Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20770 replies to this topic

#6251 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:13

I am sure you understand - Michael´s contract with Benetton expired end of 1995 and Brawn´s and Byrne´s end of 1996 -


Again, could be my memory playing tricks, but I thought Byrne retired after 95.

As for your previous post, it's one of my pet hates that peope assume - because you disagree with them on one point - that you disagree with them on all. I never said, anywhere, that Michael was 'the only driver who could have won in the 96 Ferrari' - indeed, I don't believe that to be the case; there are also aspects of Michael's career that i don't like; I doubt Jacques Villeneuve ' could have done anything like what Michael did at Ferrari, and I doubt Hill could either. Hakkinen could just be the one. The claim that Alonso is 'more popular at Ferrari than Michael ever was' is - quite honestly - laughable, no matter how many Italians you've known (and my Italian journalist friends would certainly have a good giggle at it).

I note your belief that Senna is the best ever, Michael next, and that it may do Jim Clark an injustice. For anyone who knows that f1 began prior to the 1980's, or even the 1960's, it does quite a number of others an injustice too, but that's something that comes with opinion.

I have no problem with your posts - most of them anyway - but sometimes you seem desperate to prove that Michael Schumacher was not quite all he was made up to be; despite my beliefe that he ranks in the top ten of all time, and no more, seven world titles and 91 wins is one hell of an achievment in anyone's book.




Advertisement

#6252 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:14

Again, my memory could be playing me tricks, but I thought that Byrne was paid a royal salary to retire from retirement - I am sure Michael paid it out of his pocket. Luca and Jean had nothing to do with it...;)


he was, but what has that got to do with anything? Where did I say anything about Michael hiring the team?


#6253 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:28

Embarrassing, appalling are good words for the other years. 1995 was a vast improvement, but far from great. It was clear at the beginning of 1996 that Ferrari had gone down the wrong route of development, and their car looked drastically different from the other teams interpreting the regulation's. To win races that year was a massive achievement and the credit goes to Schuey and the team for that.

"It was pretty clear from the first test that we'd ****ed things up over the winter".. Eddie Irvine.



1995
11 podiums
73 points
Wins 1
Poles 1

1992
2 podiums
21 points
Wins 0
Poles 0

But for freak events in 1995, Ferrari should have won Monza, possibly San Marino, Suzuka, and retired from the lead at Spa. 1995 was anything but a mess. Ferrari was a progressive team which already had a V10 engine programe running. M Schumacher signed for a team that was on the up from its low point in 1992. LdM, Todt, Barnard and Goto got the ball rolling.

I would also recommend you do a little deeper research into Ferrari from the mid-1970's onwards rather than 1996 onwards. Not many teams have developed from being five seconds off the pace to winning poles and a race the following season. i.e. 1993-1994.

#6254 Johnrambo

Johnrambo
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:37

In 1996 Jean Todt was no top team boss, he was being brought under fire to quit, when things were going wrong in 1996, the dnfs etc, Schuey actually stood up for Jean Todt, commenting he is one of the teams stenghts.


Schumacher can thank his success on Jean Todt.

And another record he holds, he must be the only driver who has had major fia rules in f1 history changed to slow him and his team down-2003-one lap quali cough, 2 qualifying sessions, championship leader out in first session first-effectively the track sweeper, hinder his overall time and grid position for Sunday, FIA were so desperate and worried after 2002, that no one would challenge MS and Ferrari, they put in rules themselfs to trip them up, and in 2003 it almost worked, but MS beat the rules then as well, and came back in 2004 to do it quicker with his team, the tyre rule cost him the 2005 title, somethings you can't can't prepare for, even the most prepared man and team in f1 history!


The rules were different for Schumacher then than the rest? Oh no they weren't. :rolleyes: The limitless arrogance some MS fanboys display is quite amazing and also hilarious now seeing how totally crap MS has been on his comeback.


#6255 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 15:41

I doubt Jacques Villeneuve ' could have done anything like what Michael did at Ferrari, and I doubt Hill could either. Hakkinen could just be the one. The claim that Alonso is 'more popular at Ferrari than Michael ever was' is - quite honestly - laughable, no matter how many Italians you've known (and my Italian journalist friends would certainly have a good giggle at it).


Please be so kind to ask your Italian journalist friends what according to them the general feeling is regarding the issue. I am curious to hear what they think or know.


I note your belief that Senna is the best ever, Michael next, and that it may do Jim Clark an injustice. For anyone who knows that f1 began prior to the 1980's, or even the 1960's, it does quite a number of others an injustice too, but that's something that comes with opinion.


Indeed I was tempted to also mention Juan Manuel Fangio, but didn´t want to expand the matter in a Schumacher thread.


I have no problem with your posts - most of them anyway - but sometimes you seem desperate to prove that Michael Schumacher was not quite all he was made up to be; despite my beliefe that he ranks in the top ten of all time, and no more, seven world titles and 91 wins is one hell of an achievment in anyone's book.


His achievement of 91 victories is momentous - nearly as much as Senna and Prost together, so no argument there. I am not "desperate" to prove that Michael Schumacher was not quite all he was made up to be - the point here is well worked out by you: "all he was made up to be". He is what he is and his record speaks for itself, but some legends have been made up - this does not cause me any desperation but I will always put things into perspective when I see unreasonable myths. And there are many regarding MS.

#6256 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 15:45

he was, but what has that got to do with anything? Where did I say anything about Michael hiring the team?


It has to do with the fact that according to you they "followed" Schumacher to Ferrari. "Followed" in the temporal sense may be correct, but in another sense I am sure it was rather the offer that made them "follow" Schumacher to Ferrari.

#6257 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 17:05

I am sure you understand - Michael´s contract with Benetton expired end of 1995 and Brawn´s and Byrne´s end of 1996 - that is in part a reason for the time sequence of events. Also, it was not Schumacher who offered them well paid contracts but Luca di Montezemolo (Jean Todt being his executive) so they would not have joined Ferrari without di Montezemolo employing them.


Brawn and Byrne DID follow Schumacher. I dont know what is your argument against that. Do you really think Brawn and Byrne would have joined Ferrari if Alesi or even Hill was their lead driver ? C'mon ! I certainly believe Schumacher had quite a role to play in getting those two into Ferrari. I am sure the 1996 season in Benetton without a driver of Schumacher's caliber behind the wheel must have opened their eyes. The same team that was in an upswing for nearly 4 years suddenly became the 3rd and often 4th best team after Schumacher left. And yes, Schumacher does have a role to play even in Jean Todt's career. He showed loyalty and stood up for him when Todt was about to get fired, and Todt repayed that loyalty towards Schumacher.

Whatever way you may want to twist it, Schumacher did have a pivotal role, other than that of just a racing driver, in turning the fortunes of Ferrari around.


#6258 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,705 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 October 2010 - 18:17

not bad for an irrelevant driver to have a thread now 155 pages. the biggest thread still alive. hah. must burn with the likes of muzza.


"jenson and lewis scorecard" 469 pages
"lewis hamilton" 245 pages
"renault 2010" 204 pages
"f10 ferrari" 192 pages

on the front page alone.......


#6259 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 19:27

Brawn and Byrne DID follow Schumacher. I dont know what is your argument against that. Do you really think Brawn and Byrne would have joined Ferrari if Alesi or even Hill was their lead driver ?


No, they wouldn't, and that's part of my point. As I've said I'm no Schumacher fan - in fact, i'm no one driver fan I just love the sport - but it does concern me that there are apprently intelligent people who believe Schumacher was in no way influetial on who joined Ferrari in the 96 and on era. i know he was, and anyone who has no agenda in proving that everyone other than Michael was also knows (in fact, they probably do, too).

It's curious to read people trying to convince me - and others - that Alonso is 'more popular with the tifosi now than Michael ever was' because, quite frankly, this smacks of nothing other than invention. Especially when it comes from people who claim to know italians and so on. I mean, get real - you hate the man, but the tifosi will always love him. Even I - as someone who often willed Schumacher to fail - accept that.

Advertisement

#6260 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 19:31

:rotfl: as soon as he left, they started winning :D

yea because couthard did all the hard work helping design the cars , pointing the designers in the right areas , showing them how mclaren would do it etc.

he left because he knew his time had come so he passed his legacy if you like to webber

#6261 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 22:03

No, they wouldn't, and that's part of my point. As I've said I'm no Schumacher fan - in fact, i'm no one driver fan I just love the sport - but it does concern me that there are apprently intelligent people who believe Schumacher was in no way influetial on who joined Ferrari in the 96 and on era. i know he was, and anyone who has no agenda in proving that everyone other than Michael was also knows (in fact, they probably do, too).

It's curious to read people trying to convince me - and others - that Alonso is 'more popular with the tifosi now than Michael ever was' because, quite frankly, this smacks of nothing other than invention. Especially when it comes from people who claim to know italians and so on. I mean, get real - you hate the man, but the tifosi will always love him. Even I - as someone who often willed Schumacher to fail - accept that.


There are quotes from Irvine Roebuck and Berger that claim M Schumacher was respected in Italy but never loved in the same way as Gilles, Alesi and even Nige. Again this is all very subjective yet you aggressively insist upon your views being facts. Not cricket I'm afraid. ;-)

Edited by man, 04 October 2010 - 22:08.


#6262 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 28,129 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 October 2010 - 22:11

yea because couthard did all the hard work helping design the cars , pointing the designers in the right areas , showing them how mclaren would do it etc.

he left because he knew his time had come so he passed his legacy if you like to webber


Any work he did was on the cars he drove, he can take no credit for the cars once he left. As far as info about Mac, I'm sure Newey brought more than enough of that to the table.

#6263 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 28,129 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 October 2010 - 22:15

It's curious to read people trying to convince me - and others - that Alonso is 'more popular with the tifosi now than Michael ever was' because, quite frankly, this smacks of nothing other than invention. Especially when it comes from people who claim to know italians and so on. I mean, get real - you hate the man, but the tifosi will always love him. Even I - as someone who often willed Schumacher to fail - accept that.


I have np idea which driver is actually preferred, but Brundle did say that his contacts within the Italian press said Alonso was more popular (in Italy). I don't think he would lie about it, so where is the Italian press getting it's numbers from?


#6264 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 23:02

No, they wouldn't, and that's part of my point. As I've said I'm no Schumacher fan - in fact, i'm no one driver fan I just love the sport - but it does concern me that there are apprently intelligent people who believe Schumacher was in no way influetial on who joined Ferrari in the 96 and on era. i know he was, and anyone who has no agenda in proving that everyone other than Michael was also knows (in fact, they probably do, too).

It's curious to read people trying to convince me - and others - that Alonso is 'more popular with the tifosi now than Michael ever was' because, quite frankly, this smacks of nothing other than invention. Especially when it comes from people who claim to know italians and so on. I mean, get real - you hate the man, but the tifosi will always love him. Even I - as someone who often willed Schumacher to fail - accept that.


You still failed to answer my question concering your Italian journalist friends, Lifew12.

For the record, I lived in Milano from September 2000 till May 2001 and in Rome from May 2001 till October 2001. Other than that, I have been an invited lecturer to Italy from 1990 onwards until today, covering Torino, Milano, Parma, Vicenza, Verona, Padova, Udine, Genova, Bologna, Firenze, Roma, Napoli and Catania. So please be careful with your assertment that "people claim to know Italians and so on". I have been to Monza, Imola and Maranello several times - if this smacks like invention to you, fine - what shall I think of your Italian journalist friends?

This line of argument still does in no way prove that Schumacher was THE influence in the renaissance of Ferrari. As stated above, he was one of the factors.

You will still have to eat midnight pasta or midnight pizza with tifosi for quite a while till you really understand how they feel about Michael Schumacher.

#6265 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 October 2010 - 01:02

Maybe the whole argument here about Michael's part in the Scuderia's success, and Todt, Brawn, Byrne et al joining can be condensed into a simple "Ferrari managed to assemble a superteam of some of the great talents and minds of modern F1". I have little doubt that Michael's move/presence there would have been an attracting force just as Ferrari itself are a magnet - despite all the pressures and negatives associated with them.

Chris Amon in a recent interview openly confessed his move to Ferrari from the early entity of McLaren was something he couldn't resist, even though at the time he knew he would have to fight Bandini, Parkes and Scarfiotti for one of the F1 seats - my point is the aura of being a works Ferrari driver often overrides reason. So Luca would have simply needed to exercise the generous chequebooks of Fiat and Phillip Morris to a few key players and people, good people, would come.

This in no way derides the achievements of Michael but to say Michael was somehow greater than the combined talents of T, B and B (and many other key people) is nonsense. The years of Hakkinen v Schumacher (1998 - 2001) were arguably the height of Michael's career, what followed was the icing on the cake in terms of raw statistics. By 2005 Michael was already considered beatable in a Ferrari which was merely a competitive, not dominant car - (OK the 2005 Bridgestones were rubbish). In between these years Ferrari simply had a serious advantage over their competition that wasn't just about Michael.

Fans of MS will see the contextual explanation of his success as a put-down. That's relative, because Michael's record can't be used to show he was twice as good as Senna. As much as I hate to admit it I would lean towards Senna being the fastest of all time. Michael in my book has to be in the top 10 and probably in the top 4 (with Clark and Fangio), any conclusion bigger than that is unrealistic due to the different requirements of the eras 1950 - 2010. Would Michael have had the bravery of a Juan Manuel? Would Clark have had the technical and motivating gifts to rival MS? Even Prost can't be ruled out with his 4xWDCs or Stewart with his enormously well-rounded talents.

It is inevitable that if the curtain came down on Michael at the end of 2010, his career would be slightly dimmed by his inability to live up to the miracle man tag some believe(d) him to be.

Edited by Muz Bee, 05 October 2010 - 01:13.


#6266 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 03:21

Maybe the whole argument here about Michael's part in the Scuderia's success, and Todt, Brawn, Byrne et al joining can be condensed into a simple "Ferrari managed to assemble a superteam of some of the great talents and minds of modern F1". I have little doubt that Michael's move/presence there would have been an attracting force just as Ferrari itself are a magnet - despite all the pressures and negatives associated with them.

Chris Amon in a recent interview openly confessed his move to Ferrari from the early entity of McLaren was something he couldn't resist, even though at the time he knew he would have to fight Bandini, Parkes and Scarfiotti for one of the F1 seats - my point is the aura of being a works Ferrari driver often overrides reason. So Luca would have simply needed to exercise the generous chequebooks of Fiat and Phillip Morris to a few key players and people, good people, would come.

This in no way derides the achievements of Michael but to say Michael was somehow greater than the combined talents of T, B and B (and many other key people) is nonsense. The years of Hakkinen v Schumacher (1998 - 2001) were arguably the height of Michael's career, what followed was the icing on the cake in terms of raw statistics. By 2005 Michael was already considered beatable in a Ferrari which was merely a competitive, not dominant car - (OK the 2005 Bridgestones were rubbish). In between these years Ferrari simply had a serious advantage over their competition that wasn't just about Michael.

Fans of MS will see the contextual explanation of his success as a put-down. That's relative, because Michael's record can't be used to show he was twice as good as Senna. As much as I hate to admit it I would lean towards Senna being the fastest of all time. Michael in my book has to be in the top 10 and probably in the top 4 (with Clark and Fangio), any conclusion bigger than that is unrealistic due to the different requirements of the eras 1950 - 2010. Would Michael have had the bravery of a Juan Manuel? Would Clark have had the technical and motivating gifts to rival MS? Even Prost can't be ruled out with his 4xWDCs or Stewart with his enormously well-rounded talents.

It is inevitable that if the curtain came down on Michael at the end of 2010, his career would be slightly dimmed by his inability to live up to the miracle man tag some believe(d) him to be.


Good post.

To somehow distort history into a case of "Ferrari were hopeless and M Schumacher sorted it all out and without him they wuold be nothing" is nothing short of sensationalized tabloid ill-informed drivel. It reflects the sad individualistic society we live in today to artifically raise an individual/celebrity onto a pedestal and transform him/ her into a supernatural being. :-)

Jean Todt was a massive success for Peugeot in rallying and sportscars. Within a year of his arrival at Ferrari he got them back to winning ways, Ferrari having previously not won anything since 1990 - a gap of four years.

LdM has been a success in everything he has done especially with Ferrari in the 1970's. And as I have stated before, it was in fact LdM that got the ball rolling in late 1991 when he returned to Ferrari. From then on things just got better and better behind the scenes and on the track

Sadly, it seems for many people Plato's Allegory of the cave is gobbledygook. History of Ferrari for them starts in 1996. :-) I wonder how many of those who write on the subject here were actually even born or even old enough to see Ferrari during the early 1990's let alone 1980's and 1970's. :)

#6267 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,962 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 05 October 2010 - 04:11

most sensible michael fans would accept a top 4 assessment as the rest is not and could never be definitive.

most would also accept that michael was not the only factor at ferrari. yes he clearly was the initial attraction for the benetton guys who had developed such faith in his abilities and he in them

for all his faults he does appear to be genuinely selfless within a team, something that alonso has not demonstrated.

I struggle to believe the tifosi love alonso more - fe drives with no more passion or more exciting style than michael. he's not itialian either - maybe italians instinctively dislike germans but watching monza yr after yr the tifosi didnt seem to be grudge his wins and the team themselves have always been largely italian and have simply adored michael. I suspect todt was never "loved"

the idea that the "old man" would not have liked michael has also been tossed around. complete nonesense. who couldnt love the guy based on 98 for example when he drove testing mile after mile and into the dusk day after day. the guy had an office afterall inside fiorano. nobody can deny dedication and the fact that within the team he has a reputation for being down to earth and engaged. to suggest that someone winning so relentlessly driving your car would not have been liked just seems silly. jealous maybe.

#6268 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 24,031 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 05 October 2010 - 04:41

Gods its like a rerun of the wizard of oz in here.. everywhere I look there's a strawman or someone with no brain.

Sorry couldnt resist, Im sure you are all very bright but the strawman part is true. When did ANYONE claim Ferrari were nothing and that Rory Byrne, Ross Brawn and Jean Todt (And please lets not forget Martinelli!') had nothing to do with their success?? I mean they were referred to as the Dream Team for a reason people.. but sensible people acknowledged Michael's vital role in providing the sharp end of the weapon. Maybe we could do with a few more sensible people here..

#6269 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 07:59

There are quotes from Irvine Roebuck and Berger that claim M Schumacher was respected in Italy but never loved in the same way as Gilles, Alesi and even Nige. Again this is all very subjective yet you aggressively insist upon your views being facts. Not cricket I'm afraid. ;-)


Your over-fondness for telling people their views are not facts is rather tiresome; assuming that what someone professes is their outright belief - as in the previous response you made about my post regarding Rosberg where you assumed, wrongly as I pointed out, that what I stated was my view, and in this one, where I am simply stating the obvious, i.e. that Michael was worshipped by the tifosi however you try and spin it - is a problem with internet forums that carries over into the 'fanboy' and 'haters' aspect that really shoyuld have remained in the school playground. Subjective it may be, as you say, yet it can't be anything other that fact that Michael Schumacher was widely adored by the tifosi. he certainly was by those i knew. For the record, he wasn't by me.


#6270 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 08:05

You still failed to answer my question concering your Italian journalist friends, Lifew12.


Until I ask them, I can't. Unless you want me to make something up to fit what you clearly see as my agenda.

For the record, I lived in Milano from September 2000 till May 2001 and in Rome from May 2001 till October 2001. Other than that, I have been an invited lecturer to Italy from 1990 onwards until today, covering Torino, Milano, Parma, Vicenza, Verona, Padova, Udine, Genova, Bologna, Firenze, Roma, Napoli and Catania. So please be careful with your assertment that "people claim to know Italians and so on".


good for you. You must have met a lot of Michael Schumacher fans then.

I have been to Monza, Imola and Maranello several times


So have I. Mostly on a professional basis, others on a jolly.

This line of argument still does in no way prove that Schumacher was THE influence in the renaissance of Ferrari. As stated above, he was one of the factors.


That's right, but you have this innate desire to diminish his role in the saga, and it is clearly influenced by the fact you're not - for want of a better word - a fan. Your continued posts on here highlight that without any doubt at all. To state that Michael was anything other than an absolutely pivotal figure in the revivial of Ferrari n the mid 90's is really to look at things with one eye closed. It's no secret at all that he had a say in who he wanted at the team, and so on, so what is your obsession with trying to belittle the man's achievments there? I mean, just because you are on an internet forum does not mean you have to 'take sides' - you can accept that, despite your dislike of the bloke, he was the keystone in the whole thing - it doesn't hurt, trust me.

You will still have to eat midnight pasta or midnight pizza with tifosi for quite a while till you really understand how they feel about Michael Schumacher.


You assume I haven't.


#6271 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 09:15

You still failed to answer my question concering your Italian journalist friends, Lifew12.

For the record, I lived in Milano from September 2000 till May 2001 and in Rome from May 2001 till October 2001. Other than that, I have been an invited lecturer to Italy from 1990 onwards until today, covering Torino, Milano, Parma, Vicenza, Verona, Padova, Udine, Genova, Bologna, Firenze, Roma, Napoli and Catania. So please be careful with your assertment that "people claim to know Italians and so on". I have been to Monza, Imola and Maranello several times - if this smacks like invention to you, fine - what shall I think of your Italian journalist friends?

This line of argument still does in no way prove that Schumacher was THE influence in the renaissance of Ferrari. As stated above, he was one of the factors.

You will still have to eat midnight pasta or midnight pizza with tifosi for quite a while till you really understand how they feel about Michael Schumacher.


I wonder if the Tifosi's attitude towards Schumacher has changed somewhat now he's with Mercedes? IIRC, some even wanted him to stop wearing the red helmet when he started testing with Mercedes because red symbolised Ferrari.....

There is no doubt he was highly respected by them, but not loved in the same way Irvine was (who claims he could live with the #2 status because it still brought him so many priveleges, women, free food and wine etc :rotfl: )

I also remember some Italian politician getting rather upset some years ago that Schumacher was 'conducting' the Italian national anthem whenever he won a Grand Prix. I didn't hear the Tifosi kick up too much of a fuss on that issue however.


#6272 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 09:16

Until I ask them, I can't. Unless you want me to make something up to fit what you clearly see as my agenda.


No, it's fine - please be considerate enough to still post your findings in this thread, even if it takes a few months.


good for you. You must have met a lot of Michael Schumacher fans then.



No doubt, and I have met many as well who call him "il tedesco".


So have I. Mostly on a professional basis, others on a jolly.


So we are both lucky - what was that about people making up things you mentioned earlier?



That's right, but you have this innate desire to diminish his role in the saga, and it is clearly influenced by the fact you're not - for want of a better word - a fan. Your continued posts on here highlight that without any doubt at all. To state that Michael was anything other than an absolutely pivotal figure in the revivial of Ferrari n the mid 90's is really to look at things with one eye closed. It's no secret at all that he had a say in who he wanted at the team, and so on, so what is your obsession with trying to belittle the man's achievments there? I mean, just because you are on an internet forum does not mean you have to 'take sides' - you can accept that, despite your dislike of the bloke, he was the keystone in the whole thing - it doesn't hurt, trust me.


I do have "the innate desire" to puts things into perspective that Schumacheristas have been making up for years and that are simply exaggerations or even flatly untrue. Reading your wording (you are a journalist, after all) "Schumacher, an absolutely pivotal figure" I must say that very obviously you are a fan - your professional experience surely has shown you that there are relatively few "absolutes" in life, in fact, there is only one, and that is death. Schumacher is absolutely no absolutum! :lol:

You assume I haven't.


If you had the traditional midnight pasta with vino (in vino veritas!) in which an Italian opens his heart, then you will have seen that the Italians admired Schumacher, were grateful to him for bringing so many victories to their marquee, but deep in their hearts they have never seen him as one of their own - Gilles, Jean and Nigel (Il leone) were and are indeed more beloved than Schumacher ever was among the tifosi. Fernando now is. Don't forget that Schumacher also brought a lot of pain and shame to them with his "other side". They are an emotional people, but they can still differentiate between crooked people and sincere people - they have enough examples of the two kinds in their own society and among their politicians.

Again, it could be that in your professional capacity as a journalist and in the visits you spent to Italy that were probably shorter and did not allow you to develop deeper friendships with Italians, you may not have touched base with them in a way someone who has lived with them. If you have, good for you, but then we would not have the whole argument.

I like your posts, Lifew12, except this last crusade of yours which is a bit personal, but no worries, mate. If you don't like my posts, fine, don't read them or simply put me on ignore. Accept the fact that there are no absolutes in life safe death, and let us agree to disagree.

#6273 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 09:29

I wonder if the Tifosi's attitude towards Schumacher has changed somewhat now he's with Mercedes? IIRC, some even wanted him to stop wearing the red helmet when he started testing with Mercedes because red symbolised Ferrari.....

There is no doubt he was highly respected by them, but not loved in the same way Irvine was (who claims he could live with the #2 status because it still brought him so many priveleges, women, free food and wine etc :rotfl: )

I also remember some Italian politician getting rather upset some years ago that Schumacher was 'conducting' the Italian national anthem whenever he won a Grand Prix. I didn't hear the Tifosi kick up too much of a fuss on that issue however.


Note that I have lived in Italy during 2000 and 2001, definitely the heyday of Michael Schumacher at Ferrari, so my observations stem largely from that period. I am still visiting Italy several times every year and have kept the connection with my friends there.

The disappointments Schumacher brought to the tifosi - Jerez 1997 and the lies thereafter, Austria 2002 and his podium behaviour (team strategy was fine with the Italians, but not the behaviour afterwards, which even disgraced Rubens Barrichello more) as well as Monaco 2006 and the lies thereafter did not sit well with the Italian tifosi. A cheater is only somewhat respected if he does it well and with style.

What you say is true, since Michael has joined the other team, he is less accepted in Italy, no doubt this has been in part instigated by Luca di Montezemolo with his "Michael's twin brother" saga.

#6274 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 09:49

Reading your wording (you are a journalist, after all) "Schumacher, an absolutely pivotal figure" I must say that very obviously you are a fan


I have no outstanding preferences among drivers in F1, although I must say that over the past fifteen years my loyalty has very much been with Mika Hakkinen and McLaren. My calling Michael a pivotal figure in the rise of Ferrari doesn't make me 'a fan' - it's simply a fact, and one that can be recognised even by the likes of me who remain disgusted by some of Michael's on track antics. Don't make the oft repeated mistake of assuming that someone who dares to give someone credit is a support of that person - it's simply a case of having a balanced view.

....you may not have touched base with them in a way someone who has lived with them.


Very possibly.

I like your posts, Lifew12, except this last crusade of yours which is a bit personal, but no worries, mate. If you don't like my posts, fine, don't read them or simply put me on ignore. Accept the fact that there are no absolutes in life safe death, and let us agree to disagree.


The thing is, often I do like your posts, and while not intending this latest discussion to be in any way personal I have to admit it has looked that way; what does grate on me in a major way is that you are permanently set on attempting to discredit Michael Schumacher in avery possible way; it's as if the man has done you some personal harm in the past, and that you now have a duty to put him down, to exact revenge. Some - many - of your posts are so determined to put across the darker picture that it's a bit like listening to the same record, over and over again, and nort a very good one at that. It shows up when you respond to someone - in this case myself - that Michael Schumacher was one of the biggest parts of the resurgence of Ferrari in the mid 90's; the thing is, he was, and there's no getting away from that. Why you can't just say 'yes, he was, but I still think he's a wanker' is beyond me.

#6275 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 10:28

I have no outstanding preferences among drivers in F1, although I must say that over the past fifteen years my loyalty has very much been with Mika Hakkinen and McLaren. My calling Michael a pivotal figure in the rise of Ferrari doesn't make me 'a fan' - it's simply a fact, and one that can be recognised even by the likes of me who remain disgusted by some of Michael's on track antics. Don't make the oft repeated mistake of assuming that someone who dares to give someone credit is a support of that person - it's simply a case of having a balanced view.



Very possibly.



The thing is, often I do like your posts, and while not intending this latest discussion to be in any way personal I have to admit it has looked that way; what does grate on me in a major way is that you are permanently set on attempting to discredit Michael Schumacher in avery possible way; it's as if the man has done you some personal harm in the past, and that you now have a duty to put him down, to exact revenge. Some - many - of your posts are so determined to put across the darker picture that it's a bit like listening to the same record, over and over again, and nort a very good one at that. It shows up when you respond to someone - in this case myself - that Michael Schumacher was one of the biggest parts of the resurgence of Ferrari in the mid 90's; the thing is, he was, and there's no getting away from that. Why you can't just say 'yes, he was, but I still think he's a wanker' is beyond me.


So again, what it boils down to is that you can't handle aditya having a different opinion to your own and for having the audacity of posting them on here. Your recent posts that I have noticed appear to be pretty humourless and aggressive and unable to see irony if it shakes you by the hand in approach which is just the opposite of aditya. I would say lighten up ;-)

Aditya has already stated he doesn't have a personal issue with the man in question and is more interested in the myths that surround the man. I think the smart thing for you to do would be to accept adityas explanation and address the points he makes on the subject (M Schumacher) rather than attempting to be the forum shrink by second guessing adityas motives - that is what gets tiring ;-) And in what way is Aditya putting M Schumacher down exactly? By making comments/ observations you don't like? It seems so. And you do appear to balanced yes, with the chip on each shoulder ;-)



#6276 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 10:39

So again, what it boils down to is that you can't handle aditya having a different opinion to your own and for having the audacity of posting them on here.


No, not at all. I don't see how you can possibly read that into my posts without wanting to do so beforehand. In fact, we hold many of the same views - we both agree that the tifosi worshipped the likes of Villeneuve and Alesi more so than Schumacher, that Michael played a major part in the resurgence of Ferrari, that Italians are a breed apart, and probably much much more - and I have said there was no intent to get personal but accept it looked thatw ay. My question is as to why it is so hard to say 'well, yes, Michael was a major part of the Ferrari resurgence' (somethign that you also have difficulty with) when it is something that is simple to percieve. I couldn't stand Michael Schumacher as a racing driver - a sound bloke, mind - but it's not something I would seek to dilute.

As for how he is putting Michael down - he's like yourself in that respect; anythign that anyone says that is postive, good or even faint praise has to be rounded on. To me, that's curious behavior.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, nor on both of them; I have a curious interest in the behaviour of people on bulletin boards, that's all.




#6277 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:08

No, not at all. I don't see how you can possibly read that into my posts without wanting to do so beforehand. In fact, we hold many of the same views - we both agree that the tifosi worshipped the likes of Villeneuve and Alesi more so than Schumacher, that Michael played a major part in the resurgence of Ferrari, that Italians are a breed apart, and probably much much more - and I have said there was no intent to get personal but accept it looked thatw ay. My question is as to why it is so hard to say 'well, yes, Michael was a major part of the Ferrari resurgence' (somethign that you also have difficulty with) when it is something that is simple to percieve. I couldn't stand Michael Schumacher as a racing driver - a sound bloke, mind - but it's not something I would seek to dilute.

As for how he is putting Michael down - he's like yourself in that respect; anythign that anyone says that is postive, good or even faint praise has to be rounded on. To me, that's curious behavior.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, nor on both of them; I have a curious interest in the behaviour of people on bulletin boards, that's all.


You attempt to qualify yourself over the likes of aditya and myself by repeatedly stating you were or are not a fan on M Schumacher. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion ;-) I couldn't care less if you were a fan of Hakkinen, M Schumacher or Terry Wogan... A tedious post is a tedious post. ;-)

Yes, you and many others believe M Schumacher was "the major" component of the Ferrari success since 1996 - you have made that abundantly clear and I think I have made myself abundantly clear that he was merely an ingredient of a much bigger formula and I've given my historical account for it. So my friend there is little point in continuously asking " I just can't understand why you don't admit the truth" ;-) Accept that life will generate different opinions on the same subject. It's not that difficult really! Try highlighting the points made in the post in question and address them on their own merits or flaws rather than allowing them to contribute to a bigger theory that you are trying to refute. Anyway let's get back on topic ;-)

#6278 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,820 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:16

A tedious post is a tedious post. ;-)

I am glad we all agree on this though

u're one of the main contributors in this area

#6279 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:19

I am glad we all agree on this though

u're one of the main contributors in this area


Glad to be of service. ;-)

Advertisement

#6280 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:28

I've given my historical account for it.


Yeah, but your historical account for it is well managed, isn't it? i mean, you state that 'but for freak events' Ferrari would have won this, that and the other races in 93, without pointing out that it would have been 'freak events' that led to them doing so in the first place. Ferrari weren't a major force in '93 at all, yet you want us all to believe they were. Is that different from me 'wanting you to believe' that Michael was a very major, central part to the Ferrari resurgence? Not really. Likewise your historical perspective on how the fastest Ferrari was five seconds off the pace at Japan 92; it was, but you don't explain to those who might not know that the Williams' pair were a second ahead of the rest, and that Senna - next - was a couple of seconds up on the next man, his team mate; so that takes account of three of those seconds. Puts a slightly different light on events, doesn't it? Well, I think so. You should also clarify that 92/93 comparison by pointing out the car wasn't that great in 93 either. It was frequently more than a couple fo seconds off the ultimate pace. In anyone's view, sensioble view that is, it took until 96 for Ferrari to begin making some ground (and no, I'm not one who spouts how Schumacher had to drive a pile of shite that year) and the fruits of the 'dream team' only began to show results after that.

#6281 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:28

Gods its like a rerun of the wizard of oz in here.. everywhere I look there's a strawman or someone with no brain.

Sorry couldnt resist, Im sure you are all very bright but the strawman part is true. When did ANYONE claim Ferrari were nothing and that Rory Byrne, Ross Brawn and Jean Todt (And please lets not forget Martinelli!') had nothing to do with their success?? I mean they were referred to as the Dream Team for a reason people.. but sensible people acknowledged Michael's vital role in providing the sharp end of the weapon. Maybe we could do with a few more sensible people here..


Yeah,I'm puzzled,too. I'm not sure where/how this age-old rehash began.


I guess people just need to talk. :well:

#6282 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:46

Yeah, but your historical account for it is well managed, isn't it? i mean, you state that 'but for freak events' Ferrari would have won this, that and the other races in 93, without pointing out that it would have been 'freak events' that led to them doing so in the first place. Ferrari weren't a major force in '93 at all, yet you want us all to believe they were. Is that different from me 'wanting you to believe' that Michael was a very major, central part to the Ferrari resurgence? Not really. Likewise your historical perspective on how the fastest Ferrari was five seconds off the pace at Japan 92; it was, but you don't explain to those who might not know that the Williams' pair were a second ahead of the rest, and that Senna - next - was a couple of seconds up on the next man, his team mate; so that takes account of three of those seconds. Puts a slightly different light on events, doesn't it? Well, I think so. You should also clarify that 92/93 comparison by pointing out the car wasn't that great in 93 either. It was frequently more than a couple fo seconds off the ultimate pace. In anyone's view, sensioble view that is, it took until 96 for Ferrari to begin making some ground (and no, I'm not one who spouts how Schumacher had to drive a pile of shite that year) and the fruits of the 'dream team' only began to show results after that.


Not sure what your point is here. I stated Thr lowpoint was 1992 on track being up to five seconds off the pace and I also said they were five seconds off in pre season testing for 1993. The rebuilding of Ferrari started by ldM occurred in 1992 and it was the recruitment of key personell who obviously couldn't change the teams fortunes around from the end of 1992 to the start of 1993. Buy look at how 1993 progressed focus upon the fastest Ferrari and either the fastest car or fastest non Williams. They simply improved at an amazing rate that is seriously underestimated. I have a copy of the motoring news somewhere where both Berger and Alesi were scratching their heads being five seconds slower than Prost at Estoril in testing not knowing what to do, Berger being out qualified by a Minardi at S Africa I seem to remember - and by the Portugese GP Alesi was actually leading the race after a great start. Certainly, he was holding up a long que but from being five seconds off to leading the race on the same track half a year later is impressive. And then to actually win a race in 1994 and three poles not to mention the tragic luck at Monza and Estoril. Apart from Honda/Brawn can you think of another team that has improved as much as quickly in recent years. Look at the results in way you want, wdc standings, qualifying difference to pole, wcc results, podiums or even journals books and magazines, Ferrari improved a he'll of a lot from 1992 onwards on and off the track.

#6283 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 12:15

Apart from Honda/Brawn can you think of another team that has improved as much as quickly in recent years.


Good question - how recent is 'recent'? Williams, 78 to 79, springs to mind, as does Ligier in teh same year; Ferrari, 80 to 81, and more so in 81 to 82 perhaps;Renault, 78 to 79, certainly, and Brabham in the same two years, arguably; Mclaren, 81 to 82 perhaps? I can look at more years for you, but that's just five to begin with. I certainly don't think the improvemtn at Ferrari between 92 and 93, or 93 and 94, was particularly stunning or notable - pleasing for them, of course, but not quite the spectacular rise to glory you see it as.


#6284 ivandjj

ivandjj
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 05 October 2010 - 12:21

I remember Berger in early summer 93' saying that it's not a problem getting within a second of Williams, but this last second will take a bit longer. In the end Ferrari had to wait for Renault's exit to find that last second.

#6285 Urawa

Urawa
  • Member

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 05 October 2010 - 16:06

Not directly related to MS but somehow still.
Heidfeld pointed out today that the soft compound this year is entire different to last year´s tyres and they have also no similarity to the Pirelli tyres he tested...

#6286 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 16:55

Good question - how recent is 'recent'? Williams, 78 to 79, springs to mind, as does Ligier in teh same year; Ferrari, 80 to 81, and more so in 81 to 82 perhaps;Renault, 78 to 79, certainly, and Brabham in the same two years, arguably; Mclaren, 81 to 82 perhaps? I can look at more years for you, but that's just five to begin with. I certainly don't think the improvemtn at Ferrari between 92 and 93, or 93 and 94, was particularly stunning or notable - pleasing for them, of course, but not quite the spectacular rise to glory you see it as.


By recent I mean post turbo era i.e. 1989.

What is clear is that this is now a pretty tedious discussion. So my last post on this matter unless you have anthing interesting to add that is accurate rather than pie in the sky. ;-) This provides the facts in black and white that Ferrari were a team on the upwards trend. It should also be added that Ferrari stopped development of the V12 during the 1995 season.

Qual difference between fastest Ferrari and pole in 1993, 1994, 1995.

S.A 2.5
Brazil 3.4 1.4 0.8
Eur 2.4
San 2.7 0.6 0.1
Spa 3.9 1.7 0.6
Mon 1.8 1.4 1.2
Can 2.2 0.1 0.5
Fra 2.3 0.7 1.5
GB 4.1 0.1 1.5
Ger 2.5 pole 1.1
Hun 2.3 1.9 1.0
Bel 2.5 1.0 pole
Ita 0.8 pole 0.9
Por 1.6 pole 1.4
Jap 0.5 0.7 0.8
Aus 0.8 1.6 0.4

WDC table
1993 Alesi P6 16 points
1994 Berger P3 41 points
1995 Alesi P5 42 points

WCC table
1993 28 points P4
1994 71 points P3
1995 73 points P3

Podiums
1993 3
1994 11
1995 11

Laps lead
1993 19
1994 96
1995 113




#6287 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 October 2010 - 18:07

I have no outstanding preferences among drivers in F1, although I must say that over the past fifteen years my loyalty has very much been with Mika Hakkinen and McLaren. My calling Michael a pivotal figure in the rise of Ferrari doesn't make me 'a fan' - it's simply a fact, and one that can be recognised even by the likes of me who remain disgusted by some of Michael's on track antics. Don't make the oft repeated mistake of assuming that someone who dares to give someone credit is a support of that person - it's simply a case of having a balanced view.



Very possibly.



The thing is, often I do like your posts, and while not intending this latest discussion to be in any way personal I have to admit it has looked that way; what does grate on me in a major way is that you are permanently set on attempting to discredit Michael Schumacher in avery possible way; it's as if the man has done you some personal harm in the past, and that you now have a duty to put him down, to exact revenge. Some - many - of your posts are so determined to put across the darker picture that it's a bit like listening to the same record, over and over again, and nort a very good one at that. It shows up when you respond to someone - in this case myself - that Michael Schumacher was one of the biggest parts of the resurgence of Ferrari in the mid 90's; the thing is, he was, and there's no getting away from that. Why you can't just say 'yes, he was, but I still think he's a wanker' is beyond me.

Lifew12, good to know there are some good Hakkinen fans around here who do appreciate his chief rivals quality. I too am in the same boat, but unlike you, recently I have come to start liking Schumacher, especially with his never say die attitude even at this stage in his career. Lately, like you, I too have been accused by the likes of man of being a Schumacher fan, fanatic, worshipper etc. Infact anyone that says anything even in minor appreciation of MS is labelled here as a fanatic by the likes of some. I dont know why you're wasting your time trying to convince someone like 'man' of your opinions or allegiances. Talking to a brick wall will be more entertaining.




#6288 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 18:38

Lifew12, good to know there are some good Hakkinen fans around here who do appreciate his chief rivals quality. I too am in the same boat, but unlike you, recently I have come to start liking Schumacher, especially with his never say die attitude even at this stage in his career. Lately, like you, I too have been accused by the likes of man of being a Schumacher fan, fanatic, worshipper etc. Infact anyone that says anything even in minor appreciation of MS is labelled here as a fanatic by the likes of some. I dont know why you're wasting your time trying to convince someone like 'man' of your opinions or allegiances. Talking to a brick wall will be more entertaining.


Nothing like a bit of camaraderie building and "us vs them" ;-)

Erm when did I "accuse" Lifew12 of being a fan of M Schumacher?

Another post of yours based upon pie in the sky. ;-)


#6289 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 23:33

I have no outstanding preferences among drivers in F1, although I must say that over the past fifteen years my loyalty has very much been with Mika Hakkinen and McLaren. My calling Michael a pivotal figure in the rise of Ferrari doesn't make me 'a fan' - it's simply a fact....


Ah, silently omitting the term absolutely pivotal figure... ;)

Tell you what, Lifew12, we both love René Arnoux. I met him only once at the Niki Lauda Show in early 1983 in Vienna, but he is a great small man with blazing eyes and enormous reflexes (when he was young), a real natural.


#6290 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 23:49

By recent I mean post turbo era i.e. 1989.

What is clear is that this is now a pretty tedious discussion. So my last post on this matter unless you have anthing interesting to add that is accurate rather than pie in the sky. ;-) This provides the facts in black and white that Ferrari were a team on the upwards trend. It should also be added that Ferrari stopped development of the V12 during the 1995 season.

Qual difference between fastest Ferrari and pole in 1993, 1994, 1995.

S.A 2.5
Brazil 3.4 1.4 0.8
Eur 2.4
San 2.7 0.6 0.1
Spa 3.9 1.7 0.6
Mon 1.8 1.4 1.2
Can 2.2 0.1 0.5
Fra 2.3 0.7 1.5
GB 4.1 0.1 1.5
Ger 2.5 pole 1.1
Hun 2.3 1.9 1.0
Bel 2.5 1.0 pole
Ita 0.8 pole 0.9
Por 1.6 pole 1.4
Jap 0.5 0.7 0.8
Aus 0.8 1.6 0.4

WDC table
1993 Alesi P6 16 points
1994 Berger P3 41 points
1995 Alesi P5 42 points

WCC table
1993 28 points P4
1994 71 points P3
1995 73 points P3

Podiums
1993 3
1994 11
1995 11

Laps lead
1993 19
1994 96
1995 113


Pretty clear and obvious, your stats, man. I can´t understand how anyone misses to see the tendency in these statistics. Clearly, Ferrari was a team on the upward rise since LdM set it into motion, and thanks to Willi Weber and Jean Todt Schumacher stepped into a train that was consistently gaining speed. When in 1997 Brawn and Byrne joined, the train gained the final acceleration that was needed to challenge for the WDC.

This apart from the fact that Michael by his Jerez 1997 antics destroyed the vice-championship that he and his team would have so amply deserved that year....

#6291 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 23:55

....I dont know why you're wasting your time trying to convince someone like 'man' of your opinions or allegiances. Talking to a brick wall will be more entertaining.


Guys, this is not the point here - why should anyone convince anyone else of his opinions and allegiances - people are allowed to have differing opinions in our civilization and the Atlas BB is a board where these different opinions can be expressed.

In true MS fashion I state that I am sorry if Lifew12 feels that I have not accepted his opinion or allegiance. I do accept his opinion, and I reserve the right to have my own differing opinion. As does man, as do you, SparkPlug.

So again, let us agree to disagree. What is so difficult about it?


#6292 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 06 October 2010 - 01:42

Pretty clear and obvious, your stats, man. I can´t understand how anyone misses to see the tendency in these statistics. Clearly, Ferrari was a team on the upward rise since LdM set it into motion, and thanks to Willi Weber and Jean Todt Schumacher stepped into a train that was consistently gaining speed. When in 1997 Brawn and Byrne joined, the train gained the final acceleration that was needed to challenge for the WDC.

This apart from the fact that Michael by his Jerez 1997 antics destroyed the vice-championship that he and his team would have so amply deserved that year....


So, from your post above, MS gets no credit - in fact you credit everyone but him LOL

#6293 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 October 2010 - 01:48

So, from your post above, MS gets no credit - in fact you credit everyone but him LOL


Fact is that Willi Weber and Jean Todt had to talk Michael into joining Ferrari - Michael was fancying a seat at Williams at the time. So go give some credit to his manager for bringing him to Ferrari. MS gets credit for driving all his races - 91 wins is testimony to that. Just stated that yesterday, shall I repeat myself every post?

Also, as you have obviously not read my last post in full, I wrote that he would have so amply deserved the vice-championship in 1997 (yet took it away from himself by his Jerez action).

Edited by aditya-now, 06 October 2010 - 01:50.


#6294 iakhtar

iakhtar
  • Member

  • 191 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 October 2010 - 02:23

96-99 were my favourite MS years, I do wonder what would have happened if he'd simply jumped into that Williams and then the McLaren, I mean what team boss wouldn't have signed him in a heartbeat. Potentially he could have had quite a few more championships by choosing the path of least resistance. Anyway, regardless of how large or small his role in the Ferrari revival I give him credit for taking the gamble and pulling it off.

#6295 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,390 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 October 2010 - 02:54

Anyone see Mark Hughes' latest article on the BBC? Utter tripe!

The driving style was a mere expression of a level of feel and balance - a miraculous combination of inner ear sensitivity to lateral accelerations and the co-ordination of that with his limbs - that was on a different level to anyone else's.



#6296 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 06 October 2010 - 03:32

Fact is that Willi Weber and Jean Todt had to talk Michael into joining Ferrari - Michael was fancying a seat at Williams at the time. So go give some credit to his manager for bringing him to Ferrari. MS gets credit for driving all his races - 91 wins is testimony to that. Just stated that yesterday, shall I repeat myself every post?

Also, as you have obviously not read my last post in full, I wrote that he would have so amply deserved the vice-championship in 1997 (yet took it away from himself by his Jerez action).


I don't need to read all your posts in full - you just repeat the same stuff again and again.. we know you dislike MS and he's a nothing driver.

#6297 Polle

Polle
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 06 October 2010 - 05:18

^^^^ Shhhhhhhh you gave away his secretzzz!!!

#6298 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 06 October 2010 - 07:01

96-99 were my favourite MS years, I do wonder what would have happened if he'd simply jumped into that Williams and then the McLaren, I mean what team boss wouldn't have signed him in a heartbeat. Potentially he could have had quite a few more championships by choosing the path of least resistance. Anyway, regardless of how large or small his role in the Ferrari revival I give him credit for taking the gamble and pulling it off.

didnt ron dennis try to sign schumacher a few times over the years

#6299 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 October 2010 - 08:29

Tell you what, Lifew12, we both love René Arnoux.


Indeed. Lovely bloke, met him at Goodwood a few years back (never really spoken to him before, oddly); that's the era when I was a 'Ferrari fan'; post that, it all seemed to be a bit 'lost' for me.

To Man, without wanting to prlong the discussion, but how did I know - beforehand, somehow - that my examples would not come into your category of 'recent'? Despite your table of numbers, you still miss the point about your historical turn of events: you miss the fact that it took Michael Schumacher going to Ferrari for Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne to do so. That, I would say, is a pretty important step in it all. Still, we're way off line here because - as someone pointed out - nowhere did I (or anyone else) state that Michael Schumacher was the only part of the equation; I simply accept that without him it wouldn;t have turned out quite how it did.

Finally, and to try and drum home a point that seems to be deliberately, and oddly, overlooked, back to aditya, who said:

"I am sorry if Lifew12 feels that I have not accepted his opinion or allegiance..."

I don't expect you to accept my opinion - life would be drab if we all had the same one, and these places empty - but I do wish you would drop the helpful, to your argument, belief that I have any 'allegiances'; I don't, I love motor racing, and Rene Arnoux has long since retired.

Advertisement

#6300 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 October 2010 - 08:39

.....unlike you, recently I have come to start liking Schumacher, especially with his never say die attitude even at this stage in his career.


It's interesting, isn't it? I hold the same view in a way; I wanted him to come back and be as good as he was before (and if his dearest enemies can't accept he was at least bloody good they have a problem) so that he could be measured up against the young guns. I'm disappointed he's turned out to be a bit of a disaster. I have sympathy for him as he, perhaps more than most, loves racing, and that's something I admire. For the record, I like the man - he's a sound guy who goes about his life quietly enough and does a lot of good work - but I just felt reviled by some of his on track antics (he's not alone in that - there are, and were, others for whom I felt the same way). This is in direct contrast to 'Our Nige' who I thought was just about the most horrible bloke in the business, a whingeing, whining little kid with a massive chip on his shoulder, but who could frequently be scintillating on track.


Lately, like you, I too have been accused by the likes of man of being a Schumacher fan, fanatic, worshipper etc. Infact anyone that says anything even in minor appreciation of MS is labelled here as a fanatic by the likes of some. I dont know why you're wasting your time trying to convince someone like 'man' of your opinions or allegiances. Talking to a brick wall will be more entertaining.


There is a great element of truth in this, and with no offence to anyone meant. In the recent thread about Ferrari/Germany/Team orders I put forward the opinion that enough was enough, they'd been punished, it wasn't as if they'd killed anyone, I'd rather see team orders on track than hidden by 'sticking wheels' at 'long pit stops' etc and was immediately met with a load o responses that assumed, because I wasn't calling for blood, I was a raging Ferrari fan. It's that sort of bollocks - that you can't have an opinion without having thse 'allegiances' - that bores me to tears on boards like these, and occasionally drives me to hammer the point home. This isn't play school - you don't have to love one driver/team and hate another, you can - really, it's true - watch them all and take on board great performances by him, poor efforts by them, and so and so. You can, it has been known, actually admit that a driver who races for a team you utterly despise - should you choose to be so glib - actually is pretty good. More people should try it.