Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20771 replies to this topic

#7901 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 28 November 2010 - 23:07

Yes, exactly that. You may not like it, but people are fickle and bad news always outsells good news. Schumacher will be remembered as the guy who came back and flopped. Unless he pulls his finger out in 2011, that is.


You are wrong

All people will not remember that - many (IMO Most) will remember his spectacular career.

not all people are as fickle as you.

Advertisement

#7902 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,815 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 28 November 2010 - 23:12

those who speak badly now about him spoke badly before his comeback


#7903 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,995 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 28 November 2010 - 23:25

Why not - is it too difficult for you to accept that for many people Schumacher is devaluing his 'brand' by returning to F1 and not winning?

A: What is all this brand rubbish? What are you mclarens marketing department or something? Michael evidently doesnt give a stuff about his 'brand' which makes him more sensible than you are.

B: What Stewart was doing is what he has spent 10 years doing.. talking nonsense from behind a reputation well earned a very very long time ago.

C: We shall see in a couple of years anyway..

#7904 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 18,445 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 29 November 2010 - 00:05

Michael Jordan

Lance Armstrong

Bjorn Borg

Muhammad Ali


Yet arguably all those competitors legends would be even greater had they not come back and failed. I completely agree that nothing can take away what MS has done in his first career. At the same time I can't see how a failed comeback would add to his reputation.

#7905 7timesbetterthantherest

7timesbetterthantherest
  • Member

  • 192 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 01:27

Yet arguably all those competitors legends would be even greater had they not come back and failed. I completely agree that nothing can take away what MS has done in his first career. At the same time I can't see how a failed comeback would add to his reputation.


Michael Jordan


Michael Jordan did not fail in his 3rd comeback - He was 41 years old in his last year as a Washington Wizard and broke records as a 41 year-old NBA basket-ball player ... :up: Sure he lost his jumping abilities but his shot was as good as ever :up:

Scoring 50 + points in games .... If his Wizard team were better equiped with more talent , Jordan would of probably made the NBA finals ...


http://www.youtube.c...feature=related NBA record 51 points at age 38

NBA record 43 points at age 40


Michael Schumacher still has 2011 and 2012 to prove the world wrong ....


Edited by 7timesbetterthantherest, 29 November 2010 - 01:40.


#7906 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 29 November 2010 - 02:10

Yet arguably all those competitors legends would be even greater had they not come back and failed. I completely agree that nothing can take away what MS has done in his first career. At the same time I can't see how a failed comeback would add to his reputation.


I don't recall anyone saying it would ADD to his reputation - what BRG was saying was simply ridiculous

#7907 7timesbetterthantherest

7timesbetterthantherest
  • Member

  • 192 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 03:09

2 minute interview during recent ROC event -

http://www.3news.co....55/Default.aspx

#7908 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 03:57

Personally, my respect for Lance Armstrong went up even more after his comeback. He wasnt washed up by any means, even though he wasnt at his peak. No one realistically expected Armstrong to comeback and beat opposition 15 years younger than him, in a sport as physically demanding as cycling.

The jury is still out on the Schumacher comeback, but great sportsmen like Armstrong, Jordan and Schumacher have the tendency to always prove their doubters wrong.
IMO a couple of wins next year before retiring will more than raise his legend to even further heights. I think its quite possible, if the last few races of 2010 is anything to go by



#7909 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 29 November 2010 - 07:37

Because apparently from 1994 to 2006 F1 had offered him very WEAK or no-competetion at all...

But in Michael Schumacher's ''day'' the best drivers in the world were mearly average .... Or is it because he made EVERYBODY look average ? I'd go for the latter ...


Yup for 15 years (1991 actually) suddenly all the drivers who were in F1 were crappy. Same for Michael Doohan too, he also made the field suddenly look very average and for Doohan the similar parallel, had it not been for an accident/ broken leg he would have more titles too (assumption only with all being equal).



That is absolutely rubbish. Schumacher's career is defined by his epic battles throughout his career: Schumacher-Senna (which was unfornately an unfinished battle), Schumacher-Hill, Schumacher-Häkkinen, Schumacher-Alonso.


Schumacher - Montoya, Schumacher Vs Kimi etc. etc. - for all the years except 2005 it was Schumacher Vs ?? because he was the standard to beat.

Someone mention it before and I agree that a lot of the naysayers created from then were just sick of him being there race after race, found reason to hate him for it gripping on to any small fault and just wanted him to be beaten - tall poppy syndrome. I can't imagine to frustration for some of the nonsayers had they not had Jerez '97 and Monaco '06 to cling onto and relieve some of that steam :lol:


#7910 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,809 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 29 November 2010 - 10:10

Schumacher - Montoya, Schumacher Vs Kimi etc. etc. - for all the years except 2005 it was Schumacher Vs ?? because he was the standard to beat.

Someone mention it before and I agree that a lot of the naysayers created from then were just sick of him being there race after race, found reason to hate him for it gripping on to any small fault and just wanted him to be beaten - tall poppy syndrome. I can't imagine to frustration for some of the nonsayers had they not had Jerez '97 and Monaco '06 to cling onto and relieve some of that steam :lol:


He was not the standard to beat, he had the best/superior car and exclusive #1 status.

Seriously, do you really think that Schumacher would have been superior if he had a teammate
like Alonso or Raikkonen and they had equal status?

Im not even sure that Schumacher would have beaten Barrichello if he had the same status



#7911 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 29 November 2010 - 10:18

He was not the standard to beat, he had the best/superior car and exclusive #1 status.

Seriously, do you really think that Schumacher would have been superior if he had a teammate
like Alonso or Raikkonen and they had equal status?

Im not even sure that Schumacher would have beaten Barrichello if he had the same status


Alonso also had #1 status within Renault and now Ferrari. Funny how nobody questions his legacy.... :rolleyes:

#1 status is given BASED on who extracts the maximum out of the car the most. Schumacer EARNED his because he SMASHED his team mates and made them look ordinary for most of the time (example 2005; Schumacher was 3rd and Barichello was 8th - how can he cry about equal status when Schumacher tore him a new one?)

Schumacher earned his right to #1 on merit and ability.

#7912 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,809 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 29 November 2010 - 10:45

Alonso also had #1 status within Renault and now Ferrari. Funny how nobody questions his legacy.... :rolleyes:

#1 status is given BASED on who extracts the maximum out of the car the most. Schumacer EARNED his because he SMASHED his team mates and made them look ordinary for most of the time (example 2005; Schumacher was 3rd and Barichello was 8th - how can he cry about equal status when Schumacher tore him a new one?)

Schumacher earned his right to #1 on merit and ability.



Schumacher "SMASHED" his team mates because he had number 1 status.
He didn´t "earn" it either, Coulthard confirmed that for the 1996 season he had the chance to sign
for Ferrari as a number 2 driver. Now how did Schumacher "earn" that status at Ferrari when
he hadn´t done 1 single race with them?

Without the number 1 status, Schumacher was the one getting "SMASHED".
Go watch the 2010 season again :wave:

You should also know that not all teams have a strict number 1 and number 2 policy, they actually let
their drivers race each others.

#7913 PoliFanAthic

PoliFanAthic
  • Member

  • 647 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 29 November 2010 - 10:49

2 minute interview during recent ROC event -

http://www.3news.co....55/Default.aspx


Seems to me like he is quite reserved about next year.

#7914 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 497 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 29 November 2010 - 10:56

Alonso also had #1 status within Renault and now Ferrari. Funny how nobody questions his legacy.... :rolleyes:

#1 status is given BASED on who extracts the maximum out of the car the most. Schumacer EARNED his because he SMASHED his team mates and made them look ordinary for most of the time (example 2005; Schumacher was 3rd and Barichello was 8th - how can he cry about equal status when Schumacher tore him a new one?)

Schumacher earned his right to #1 on merit and ability.


Plenty DO question Alonso's legacy, for the same reasons, and evidenced by his year at McL.

If MSC was THAT good why would he need preferential treatment.

#1 status is not given based on who extracts etc. etc. It is given (or not) based on the teams policy (see Red Bull). If one is political enough and good at negotiation, and well managed AND fast enough to 'demand' number one status then well done, it's another way to get ahead in a cut throat business.

The argument I see is not that MSC (and his cabal) destroyed his otherwise equal team mates but that he (and his cabal) chose leser team mates to destroy. The results would suggest that they went about things the right way. The back story does not suggest that MSC was miles better that his contemporaries.

#7915 zack1994

zack1994
  • Member

  • 2,368 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 11:06

Schumacher "SMASHED" his team mates because he had number 1 status.
He didn´t "earn" it either, Coulthard confirmed that for the 1996 season he had the chance to sign
for Ferrari as a number 2 driver. Now how did Schumacher "earn" that status at Ferrari when
he hadn´t done 1 single race with them?

Without the number 1 status, Schumacher was the one getting "SMASHED".
Go watch the 2010 season again :wave:

You should also know that not all teams have a strict number 1 and number 2 policy, they actually let
their drivers race each others.

schumacher smashed his teamates because he was better and the reasons rosberg beat schumacher in 2010 was because he had been out of the sport for 3 years and of course he was rusty simple as that

#7916 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 17,483 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 29 November 2010 - 11:43

Hulk Smash! Destroy! Such emotive stuff.

Schumacher undoubtedly was good enough to beat most drivers he has been paired with. He proved that early on and then was given enough preferential treatment so that the 'beat' turned into that 'smash' or 'destroy'. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the margins by which he beat his team mates were exaggerated because of the way he was treated in exactly the same way as this year the margin between him and Rosberg was. In fact, isn't it double-standards to argue that this year wasn't a fair reflection of his ability and at the same time saying that 2002, for example, was?

But I also believe that it's a hell of a lot harder to argue that he didn't earn that #1 position through sheer hard work and ability.

#7917 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 12:06

Seems to me like he is quite reserved about next year.

He have very understandable position. From where they are, he can't say anything else. I also don't believe that team can produce winner car. But, if the car can fight for wins will be great. 2011 will be great anyway. Michael is here. :)


#7918 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 12:17

Schumacher "SMASHED" his team mates because he had number 1 status.
He didn´t "earn" it either, Coulthard confirmed that for the 1996 season he had the chance to sign
for Ferrari as a number 2 driver. Now how did Schumacher "earn" that status at Ferrari when
he hadn´t done 1 single race with them?

Without the number 1 status, Schumacher was the one getting "SMASHED".
Go watch the 2010 season again :wave:

You should also know that not all teams have a strict number 1 and number 2 policy, they actually let
their drivers race each others.

Michael was number 2 in more than half of this season and this is why he was "smashed".

Edited by ivand911, 29 November 2010 - 12:18.


#7919 schuey100

schuey100
  • Member

  • 655 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 29 November 2010 - 12:36

Im not even sure that Schumacher would have beaten Barrichello if he had the same status


Whatever the merits of the rest of your argument it's somewhat undermined by this comment. I think it's completely possible to argue that Kimi, Alonso, Hamilton are and would have been better than Schumacher in the same car, there's certainly an argument to be had but to suggest that Rubens and Michael were close enough for one to suggest Rubens would beat Michael if they received equal treatment...well, that's certainly stretching any kind of credibility.



Advertisement

#7920 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 13:11

Yet arguably all those competitors legends would be even greater had they not come back and failed. I completely agree that nothing can take away what MS has done in his first career. At the same time I can't see how a failed comeback would add to his reputation.

I agree, its been a failed comeback, also the issues with tyres tarnishes his reputation somewhat

schumacher smashed his teamates because he was better and the reasons rosberg beat schumacher in 2010 was because he had been out of the sport for 3 years and of course he was rusty simple as that

Trouble is the rust never seemed to come off

Michael was number 2 in more than half of this season and this is why he was "smashed".

If he was #2 then it was of his own doing

#7921 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 13:18

I agree, its been a failed comeback, also the issues with tyres tarnishes his reputation somewhat
Trouble is the rust never seemed to come off
If he was #2 then it was of his own doing

It is the same when he was #1, it was his own doing. I hope you all will accepted it. I guess it was not problem for him to play #2 for Nico when there was nothing major to be won. It is not big deal to help your team mate(team) to get 7th. You can't be #1 for years just by luck, but you can be #2 one year because of the luck.

Edited by ivand911, 29 November 2010 - 13:23.


#7922 BenettonB192

BenettonB192
  • Member

  • 868 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 13:29

How anyone who saw Schumacher drive in his first career can doubt his ability, talent and speed back then is completely beyond me. Hater goggles i suppose.

And btw. Schumi himself never made a secret out of it that #1 status was part of his success. He always defends this type of team strategy in interviews.

#7923 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 13:40

It is the same when he was #1, it was his own doing. I hope you all will accepted it. I guess it was not problem for him to play #2 for Nico when there was nothing major to be won. It is not big deal to help your team mate(team) to get 7th. You can't be #1 for years just by luck, but you can be #2 one year because of the luck.

How has luck got to do with being slower than your teammate?

#7924 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 29 November 2010 - 13:47

Schumacher "SMASHED" his team mates because he had number 1 status.
He didn´t "earn" it either, Coulthard confirmed that for the 1996 season he had the chance to sign
for Ferrari as a number 2 driver. Now how did Schumacher "earn" that status at Ferrari when
he hadn´t done 1 single race with them?

Without the number 1 status, Schumacher was the one getting "SMASHED".
Go watch the 2010 season again :wave:

You should also know that not all teams have a strict number 1 and number 2 policy, they actually let
their drivers race each others.


Yes

Schumacher got SMASHED in 2010.

In the first 4 races he was 40 points behind Rosberg (one DNF, one first lap incident and one race with a damaged chassis at China). Over the next 15 races he fell back by a further 30 points (70 in total), average a 2 point per race deficit. He also yielded to Rosberg on more than one occasion and had more DNF's and non-points scoring positions than Rosberg due to poor strategy and poor racecraft.

If you want to be objective, he was beaten. If you just want to analyse raw number then he was 'SMASHED'.

Rubens (who you said was the equal to Schumacher probably) was SMASHED in 2005 (oh and 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004) :up:

#7925 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 13:50

How has luck got to do with being slower than your teammate?

Is bad luck, when you can't start ,and you lose what you gain in Qualy? Since when faster mean, you win in the end? Alonso was faster than Petrov, but who finish first in Abu Dhabi? Faster means nothing. Michael was faster in Australia(he get first to the first corner), He was faster in Valencia too, in Monaco too. In Canada he was 6th and Nico out of top10, when Michael collide with Kubica. Nothing with the luck apparently.

Edited by ivand911, 29 November 2010 - 13:53.


#7926 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 13:55

Is bad luck, when you can't start ,and you lose what you gain in Qualy? Since when faster mean, you win in the end? Alonso was faster than Petrov, but who finish first in Abu Dhabi? Faster means nothing. Michael was faster in Australia(he get first to the first corner), He was faster in Valencia too, in Monaco too. In Canada he was 6th and Nico out of top10, when Michael collide with Kubica. Nothing with the luck apparently.

So Schumi was better than Rosberg in some races, Rubens use to beat Schumi in some races as well, over the season Schumi was well beaten by Rosberg, of this there is no doubt

#7927 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 15:59

So Schumi was better than Rosberg in some races, Rubens use to beat Schumi in some races as well, over the season Schumi was well beaten by Rosberg, of this there is no doubt

how many times didnt rubens yield or finish ahead of schumacher on merit? 1-3 times at best if i remember right out of how many races?

back in that era the top teams had 1 and 2 drivers anyone who thinks coulthard wasnt a #2 is crazy.

i remember the mclaren deal whoever got to the first corner first would win the race :rotfl: dont remember it beeing coulthard much


schumacher didnt improve this season? live timings for the last few races says otherwise

#7928 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 16:37

how many times didnt rubens yield or finish ahead of schumacher on merit? 1-3 times at best if i remember right out of how many races?

back in that era the top teams had 1 and 2 drivers anyone who thinks coulthard wasnt a #2 is crazy.

i remember the mclaren deal whoever got to the first corner first would win the race :rotfl: dont remember it beeing coulthard much


schumacher didnt improve this season? live timings for the last few races says otherwise

I remember some of Rubens races being compromised with alternative strategies

How long would DC last in todays F1 drivers?

Edited by Yorkie, 29 November 2010 - 16:39.


#7929 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 29 November 2010 - 16:47

If MSC was THAT good why would he need preferential treatment.


You seem to be confused, don't feel bad other here seem to be under the same disallusion, MSC was "THAT good" and THATS why Benneton and then Ferrari put all their resources behind him.

Or do you have another version of why he could command number one status?? I don't believe he is related or married to anyone's daughter of Benneton or Ferrari so come on, there must be some other simply amazing theory of why he was number one ahead of some of the other best drivers in the world .... pick any 2 of his number two drivers and I'll run up their driving history for you so you can see how terrible they are :lol:

What is it that some of you don't simply understand that some teams run number one drivers and some don't?? We all know that Williams have lost 2 WDC's in modern times because of not running a number one. I figure from the Benz Sportscar Team he probably decided early on never to go with a team where he couldn't be number one eventually so Williams and McLaren were probably always out of the question for him - smart move, smart man and now historically the most successful and richest ever because of that (assumed) decision.

Amusing here also is the hypocrisy, when you have the ability to command your own deal with preferential treatment for anything from sports to work to how you want your steak cooked you take it without blinking an eye but when it comes to someone else's right, and an earned right at that, it's a bad thing apparently :confused:

Schumacher earned his right to number one status and he maintained that right throughout his career.

Oh and Rosberg beat him for the first 3/4's of this year fair and square, does that make you happy...... :wave:


#7930 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 29 November 2010 - 16:58

So Schumi was better than Rosberg in some races, Rubens use to beat Schumi in some races as well, over the season Schumi was well beaten by Rosberg, of this there is no doubt


Rubens and MS's status quo was consistant but your statement clearly is meant to read that Rosberg was consistently better all year and MS kind of had a few moments in the same way as Rubens and that's simply not true.

Rosberg was indeed clearly better for the first 3/4's of the year with MS better in "some races" and then it was a different story for the last 1/4 and since this is common knowledge, readable in any race report, online net views, able to be viewed on video around the net, available race and lap times through the FIA, reported consistently along the way in this forum - in other words MS's late year rise to be at least equal performance with Rosberg is totally provable with evidence besides being witnessed by quite a few million people, I can only suggest you have been living in a cave or you are trolling.

You should go with the "if MS has success in 2011 it will be because they designed the car just for him" bitter line, 2010 is finished and in the bag and he ain't going just yet.

Edited by cheapracer, 29 November 2010 - 17:03.


#7931 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 17:08

how many times didnt rubens yield or finish ahead of schumacher on merit? 1-3 times at best if i remember right out of how many races?

Just perusing through the 2000 season, Rubens first season at Ferrari, and a similar perusal through last season, Rubens beat Schumi 3 times on merit whilst Schumi beat Rosberg 3 times on merit

#7932 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 29 November 2010 - 17:10

People on here parrot on about Schumacher recieving preferential treatment and #1 status within the team.

We should turn this statement on its head and ask WHY did Schumacher recieve #1 status and preferential treatment? Look at the way he has knuckled down this year - despite losing to Rosberg - and just got on with the job. He hasn't complained, whined or thrown his toys out of the pram.

Perhaps that is why he has been so revered within every team he has worked for......? Working so damn hard.

Or maybe he is the secret lovechild of Jacob Rothschild and there has been a conspiracy since 1991?

#7933 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 17:11

Just perusing through the 2000 season, Rubens first season at Ferrari, and a similar perusal through last season, Rubens beat Schumi 3 times on merit whilst Schumi beat Rosberg 3 times on merit

Tell us about this "only" three times that Michael beat Nico on merit?


#7934 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 17:20

Schumacher earned his right to number one status and he maintained that right throughout his career.

His career might have been different if Senna had not been killed, this left him with the likes of Damon Hill being his main opposition with Prost having retired as well

Rubens and MS's status quo was consistant but your statement clearly is meant to read that Rosberg was consistently better all year and MS kind of had a few moments in the same way as Rubens and that's simply not true.

Rosberg was indeed clearly better for the first 3/4's of the year with MS better in "some races" and then it was a different story for the last 1/4 and since this is common knowledge, readable in any race report, online net views, able to be viewed on video around the net, available race and lap times through the FIA, reported consistently along the way in this forum - in other words MS's late year rise to be at least equal performance with Rosberg is totally provable with evidence besides being witnessed by quite a few million people, I can only suggest you have been living in a cave or you are trolling.

You should go with the "if MS has success in 2011 it will be because they designed the car just for him" bitter line, 2010 is finished and in the bag and he ain't going just yet.

I dont go along with any of the excuses lines

#7935 rm111

rm111
  • Member

  • 406 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 29 November 2010 - 17:24

How long would DC last in todays F1 drivers?

2010 DC, not long.
2001 DC, would live with them(just), as he did with yesterdays drivers. We have a bunch of really top class drivers in competitive cars, but i do not believe like some here that they are all necessarily the greatest guys ever to step in a f1 car. Ok the strength and depth of the drivers might not have always been there when Schumy was at his pomp, but he competed against and beat some great drivers, including one or two of todays drivers, yes they were younger and less experienced, but look at what Vettel and Hammy did with their youth and inexperience. I cant believe how his past ability is doubted, in his prime he made the rest of the grid look average, for a decade he was f1s most complete driver. Now though i fear he's too old.


#7936 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 17:53

Tell us about this "only" three times that Michael beat Nico on merit?

I just looked through the results

#7937 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 17:56

2010 DC, not long.
2001 DC, would live with them(just), as he did with yesterdays drivers. We have a bunch of really top class drivers in competitive cars, but i do not believe like some here that they are all necessarily the greatest guys ever to step in a f1 car. Ok the strength and depth of the drivers might not have always been there when Schumy was at his pomp, but he competed against and beat some great drivers, including one or two of todays drivers, yes they were younger and less experienced, but look at what Vettel and Hammy did with their youth and inexperience. I cant believe how his past ability is doubted, in his prime he made the rest of the grid look average, for a decade he was f1s most complete driver. Now though i fear he's too old.

Well that tends to be my feeling as well rather than all the other excuses

I tend to think the standard is very high at the moment and a young DC would never get a top drive in 2010

Edited by Yorkie, 29 November 2010 - 18:01.


#7938 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 497 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 29 November 2010 - 17:58

You seem to be confused, don't feel bad other here seem to be under the same disallusion, MSC was "THAT good" and THATS why Benneton and then Ferrari put all their resources behind him.

Or do you have another version of why he could command number one status?? I don't believe he is related or married to anyone's daughter of Benneton or Ferrari so come on, there must be some other simply amazing theory of why he was number one ahead of some of the other best drivers in the world .... pick any 2 of his number two drivers and I'll run up their driving history for you so you can see how terrible they are :lol:

What is it that some of you don't simply understand that some teams run number one drivers and some don't?? We all know that Williams have lost 2 WDC's in modern times because of not running a number one. I figure from the Benz Sportscar Team he probably decided early on never to go with a team where he couldn't be number one eventually so Williams and McLaren were probably always out of the question for him - smart move, smart man and now historically the most successful and richest ever because of that (assumed) decision.

Amusing here also is the hypocrisy, when you have the ability to command your own deal with preferential treatment for anything from sports to work to how you want your steak cooked you take it without blinking an eye but when it comes to someone else's right, and an earned right at that, it's a bad thing apparently :confused:

Schumacher earned his right to number one status and he maintained that right throughout his career.

Oh and Rosberg beat him for the first 3/4's of this year fair and square, does that make you happy...... :wave:


Ah bless, you answer the question with a question, nice.

You like the self fulfilling prophecy do you?

So he's that good, or his number two's are terrible (pun intended)?

It's easy to prove empirically he would not be as successful if he had not had unequivocal number 1 status. It's certain he would have had (at least) one victory less.

You've largely agreed with what I said by the way, his success is a function of speed, endeavour, politics, collaboration, a little bit of cheating etc. Nobody has claimed that that isn't a method of winning and that he is the most successful ever. It is however why some claim he isn't the greatest because he wouldn't measure himself against his top flight peers in an equal way. That's why some claim he is overated, not that he's not good, just not as good as he's rated.

#7939 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 18:08

Ah bless, you answer the question with a question, nice.

You like the self fulfilling prophecy do you?

So he's that good, or his number two's are terrible (pun intended)?

It's easy to prove empirically he would not be as successful if he had not had unequivocal number 1 status. It's certain he would have had (at least) one victory less.

You've largely agreed with what I said by the way, his success is a function of speed, endeavour, politics, collaboration, a little bit of cheating etc. Nobody has claimed that that isn't a method of winning and that he is the most successful ever. It is however why some claim he isn't the greatest because he wouldn't measure himself against his top flight peers in an equal way. That's why some claim he is overated, not that he's not good, just not as good as he's rated.


Awesome point. :up:

Advertisement

#7940 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 November 2010 - 18:16

Ah bless, you answer the question with a question, nice.

You like the self fulfilling prophecy do you?

So he's that good, or his number two's are terrible (pun intended)?

It's easy to prove empirically he would not be as successful if he had not had unequivocal number 1 status. It's certain he would have had (at least) one victory less.

You've largely agreed with what I said by the way, his success is a function of speed, endeavour, politics, collaboration, a little bit of cheating etc. Nobody has claimed that that isn't a method of winning and that he is the most successful ever. It is however why some claim he isn't the greatest because he wouldn't measure himself against his top flight peers in an equal way. That's why some claim he is overated, not that he's not good, just not as good as he's rated.

I wonder if thats the route Alonso is going to go as well?

#7941 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 29 November 2010 - 19:12

It's easy to prove empirically he would not be as successful if he had not had unequivocal number 1 status. It's certain he would have had (at least) one victory less.

Don't be too sure about that. If not for Austria 2002 he might not have felt obliged to give back several to Rubens. Oh, and don't forget Malaysia 1999.

#7942 ali.unal

ali.unal
  • Member

  • 3,458 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 30 November 2010 - 13:51

I was reading James Allen's book The Edge of Greatness. It says:

In 2006, an assessment indicated that despite being 37, he [MS] had the fitness level of a 25-year-old.



#7943 SEP

SEP
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 November 2010 - 14:14

How anyone who saw Schumacher drive in his first career can doubt his ability, talent and speed back then is completely beyond me. Hater goggles i suppose.

And btw. Schumi himself never made a secret out of it that #1 status was part of his success. He always defends this type of team strategy in interviews.



Simple. There are people here who had seen him racing (oir even raced against him) since his karting days, F3, DTM, Sportscar and it was easy to tell he was not special at all when talking about driving skills.

Even in kart events MS demands "special conditions" (some call cheating) to be sure he will be competitive with much higher skilled drivers.

Michael definetlly was not a super talent when talking about DRIVING SKILLS. Never was.

Anyway, i think 2011 will show us that Nico and Michael are very much equal, both beeing good drivers. That´s all.

#7944 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 30 November 2010 - 15:12

Anybody here with brains would've probably realized the fact that continually trying to belittle the achievements of a 7 time world champion,91 grands prix winner,and a driver widely acknowledged as one of the greatest of all time only makes them look like an utter fool to have followed a sport that's full of lousy,talentless drivers (that even people on this BB could 'beat',apparently). For if the most successful guy is/was not a super talent,the rest are quite clearly garbage. Even random chimps on the street can come to that conclusion,only takes some simple application of logic.

So yeah-why spend all this time arguing about a sport that's below par,anyway? How about a shift to ice fishing or lacrosse or something along those lines...?


Edited by BRK, 30 November 2010 - 15:14.


#7945 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 30 November 2010 - 15:37

Ah bless, you answer the question with a question, nice.

It's easy to prove empirically he would not be as successful if he had not had unequivocal number 1 status. It's certain he would have had (at least) one victory less.


That's not easy to prove, given he has given 3 victories to Barrichello the same year.

#7946 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 30 November 2010 - 15:45

Michael definetlly was not a super talent when talking about DRIVING SKILLS. Never was.


2 very funny posts above, BRG I lol'ed! :lol:

So about the driving skills SEP, how is it he keeps winning the ROC's yearly and that was even commented by Ross Brawn early this year as part of the reason why he though Schumacher was still competitive ....

You know the ROC where they all get the same cars, even swapped around for fairness ......



#7947 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 30 November 2010 - 15:57

You like the self fulfilling prophecy do you?

It's easy to prove empirically he would not be as successful if he had not had unequivocal number 1 status. It's certain he would have had (at least) one victory less.


Err, it's been filled, again I mention some of you seem to be confused on that part - it did actually happen, he is 7 x WDC etc etc. - the denial of that has some foundation of insanity by the way.

Again, gripping at straws to deny what exists, you in no way can prove that he would not have been successful, that time has past, it has already happened.

(And anyway, if you want to play it that way then you need to give him the '99 WDC so it's back to 7 x WDC :lol:).




#7948 Johnrambo

Johnrambo
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 30 November 2010 - 17:32

Anybody here with brains would've probably realized the fact that continually trying to belittle the achievements


Who cares about the past? What's relevant is that MS is crap *now*.

#7949 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 12,585 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 30 November 2010 - 18:04

I was reading James Allen's book The Edge of Greatness. It says: In 2006, an assessment indicated that despite being 37, he [MS] had the fitness level of a 25-year-old.

Oh yes? If he was as fit at 37 as I was at 25 years then he is in BIG trouble!

#7950 SEP

SEP
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 30 November 2010 - 18:17

2 very funny posts above, BRG I lol'ed! :lol:

So about the driving skills SEP, how is it he keeps winning the ROC's yearly and that was even commented by Ross Brawn early this year as part of the reason why he though Schumacher was still competitive ....

You know the ROC where they all get the same cars, even swapped around for fairness ......


Agree with Ross Brawn. Michael still competitive, that s correct. He is as fast as he has always been, Nico s level, wich is very high but not Lewis, Alonso s, Vettel or Kubika s level. Not to mention the all time greats.

You should not mention ROC because IF theres is or was a dominant driver, certainly this driver isn t Michael, even if he (Loeb) does not have the privilege Of driving only one type Of car. In fact ROC proves my point . F Albuquerque, Kova and some others showed us that given the same equipment, it is much harder to beat Vettel and specially Loeb, than the most sucesfull driver ever. Much harder than this is to participate in such an event under this exclusive "i can only drive a KTM due contracts i have with A, B or C".

Edited by SEP, 30 November 2010 - 18:22.