Not at all; I'm sayong your claim that there were only 7 or 8 races a year is not quite true. Unfortunately it's what a great number of the younger fans of the sport believe, and that's because they view the statistics involving only th world championship races. Let's imagine that Michael Schumacher raced in the 1950's, for Ferrari; if you happen to look at the full calendar of Grands Prix for a given year you'll find, as I'm sure you know, that as a works Ferrari driver (or maserati, or vanwall, lotus, connaught, whoever) he would have taken part in a further 10, maybe mroe, Grands Prix that were just as competetive (full works teams etc) as those that counted towards the world championship for drivers. That's a season of 18 races, just as we have now. It's easy to dismiss them because they weren't championship races, but a knowledgable fan such as yourself will know that these were just a prestigious, and often carried greater prize money. Ignoring those races - and they carried on right up to the early 1980's, with lesser frequency - is not getting the bigger picture. I'm not rewritign history in advising peopl to look at those races too, I'm simply including bits of history that are - cruelly - missed out thanks to the modern obsession with the world championship. You know as well as I do that teh Silverstone International Trophy was as prestigious a race as any. The upshot of this is that had Michael Schumacher been a works Ferrari driver in the 1950's those books would record that he won X Grands Prix when, in fact, he won many more. Ascari is recorded as winning 13 - he won many more.
I know that Ascari won many more, which is why you surprise me with your Schumacherisms. Also, Michael may not have survived the 50s with his driving style, bumping into other people´s cars, Silverstone 1999 etc....
Shall we start with Lampedri? You can fill in the rest.
Ah, so you do know a little bit of F1 history, scarcely, though. One Lampedri does not equal Todt, Brawn, Byrne and Martinelli, one Lampedri equals Martinelli.
You miss my point; Ferrari in the mid-1970's was one of the, if not the, best organised F1 teams of all, with the best calibre of engineers and technical brains in the business. Then was different to now, the level of professionalism was not anywhere close to todays.
For the 1970s you obviously draw a blank: Ferrari in the 1970s were utterly disorganized, the term "grande casino" had become a mainstay for characterising the team in those days. Niki Lauda, Luca di Montezemolo and Mauro Forghieri pulled together what they could, but it was in no way on the level of the 1990s super team, from which Schumacher benefited very nicely.
You think Hakkinen would do any better? I don't.
I think Mika Hakkinen could have achieved the same success in a different way, given the super team. Not better, but different. And definitely more human and more gracious than MS. Schumacher is not the outstanding driver of all times you make him up to be - statistics are not everything, as you so eloquently explained concerning the 50s. It is the spirit in which the wins are taken, and in that department Schumacher will always lag behind.
Note also that Schumacher had greatest respect for Mika Hakkinen, he always called him his worthy opponent. Champions know other champions.
We are not back to square one, by the way. Two or three days ago already I suggested to agree to disagree. Yet you insist on pushing your viewpoints, which I accept as your viewpoints, yet will not make my own, no matter how much you insist on it. As you are free to believe what you want to believe, I am as well.
The "proofs" you have put forward are at best claims, no scientific hard facts. Neither are mine, as this subject cannot be proven, neither one way nor the other. So once again, let us agree to disagree - if you can´t, it also says something about you.