Comments on: Might have been Hamilton: Magnussen

By: Michael K

Michael K — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:28:17 +0000

“So were McNish and Magnussen better than Hamilton? In terms of pure unadulterated raw speed the answer in both cases is absolutely. For me, Magnussen is the quickest driver I have ever seen – that includes Senna and Schumacher – and unquestionably the greatest lost talent of the past 20 years.”

That is a truly delusional statement. When he was in F1 he got beaten convincingly by RB, who in turn got spanked by Schumi over several years. I think this statement was put in there to bait some debate, but it is so bonkers that there is nothing to discuss. I suspect some special man-love issues are the underlying reasons here…

By: Steven Roy

Steven Roy — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:22:25 +0000

I think Magnussen was beyond redemption. If Jackie Stewart couldn’t straighten him out it is unlikely McLaren could.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 10:06:16 +0000

I agree 100% with Rabi, had McLaren really worked in the way they have with Hamilton, with Magnussen in particular the story would have been very different.

As for the quickest I’ve ever seen, some of the comments are making the assumption that F1 is the ultimate arbiter of a driver’s speed. I would very much disagree, the FFFestivals of the late 80′s/early 90′s had a far deeper talent pool than the F1 grids at the same time, controversial I know, but hunt down the DVD’s and you will see what I mean

By: Steven Roy

Steven Roy — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:01:38 +0000

Ron Dennis described Magnussen as the most disorganised GP driver he ever met. For me he was born 20 years too late. Had he come into the sport in the 70s he would have been a legend but he came in at a time when you had to be fit and you had to be able to work hard to be a success. Magnussen was james Hunt but with a lot more ability. In some ways he was the guy Raikkonen is reputed to be off track.

One of the things that was used against McNish was his size. There was a belief that his small frame could not handle the loads. of course he killed that stone dead with some of the unbelievable quadruple stints he did in sportscars but by then it was too late for F1.

There is a big difference between being fast and being good.

By: Rabi

Rabi — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:55:05 +0000

What it shows to me is that Hamilton has benefitted, as well as the next generation of young drivers, from the failings of managing and building talents such as Magnussen and McNish. The teams, and in particular McLaren, should have improved by now – why else micromanage Lewis’ career from day one?

Also the first break into F1 does also help all the top drivers have had a break at the right time in their career, which is why it’s possible there were better drivers in the late 80′s and early 90′s due to the high number of teams (read drives) available throughout the 80′s.

By: Johnf

Johnf — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:40:30 +0000

I think your loosing the plot somewhat with this statement. Magnussen never cut it in F1 pure and simple. Its all very well being quick in the sub formulae but it all means very little. Hamilton but in blindingly quick performances in the lower tier also and its all relative to the competition and the equipment. The fact is you do not know whether magnussen would have outpaced hamilton – certainly not in F1. And to suggest Magnussen to be quicker than Senna and Schumacher for raw pace is at best optermistic