in a very weird way but definitely more than two good drives. I actually think Raikkonen is one of the worst world champions - very fast in the McLarens but looked like a totally different driver after that and didn’t seem to care for years at the end
@@nedzosf1gridbox How Benetton was inferior to Williams? Rory Byrne is a brilliant engineer. Also Ross Brawn is a genius without a question. Unlike Patrick Head.
@@marguskiis7711 better staff doesn’t by default mean a better car. A rookie David Coulthard and a 41 year old Nigel Mansell got tons of good results meanwhile Schumacher’s teammates were nowhere near
Obviously a Schumacher fan... Not buying that statement. His racecraft wasn't the best but he was bloody quick. The stats he achieved are better than many of them. The Williams was a dog till the bspec came. Senna overcame it in qualifying , it was clearly worse than the Benetton early season. 95 Hill wasn't good. However the team dropped a lot of points through crap strategy and poor operation which put him on the back foot. The car wasn't that much better than the Benetton. I can think of way more than 2 good races. You don't win 22 by accident.
@johnedwards230 I disagree. You could maybe argue at the start Senna was just carrying but once the Williams lost it’s instability it was better by far
@@johnedwards230Damon was good on a good day. On two days he was sensational. On many days he was just mediocre. And on some days he was just shit. Sorry, but he was.
Hill's championship was served on a silver platter; schumacher was tired of winning and went to Ferrari, Senna died, Prost retired. All he had to do was basically beat his rookie team mate to be champion, and even then it took him all year to claim it Most average of all world champions
It almost seems like Damon Hill was a 'trading places' (1983 movie starring Dan Aroyd Eddie murphy) kind of bet Patrick Head and Frank Williams took for Formula 1, Take a driver driving the worst car, put him in our vastly superior car and make a regular driver world champion 😄
Another person who misunderstood the title, and put words in my mouth. “Good” doesn’t have its typical meaning in the title as usual, and anyway, “not good” doesn’t mean “bad”. You’re putting words in my mouth
@@nedzosf1gridbox agreed, that's why I said 'kinda'. Still impressive though, you can only guess what could have been possible (statistically:) had Damon stayed at Williams. Can I add to circumstances the (apparent) negativity in the Williams team culture. that chased away the best of the best drivers? Hubris, they call it. Chased away Newey too. By the way, I love the content of the channel. good analysis, excellent stuff!
lol yeah - he had the best car on the grid for 3 years....Hill's championship was served on a silver platter; schumacher was tired of winning and went to Ferrari, Senna died, Prost retired. All he had to do was basically beat his rookie team mate to be champion, and even then it took him all year to claim it
@leemorrison7113 of the last forty years I’d say Damon. Ranking Phill Hill is tough because he only had a handful of competitive seasons then left Ferrari to join the breakaway ATS team that never took off. He had lots of success in endurance racing, and despite having the least career points for an F1 champion that doesn’t tell the full story. In terms of pure consistency and performance I’d go for Damon, because Jacques Villeneuve had incredible moments more often and performed much better in his peak the Damon
If we're to give a driver, earning a few wins and being wdc, we could line up several drivers as we could with multiple gp winners driver never crowned, we could easily say the first mentioned got lucky or earning what they long deserved while the second one would be called inconsistent because of failing in their only wdc title shot. Being wdc meant you're a good driver, the best car and got a bit more luck to edge your closest rivals. Button is a fair example of being unlucky yet consistent over the years. When he got a winning car, he got the wdc title on the bat Barrichello is the contrary as he drove the best ever car in early 2000's, being stuck as leftover driver. He got same drive as Button in 2009 and not only failed the title but even failed to rank 2nd. So Hill seized the chance he was given, who cares? A title is a bit of luck and a lot of consistency. A good driver with an incredible destiny.
By your own metrics Hill was bad as he only won 1 out of 4 championships winning chances, three of which cars were dominant. He was inconsistent as anything and crashes into other drivers often
Just because I wasn’t there doesn’t mean I can’t comment on it. I’ve got enough knowledge of the sport having watched all the classic races to form an opinion. In 100 years time by your logic, no one will be allowed to measure the performances of any driver we know today
@@nedzosf1gridbox yeah, pretty much. I'm not going to judge Nuvolari Vs Rosenmayer Vs Seaman even watching old races, and I'm not going to comment on them. You're talking chod as you weren't there, man
This is dumb. Damon had a bunch of great performances in both 94 and 96. Beating Micheal in a car with TC and launch control is no mean feat. The oddest F1 WC, would be someone like Alan Jones or Keke, who was a pretty mid driver, who had one really consistent season, winning a championship almost by luck.
'Mediocre' Goes from backmarker team one year, to winning a championship the next, which he did, Schumacher should never have been awarded that championship 'blah blah shouldnt have made the move' Schumacher was off line and damaged, it was a 100% intentional and calculated dick move that isnt even near to being as controversial as the crap that Senna and Prost pulled on each other which *could* have been interpreted as genuine racing incident, Schumacher vs Hill was *not* a racing incident. It was 'oh f im screwed turn in and pray the other guy isnt more damaged than me' - hell i *remember* the cameras watching the smug bastard in the stands. Schumacher proved what he was like in the years after that and ended up with plenty of other disqualifications to underline it. Anyway, then he cops the 'goat' of the time, then a reigning indy champion, then another reigning indy champion as teammates, then gets utterly shafted entirely. He isnt goat material, but he wasnt mediocre, he made plenty of slipups but sorry there was a hell of a lot of bullshit going on in the background there people downplay.
Hill's championship was served on a silver platter; schumacher was tired of winning and went to Ferrari, Senna died, Prost retired. All he had to do was basically beat his rookie team mate to be champion, and even then it took him all year to claim it. Sorry, but he was the most average of world champions
Damon Hill's title in 1996 was celebrated by many because he was able to finish his story (although he isn't at a Cody Rhodes level). But yes, he was very bland and had only Suzuka 94 and Hungaroring 97 as outstanding races.
@@nedzosf1gridbox I gave my opinion on Schumacher. If you don’t agree that’s fine. My opinion is based on his entire career, but in the Adelaide crash I used my eyes, both times. Also, petulant and accusatory when things didn’t go his way.
The problem with Damon was he had to follow in the footsteps of Mansell being the last person to inspire the British fans in a Williams. Mansell was awesome and you watched him knowing he’ll go for it and you’d be jumping out your seat and punching the air. Damon was nothing like Mansell and a lot of the time as I was watching he’d be spinning out cos he made a mistake. So his flaws showed up a lot more. That being said I still rooted for him and he was a likeable bloke. Great content btw Nedzo. You channel is really growing.
![[ไฮไลต์] ฟุตบอลชาย ญี่ปุ่น vs ปารากวัย รอบแบ่งกลุ่ม | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X_BeGaAv1oM/mqdefault.jpg)
In defence of Damon, he started racing cars at 25. He possessed natural talent inherited from his father, who also started racing very late at 29. Two outstanding races should be the title.
Although it has to be said, his work ethic as a test driver and leadership in the aftermath of Senna's death earned him his success. Better prepared drivers like JV, Jenson & Nico Rosberg had more or less the same career (only Nico won more than Damon).
In F1, being lightning quick is not sufficient. Race management, technical know-how and political acumen are vital. If speed was the only asset, Alesi, Grosjean & Hulkenberg would be multiple champions.
In the superb Sky F1 documentary, "The Last Team Mate," which talked about the awful events of Imola 1994, Damon Hill reflected on that tragic weekend, in a sad and tragic way, as the moment where his career began to take off, conceding:
"I don't think Frank and Patrick ever saw me as a potential candidate as a number one driver,"
After that ill-fated weekend, he drove the most consistent that he ever did in his career. Innocent victim in Monaco collision with Hakkinen, winner in Spain, second in Canada, second again in France, winning at Silverstone, out of the points in Germany, second in Hungary, inherited the win in Belgium, then won on the road in Monza and Estoril, second in Jerez, brilliantly won in Japan and could have won in Australia if he had not collided with Schumacher (who had already made an error that resulted in potentially terminal suspension damage to the Benetton). He was voted Sports Personality of the Year in the UK for 1994 because of his performances that helped lift Williams from the dispair of Senna's death to not only just miss out on the driver's title, but help the team win the Constructors Championship for the third year in a row
Damon was undoubtedly a fighter in the face of adversity just like his dad, but for me the consistency wasn’t there
This is a little harsh, Damon was a damn good driver and he handled pressure better than most "top f1 drivers" ive ever seen
He had a very high performance ceiling but almost never reached it
What I'll say is, I probably would rate D. Hill over Jacques Villeneuve in Formula 1 but simultaneously; he's probably luckier that Senna died if anything. That being said, credit to D. Hill for his hard work and perseverance and doing just about enough with the circumstances he had.
@@saiyerugara9038I think (well, I’m sure really) that Villeneuve was better than Hill.
He started racing at 24, and he NEVER dreamed of becoming F1 champion. He was happy with being the nr.2 learning from guys like Prost and Senna and win a race here and there.
Then Senna dies, all of a sudden he’s the nr.1 driver supposed to fight for the championship. In his second F1 season. The pressure was gigantic and he wasn’t prepared for that at all. Frank Williams and Patrick Head didn’t help him really…
Read his book…
So no, Damon wasn’t “lucky” with Senna’s death at all.
@@nedzosf1gridbox he nailed it in the right car. Lets pretend schumachers collision was legit and he deserved that championship, Hill still was right there, then was given a car that even the designers admit they screwed up that ended up killing a world champion that wasnt fixed until late in the season, just in time for the current indy champion to do a few rounds, and win, in that car that had been a complete dog all year. Then gets paired up with another indy champion.
I think Hill was far more a victim than bullcrap circumstances than a lack of ability or talent, more by people around him with bigger priorities. He absolutely proved his place and did his name well by his run, and i will still go ahead and say he proved it again a year later when he came within spitting distance of BEATING Villeneuve.... driving an Arrows with a YAMAHA engine in it, then wins a race in a Jordan after that.
Harsh but fair, I always said Hill was the most average world champion...its factual that he was average. Just compare him to his contemporary champions
To offer a different take…he helped develop some of the most dominant machinery of all time (part of how he got the opportunity at Williams in the first place). He had a couple of great races (and a lot of good races, for I don’t think you get to 20+ wins by being a mediocre driver), but perhaps his brilliance was with car development.
He played guitar in a punk band called “Hitler, sex and endorphins”.
He raced motorbikes.
George Harrison gave him like a million pounds to keep his racing career going.
And he became F1 champion!
And come on, he had more than two “good” races. Only two “outstanding” races maybe.
Are all those things actually true?
@@nedzosf1gridboxread his autobiography “watching the wheels”.
I have that book, I just haven’t read it, I think it was a Christmas present
It’s really good, dude has humour too.
And yes, it’s true.
@mattseaman5397 I will read it now
I don't think people are really fair to Damon. He made his debut at 31. 31! At that time, 31 was an age when drivers were already thinking about retirement. He was nearly 40 when he retired. And he was still quite fast in 97. I think he would be better remembered if he had made his debut in the 80s rather than the 90s
31 wasn’t retirement age, 33 maybe, but he had time to prove himself
@@nedzosf1gridbox he was 36 when he became champion, so 🤷
Like Lewis Hamilton, Jacques Villeneuve was lucky enough to join F1 in the dominant team, plus he had so many practice and test sessions, he had a reputation of being by far the most prepared rookie to ever enter F1, bashing Damon is unfair as unlike Villeneuve, Damon had a great 96 season and did actually manage to win a race after leaving Williams, if not for the hydraulic failure in Hungary 1997 he would have also won when driving for arrows, whereas Jacques post Williams career was a downward slump where he constantly failed to deliver the expected performance from the machinery he was given, this was especially highlighted when Jenson Button joined BAR and outshined Villeneuve
Hill also failed to meet expectations after Williams, at Jordan in particular getting crushed by Ralf Schumacher and Frentzen
@@nedzosf1gridbox Crushed? 1998 Hill ended year in 6th place (not bad wit truly mediocre car), higher than Heinz. OK, 1999 was worse but Hill was almost 40 and already leaving the circus.
Preface I think Hill was a good driver. However, my arguments on his season performances is...
93- he came up against Prost who'd taken a year out in a vastly more technical car than Prost was used to and one which Hill himself helped developes and was comfortably out done. Now fair enough Prost is arguably top 3 drivers ever but still to be beat by him in a time year when most people didn't even think he did that well is damning.
94- I'd argue the Benneton was the better car at the start of the year just that Senna was making it look close. After Newey got around to fixing the car after the crash it was probably the best car. Hill beeing very lucky the FIA gave him a helping hand. Schumacher did probably turn in on him deliberately but yes there was no need to dive bomb him going into a tight right hander when you see he's just come out the previous corner slow even if he didn't see him hit the wall.
95- I mean 2015 Nico would be proud
96- Yh he finally got his head down and won a title but Villeneuve while a very good driver (joining BAR essentially a back marker damaged his reputation)
And then the other 3 years much of a muchness probably would've done better than Frentzen. Still though I'd say he was a good driver if one of the weaker ones.
yup, Hill's championship was served on a silver platter; schumacher was tired of winning and went to Ferrari, Senna died, Prost retired. All he had to do was basically beat his rookie team mate to be champion, and even then it took him all year to claim it
I wouldn't I'd say Senna's in a league of his own in qualifying but I'd give Schumacher an edge in the race in equal cars prime for prime. So I would still say the Williams was a little quicker but Senna's qualifying pace can flatter. Both drivers had the capacity to make their cars look better than they really were, with some of the most unique driving styles seen in the sport to strangle those extra tenths of a second out of the car.
I would still argue that Schumacher would of been Champion as the dq's and bans probably wouldn't of occurred in a timeline where Senna was still alive and would of been the emergence of another great rival for Senna in the coming years. But at the same time, 95, 96 and 97 may of gone to Senna, despite how great Schumacher was in those years.
How to tell me you don't know what you're talking about with out telling me you don't know what you're talking about.
Crazy how people can have different opinions to you without knowing less than you
@@nedzosf1gridbox there's different opinions and then there's insulting, click-bait titles like this. DH only ever had two good races? Bullshit. I get it, engagement and playing the algorithm, you want to grow the channel. Sure. But don't defend it as your opinion. You clearly know DH had far more than two good races.
@Divefire where’s your evidence? Enough with the cliché patronising comments, if you’re going to complain, come with receipts. You don’t get to tell people what their opinions are, nor what they should or shouldn’t be.
@@nedzosf1gridbox your video is the receipt. In my opinion that's not the content of someone who thinks a person only ever had two good races. But your right I don't get to tell people what their opinion is, only that I vehemently disagree with the observation and that I find it to be untrue as to be insulting to the person it is about. Your title isn't click bait and is what you believe? You can have an apology on the assumption but it makes your judgement all the more disagreeable and distasteful to me. You get to have your opinion, but you don't get to have it with out criticism.
@Divefire if I don’t make a click bait title I don’t get views, it’s as simple as that. Embellishment is common and acceptable as long as you clarify any misconceptions in the video itself which I did
Some good points I think but if I remember correctly you've previously stated a dislike of Hill so I'm not sure this is the most unbiased take.
In his autobiography Damon did struggle with expectation and 95 was a bad season for him, highlighted by the British GP clash with the Michael. I think 2 good races is not the case with Damon but I'll agree he underachieved in his career.
I don’t have a dislike for him really, I don’t like his punditry I just think his career was a bit naff, not necessarily coming from a bad place though
I am a bit biased as a childhood Damon fan but I appreciate that your video made me have a good hard think about Damon's career and change my view on a few things. That's the kind of content that TH-cam needs and I thank you for that.
Glad I could change your mind, at least partially. Many people find my videos too harsh or just plain wrong but kind, level headed anecdotes like these encourage me to push on. Thank you too mate
Harsh on Damon, he wasn't the best, but claiming he only had 2 good drives is bollocks, he won 22 times, you don't do that being rubbish. No, Hill had only 2 great races. Japan 1994 is for me his best.
Fair enough
Before i clicked on the video i thought of Phil Hill, then when you said it i laughed.
Made you think!
In 2025 we will have a champion from Antarctica
Haha, Pingu for the win!
@@nedzosf1gridboxnoot noot
The fact that Damon was always so good at Hungary which is said to be like Monaco (where his dad was king) without the walls, begs the question: Can a driver actually inherit particular driving skills/strengths from a parent, not just simply the ability to be quick? 🤔
@@eaurouge27 very good question. The fact he wasn’t particularly outstanding, nor overly good at Monaco discredits that theory but I guarantee overall driving prowess will pass down. It’s likely that the son of a great racing driver who enters the world of motorsport seriously will at least reach a top level even if they aren’t the absolute best. You could argue stable financial backing and great coaching feed into that but it’s surely not a coincidence that most of the offspring of great drivers who go into racing of their own will are more likely to do well than any regular driver
I was a Hill guy back in the day and even myself thought his championship was almost a gift from the circunstances. Schumacher took himself out of 1996 contention signing with Ferrari. Benetton was a deeply tailored to his needs car that Alesi and Berger could never truly adapt to, and in the other car there was a newcomer from the US that struggled greatly with street and wet tracks.
I was happy that he did it, but it didn't fooled no one that Schumacher could run circles around him and he even did that two or three times that season, with that Ferrari.
I do think his performances on Japan 1994, Brazil 1996 and Hungary 1997 were above the rest, but yeah, nothing on the level of Schumacher's Spain 1996, just strong performances and nothing else.
I haven’t heard much about Brazil 1996 tbh, I’ll take a deeper look into that race, thanks for the insight from someone who was around at that time
schumacher took half of benetton to ferrari with him, it pretty much ended any chance they had of sticking around as is.
Top comment
It surprised me that Williams kept Damon on after those loses to Schumacher. He had the best equipment on the grid and I think any other driver would have been shown the door a lot sooner. I think your assessment is fair, Damon could pull out a good drive here and there but was just to inconsistent.
Between 1992-1996, Michael Schumacher won 22 races. Damon Hill won 21. Fact.
Between 1992-1996, Damon Hill had the fastest car 80% of the time. Schumacher had 0%. Fact
@@nedzosf1gridbox Benetton won the Constructor's championship in 1995. The '94 Williams was so difficult it literally killed Ayrton Senna. And in 1992 Hill drove for Brabham. What I stated IS a fact. Learn what that is if you want viewers and respect.
@@fiarandompenaltygeneratorm5044 What does it matter that he drove for Brabham in 1992? He did literally nothing in that car and almost all of his career wins came driving for Williams, which he began to drive full time for in 1993.
@fiarandompenaltygeneratorm5044 I already have viewers and respect. Benetton only won 1995 because Schumacher outperformed the car. The ‘94 Williams lost its difficulty to drive after Monaco as I detailed. While Hill drove for Brabham in 1992 he had 4 out of five seasons in the fastest car, while Michael wasn’t in the fastest car at all in my opinion. Even if you added 1995 to Benetton being better that’s 3-1. In 1995 Williams got 12 poles to Benetton’s 4, the latter of which were all Michael. It was most definitely the fastest car it’s just Hill and Coulthard were nowhere near Schumacher’s level in an inferior car. If having “respect” means I lose the ability to critically think for myself and instead just follow what people want me to say, I’d much rather delete my channel than lose my right to a different opinion. You’re allowed your beliefs, I’m allowed mine, we obviously use different metrics to measure drivers, and ones that are obviously subjective so I don’t think we will ever agree. But I hope this video made you think nonetheless.
@@nedzosf1gridbox The problem with fans like yourself: you want to degrade Hill while propping up Schumacher. You can't have it both ways. If Hill was so inept, Schumacher must have been pretty mid too because he struggled to beat Hill often--and even had to crash into him to win one WDC. When Hill does well--it's the car--but when Schumacher does well he "outperforms it." I guess you'll just conveniently ignore that Johnny Herbert won 2 races with the Benetton in 1995. The car won 11 out of 17 races, and you're going to really claim it wasn't the best? That's laughable and classic Schumacher fan hypocrisy. "Michael wasn’t in the fastest car at all in my opinion." Now wait a second. In a previous comment on this thread you claimed it was a FACT that Hill had a better car 80% of the time. Now, after I've called you out, it's just your opinion. I think this says it all about the quality of your opinion, critical thinking, and honesty regarding Damon Hill and this era of Formula 1.
Guys, when you're talking about a former world champion with 22 wins, as many fastest laps as Senna, more poles than Raikkonen, both in far fewer races, a better win rate than Vettel and Mansell, and you're having to come up with excuses at a rate of 10 per minute to explain away every good result he ever achieved and cast the shadow of your extreme bias over these facts, you very well may be suffering from Damon Hill Derangement Syndrome.
@@zigzagwandrr imagine determining a drivers ability by fastest laps. There were no excuses here. If you disagree then that’s ok, but you don’t get to accuse someone of lying and being biased just because you disagree with them
@@nedzosf1gridbox Come on, I didn't accuse you of lying at all. I said biased and coming up with excuses to explain away his achievements, which is a lot different. I wasn't solely aiming the comment at you either because you're far from the only one doing it. But I think it's very clear that you (and others) don't like him for some reason and therefore take a mostly negative view of everything he did, so I'm simply outlining the shape of the man being dismissed as having only had two good races ever.
I don’t have anything against Damon, I met him in 2015 at an event for disabled children receiving electric wheelchairs. I was one of the kids and I was the only one who recognised him, he was a very nice guy. Doesn’t mean I can’t criticise him. If anything I should mention him in a kinder light but my ability to think critically isn’t affected by my own personal experiences of people
@@nedzosf1gridbox No but I get to accuse you of being biased because of your obvious bias.
Your content is always must watch!
Thanks mate, glad you enjoy it!
@@nedzosf1gridbox you should have the same viewer count as RPM, unfortunately most people today have the attention span of a goldfish.
@joshualamp2438 wow, that’s a high bar you’ve set for me! I personally don’t think I’m at that level yet but it’s comments like these that push me forward
The only difference between Damon and Lewis is the time with the best car of the year, nothing else.
As much as I think Lewis is overrated, he didn’t bottle it anywhere near as much as Damon did
For he is definitely better than some of the lesser world champions
The rosbergs
Schekter
Hunt
Keke Rosberg is criminally underrated and so is scheckter. Hunt was good when he could be bothered
I don't agree about Nico Rosberg, but Damon was miles better than Keke for sure.
I think this is the first time this year I had to put on the subtitles on an English spoken video
Yea, I realised in editing I spoke fast. From what you said it seems you stayed, so I hope you continue watching future ones
@@nedzosf1gridbox yeah, the speed and pronunciation combo is a bit hard to follow for a non-native speaker like me. I can get used to it eventually, but it takes more effort than 1 video :)
@@felixjanssen2 yea, sorry for that mate, I’ll slow it down in the future
What a load of bollocks.
I’ll say the same thing I’ve said to others. God forbid people have different opinions to you
Damon Hill, My childhood hero. Overcoming the incredible expectation on his shoulders due to his name and the horrifying circumstances after his full first F1 campaign to win an F1 Championship. All after only committing to a motorsport career at an age when many wannabees wash up as a waste of effort.
I was incensed after realising this video's sensationalist title was about him...... I stand by that feeling. Your appraisal of 1994 being Hill throwing away an open goal, against a team who used illegal traction control. A very biased account.
A not conclusive list of Good/Exceptional races by Damon Hill (You said good! A very broad term):
Britain 1993 - Dominated Prost, cruel engine failure.
Britain 1994
Japan 1994 (Experienced the same out of body, almost spiritual driving experience that Senna described in Monaco 1988. An with a worn tyre on one corner.)
Australia 1995 (The birth of the future champion, refocused and imperious. I accept that 1995 was not good enough on the whole, but here winning by 2 laps. Never mind the remaining opposition.)
Japan 1996 (That pressure, he smashed it)
Canada 1996 (Beating Villeneuve in his own back yard.)
Hungary 1997
Belgium 1998 (Never mind the team orders, he worked his way to the lead in the first place.)
I get you need to be sensationalist to get views and subscribers...... But: No.
I'll leave with a comment made by Jock Clear., Villeneuve's chief race engineer in 1996 and 1997. Had the pleasure of meeting him at an event about 9 years ago. In his own words, 'All world champions need a certain quality to achieve it, a focus and drive, both Damon Hill and Jacques had that, they were exceptional.' His description from hands on experience stuck with me, and rise above this opinionated version of events.
Finally: I counter your argument he never met his performance ceiling consistently. This is impossible to judge due to the cars he drove at his peak. Easy to dismiss that possibility when in the best machinery. He was the ceiling at that point.
And breathe, i'm done.
It was never proven Benetton used traction control. Even if it did, it was undoubtedly the second best car after Imola, and still lost despite having four races extra. Some of your claimed great drives are dubious at best. Australia 1995 he won by two laps because no one else who finished was competitive. Japan 1996 we can’t say for certain because Villeneuve DNF’d, and any drives you point out in 1996 are against a literal rookie. “That pressure, he smashed it.” I disagree. He created that pressure by not absolutely destroying a rookie like he should’ve. Canada 1996 might’ve been on Jacques home turf but I don’t think he’d driven that circuit before. Hungary 1997 was great, but any race where you’re 3.5 seconds a lap off your teammate is not good, at Spa 1998. The only thing he did well was the second restart, the rest was just luck. The fact he constantly got outperformed by faster drivers in slower machinery and only won 1 out of 4 championship winning cars is enough for me. If he really was great he’d be a three time champion. He gained 36 points on Schumacher in 1994 gifted by the FIA and had a dominant car in 1995 that was squandered by mistakes. I’m not really bothered by his age when starting, because although he did well considering this, he didn’t do well overall. If you judged every driver “by their circumstances” you could find an excuse or five to make any driver seem better or worse than they actually were
@@nedzosf1gridbox You couldn't counter all the races I mentioned. He had more then two merely good races, didn't he. Couldn't argue with Jock Clear, either.
I consider your viewpoint biased. Any further chat is just playing from here. Thanks for the diversion tonight, but I doubt we will agree. Coming from two very different standpoints.
@colinbrown8316 the reason why I didn’t counter the first few was because I don’t know enough about Silverstone 93 or 94, and Japan 1994 was in the top 30 drives in F1 history. When I put “good” in the title I knew it would get views. I didn’t necessarily mean good. Also I’m not biased, I’ve met Damon in real life, at an event for disabled children receiving their first electric wheelchairs, I was the only kid who recognised him. Nice guy, in my opinion not the best of drivers
@@nedzosf1gridbox 'I don't know enough.'
Sorry, that is evident.
@colinbrown8316 my knowledge of F1 overall is outstanding, those are just minor holes, don’t take those blips as the default
Totally agree, Hill definitely had something if it could be accessed but he never really mamaged it. Suzuka 94 was a damn good drive though despite my raw hatred for Damon and the commentary team that duped people into thinking he was a world class superstar
Yea, that and Hungary 1997
@@nedzosf1gridbox one point I should make is that Hill never talked about a mid season retirement with Jordan and that EJ and Mike Gascoigne would have let him go without any quibbles due to his poor performance so he brought the miserable end to his career on himself
Was the Williams really that much better than the Benetton once they also got the Renault engine in '95?
I think it was. Only Schumacher contended for wins compared to both Hill and DC for Williams. The Williams got 12 out of 17 pole positions too. It was definitely easier to drive and the fact that Herbert was nowhere in races either Hill, Schumi, or both of them retired from I think it kind of proves the Williams supremacy
Interesting video tbh, positives of Damon Hill's career; 22 wins, 20 poles of course won that title and tbf, he did well to lead a big team like Williams after such a high-profile death and challenged in 94. Negatives tbh when I think of 20+ winners usually he's the only 1 I forget and that is saying something really. In terms of tiers, I had him back of S probably around where Alboreto is.
That’s a fair comparison
Please don’t forget that Damon started his (car) racing career at the age of 24. Yes 24 (!!!)
Michael Schumacher was like 5, Senna about 8 I believe.
Jacques Villeneuve was considered “late” at about 13 😉
@@mattseaman5397 I get that, he did do incredibly well given his circumstances, just look at Riccardo Rosset who started at a very similar age
Kimi in S+++ tier
@crystalracing4794 Well, the S+ tier has 20 drivers and Raikkonen is one of them lol!
Schumacher had brilliant minds Brawn and Byrne behind him. Brawn was really a genius of strategy. Patrick Head of Williams was never close to him.
Williams had Adrian Newey…
@@nedzosf1gridbox But not the tactical genius like Brawn is. I remember how many MS victories were actually due the amazingly good pit stop strategy.
If that’s what you believe then sure
@@nedzosf1gridbox Facts and statistics are behind me.
Prost stalled so much in 93 it was hilarious
Yea, he must’ve not liked those new fangled computerised cars
If there was one race that differentiated Hill and Schumacher, it would be '95 Spa, where the latter held the former with slick tyres...on wet surface!
Yep!
Williams lost the edge over other teams, first and foremost because of FIA banning active suspension, traction control and ABS were just secondary reasons.
Japan ‘94 was his best ever. Some other standouts would be Hungary ‘97 obviously, Jerez ‘97 fourth in qualifying, a solid second half of ‘98 with the Belgium performance (remember safety cars brought Ralf into play) and a fourth place at Suzuka with a last corner overtake on Frentzen to give Jordan 4th in the constructors for the first time. There was a fourth place at Imola ‘99 and a few good drives but otherwise that was a dire season. His career was strange and ended in a very weird way but definitely more than two good drives. I actually think Raikkonen is one of the worst world champions - very fast in the McLarens but looked like a totally different driver after that and didn’t seem to care for years at the end
Give me hill over Keke Rosberg every day of the week
That’s a very interesting take, I’d go for Rosberg every day
I swore this video was about Keke when I clicked on it. Champion with one win in a season. Champion with 1 win and 5 podiums.
@@colinbrown8316 yea but 1982 itself was crazy, no one got more than two wins
Hill was actually almost the same good driver as Schumacher.
I disagree
@@nedzosf1gridbox look at the statistics from 1992 -- 96 when they had pretty equal cars.
@marguskiis7711 you mustn’t have watched the video, they didn’t have equal cars
@@nedzosf1gridbox How Benetton was inferior to Williams? Rory Byrne is a brilliant engineer. Also Ross Brawn is a genius without a question. Unlike Patrick Head.
@@marguskiis7711 better staff doesn’t by default mean a better car. A rookie David Coulthard and a 41 year old Nigel Mansell got tons of good results meanwhile Schumacher’s teammates were nowhere near
Obviously a Schumacher fan...
Not buying that statement. His racecraft wasn't the best but he was bloody quick. The stats he achieved are better than many of them.
The Williams was a dog till the bspec came. Senna overcame it in qualifying , it was clearly worse than the Benetton early season.
95 Hill wasn't good. However the team dropped a lot of points through crap strategy and poor operation which put him on the back foot. The car wasn't that much better than the Benetton.
I can think of way more than 2 good races. You don't win 22 by accident.
I disagree. He had four seasons (≈65 races) in the best machinery and imo squandered both the 1994 and 1995 titles.
@@nedzosf1gridbox 2/4 were. 95 team were a shitshow operationally. 94 that is total bollocks sorry
@johnedwards230 I disagree. You could maybe argue at the start Senna was just carrying but once the Williams lost it’s instability it was better by far
@@johnedwards230Damon was good on a good day.
On two days he was sensational.
On many days he was just mediocre.
And on some days he was just shit. Sorry, but he was.
Hill's championship was served on a silver platter; schumacher was tired of winning and went to Ferrari, Senna died, Prost retired. All he had to do was basically beat his rookie team mate to be champion, and even then it took him all year to claim it
Most average of all world champions
It almost seems like Damon Hill was a 'trading places' (1983 movie starring Dan Aroyd Eddie murphy) kind of bet Patrick Head and Frank Williams took for Formula 1, Take a driver driving the worst car, put him in our vastly superior car and make a regular driver world champion 😄
Very valid perspective, although Damon will not enjoy it...
Thanks for understanding mate
Only two good races and 22 wins, so 20 of his wins were bad races huh? Utter bollocks.
Another person who misunderstood the title, and put words in my mouth. “Good” doesn’t have its typical meaning in the title as usual, and anyway, “not good” doesn’t mean “bad”. You’re putting words in my mouth
How close is prime Damon to prime jenson?
Prime Damon was better, but for less time
when he left williams he had raced 60 races and won 20. Jim Clark kinda statistics.
Because of circumstances. Clark took a few years to get in good machinery, Hill didn’t and still lost two titles
@@nedzosf1gridbox agreed, that's why I said 'kinda'. Still impressive though, you can only guess what could have been possible (statistically:) had Damon stayed at Williams. Can I add to circumstances the (apparent) negativity in the Williams team culture. that chased away the best of the best drivers? Hubris, they call it. Chased away Newey too. By the way, I love the content of the channel. good analysis, excellent stuff!
Fair enough, I jumped to conclusions. Glad you enjoy the content
lol yeah - he had the best car on the grid for 3 years....Hill's championship was served on a silver platter; schumacher was tired of winning and went to Ferrari, Senna died, Prost retired. All he had to do was basically beat his rookie team mate to be champion, and even then it took him all year to claim it
@@1greenMitsi yes he did and after that 'abysmal' phase he had 20 wins out of 60 races. :)
Later starter and only 1 year at Brabham before diving into the deep end and was not too far off the great Prosts pace.
Prost hated the car
@@nedzosf1gridbox Who would you say is the worst F1 champ? Phil Hill has to be a contender... I was never a Jacques Villeneuve fan either
@leemorrison7113 of the last forty years I’d say Damon. Ranking Phill Hill is tough because he only had a handful of competitive seasons then left Ferrari to join the breakaway ATS team that never took off. He had lots of success in endurance racing, and despite having the least career points for an F1 champion that doesn’t tell the full story. In terms of pure consistency and performance I’d go for Damon, because Jacques Villeneuve had incredible moments more often and performed much better in his peak the Damon
Damon’s worst race was still better than this nonsense
Crazy how people can have different opinions to you
uncomfortableness = discomfort. Sorry but that word made me uncomfortable :D
Yea I’m usually good with grammar I don’t know why I didn’t think of discomfort
If we're to give a driver, earning a few wins and being wdc, we could line up several drivers as we could with multiple gp winners driver never crowned, we could easily say the first mentioned got lucky or earning what they long deserved while the second one would be called inconsistent because of failing in their only wdc title shot.
Being wdc meant you're a good driver, the best car and got a bit more luck to edge your closest rivals.
Button is a fair example of being unlucky yet consistent over the years. When he got a winning car, he got the wdc title on the bat
Barrichello is the contrary as he drove the best ever car in early 2000's, being stuck as leftover driver. He got same drive as Button in 2009 and not only failed the title but even failed to rank 2nd.
So Hill seized the chance he was given, who cares? A title is a bit of luck and a lot of consistency. A good driver with an incredible destiny.
By your own metrics Hill was bad as he only won 1 out of 4 championships winning chances, three of which cars were dominant. He was inconsistent as anything and crashes into other drivers often
Is it Max?
Nope
Somewhat disingenuous
If you disagree that’s cool
Yeah. It sounds like someone wasn't alive in the early 90s so didn't watch it as it happened, and is just guessing
Just because I wasn’t there doesn’t mean I can’t comment on it. I’ve got enough knowledge of the sport having watched all the classic races to form an opinion. In 100 years time by your logic, no one will be allowed to measure the performances of any driver we know today
@@nedzosf1gridbox yeah, pretty much. I'm not going to judge Nuvolari Vs Rosenmayer Vs Seaman even watching old races, and I'm not going to comment on them. You're talking chod as you weren't there, man
This is dumb. Damon had a bunch of great performances in both 94 and 96. Beating Micheal in a car with TC and launch control is no mean feat. The oddest F1 WC, would be someone like Alan Jones or Keke, who was a pretty mid driver, who had one really consistent season, winning a championship almost by luck.
Jones maybe, Keke no, he’s criminally underrated
Keke was an amazing driver during his best days.
Exactly
How many of Lewis Hamilton's wins don't count because he had the best car? Same for Prost and Senna in 88, Mansell in 92 or Verstapen in 2023?
I don’t see how that’s relevant
'Mediocre'
Goes from backmarker team one year, to winning a championship the next, which he did, Schumacher should never have been awarded that championship 'blah blah shouldnt have made the move' Schumacher was off line and damaged, it was a 100% intentional and calculated dick move that isnt even near to being as controversial as the crap that Senna and Prost pulled on each other which *could* have been interpreted as genuine racing incident, Schumacher vs Hill was *not* a racing incident. It was 'oh f im screwed turn in and pray the other guy isnt more damaged than me' - hell i *remember* the cameras watching the smug bastard in the stands. Schumacher proved what he was like in the years after that and ended up with plenty of other disqualifications to underline it.
Anyway, then he cops the 'goat' of the time, then a reigning indy champion, then another reigning indy champion as teammates, then gets utterly shafted entirely. He isnt goat material, but he wasnt mediocre, he made plenty of slipups but sorry there was a hell of a lot of bullshit going on in the background there people downplay.
Hill's championship was served on a silver platter; schumacher was tired of winning and went to Ferrari, Senna died, Prost retired. All he had to do was basically beat his rookie team mate to be champion, and even then it took him all year to claim it. Sorry, but he was the most average of world champions
@@1greenMitsi Horseshit.
Id say not to talk bollocks son, but it's what most TH-camrs do for engagement anyway. You'd be doing something useful otherwise.
God forbid someone has a different opinion to you. How can facts, anecdotal evidence and statistics be “bollocks”?
@@nedzosf1gridbox good lad, you're getting the idea.
I’m confused, you were criticising me now you’re praising me?
@@nedzosf1gridbox I forgot I was crap at online sarcasm...
@EwenNicolson that’s a thing for me too, I’m autistic lol
Damon Hill's title in 1996 was celebrated by many because he was able to finish his story (although he isn't at a Cody Rhodes level). But yes, he was very bland and had only Suzuka 94 and Hungaroring 97 as outstanding races.
Glad you agree
Adelaide Schumacher crashed on purpose twice, once with Hill and the following year. He was no gentleman racer. He was a cheat and dangerous driver
What evidence do you have for these claims to counter what I said in the video?
@@nedzosf1gridbox I gave my opinion on Schumacher. If you don’t agree that’s fine. My opinion is based on his entire career, but in the Adelaide crash I used my eyes, both times. Also, petulant and accusatory when things didn’t go his way.
The problem with Damon was he had to follow in the footsteps of Mansell being the last person to inspire the British fans in a Williams. Mansell was awesome and you watched him knowing he’ll go for it and you’d be jumping out your seat and punching the air. Damon was nothing like Mansell and a lot of the time as I was watching he’d be spinning out cos he made a mistake. So his flaws showed up a lot more. That being said I still rooted for him and he was a likeable bloke.
Great content btw Nedzo. You channel is really growing.
That’s a fair point