You're right, I misunderstood your original post. No driver in the
present-form F1 could do this, either now or 50 years ago. But also, in F1,
at least with the original 10-6-4-3-2-1 scoring, scoring just one point is
an accomplishment. Michael impressed well back in 1992 with the Benneton
racing against Senna and Prost.
PS Ayrton Senna was the best F1 driver ever imo.
> Yes, they had problems, but, unlike Tyrell, they have a storied past
> to help them recruit people (like Michael) and they have a budget that
> can overcome the costs of doing business. It did take them a bit of
> time to come to their present, near unbeatable form. Part of that was
> getting the right people in the right places.
> I stand by my original assertation that if Michael was put into the
> Tyrell tommorrow, he'd not win a race the rest of the year - despite
> being the best driver there. It would take a few years of his being
> their driver to get everything in order to make Tyrell a power.
> That's the way it is.
> >errr do you remember the shape Ferrari was in when Michael got there?
Not
> >Tyrell material, but he certainly made that team an unbeatable force.
(I'm
> >not a fan of Michael's, but you have to give credit where credit is due).
> >. My biggest problem with F1 is if Shumie was in a Tyrell or
> >> other back grid car, he couldn't overcome the weakness of the car with
> >> superior driving skills. At best he'd get a couple of points for the
> >> team here and there. Which would bring it up a few slots in the
> >> constructors ranks, allow them to get better personell (& heavier
> >> sponsorship to fund it) and it 3-4 seasons they'd be challenging for
> >> the title. BUT, only after 2-3 seasons of building and making *better
> >> cars*. The car is the first question, then the driving skill of the
> >> driver.