Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20789 replies to this topic

#3551 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 16:47

Fixed.

Ok Birelman, Man and Jazza and Co -

Why is it that every team, team manager, team owners - in fact everyone involved in the sport and including most ex F1 drivers consider Schumacher simply the best at that time and one of the best of all time? I think myself I've seen but one list where MS wasn't in the top 5 (that list was British - surprise surprise :lol: ).

Why is it at the time people such as Ron Dennis, Frank Williams said he was the best (hell I even have film of Briatore embarrassingly saying he is the best while standing in front of his team drivers Alesi and Berger in 1996 :blush:).

What is it that a bunch of forumers who have never raced a car in their lives know that all the insiders who do it for a living don't?

Hmmmm?

I never said he wasn't the best of his time, I think he was, and possibly the best "package" ever, however, is he as great as 7 titles, 91 victories without certain circumstances, I said before I have my reservations. Our point isn't that he wasn't the best of his generation, our point is that, you, his fans don't have to make such outrageous claims.

BTW, don't say things about forumers that have never raced, as you don't know. That may be the case with you, but not with me. I've mentioned before that I have actually raced alongside some drivers we discuss in this forum, weather you believe it or not..

Edited by Birelman, 17 July 2010 - 16:50.


Advertisement

#3552 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,760 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 July 2010 - 16:52

What is it that a bunch of forumers who have never raced a car in their lives know that all the insiders who do it for a living don't?

Hmmmm?



http://www.tudou.com...ew/VVarGvrVnxw/

Love Herbet saying MS was nothing special, lol! You loser.



Love cheapracer saying that the forumers who have never raced a car in their lives know something all the insiders who do it for a living don´t.....
There comes Herbert saying that MS was nothing special. Well, is he an insider (having even been Michael´s teammate....)? Herbert did it for a living.
But although Herbert is not a forumer "who has never raced a car in his life" he still gets called names by cheapracer:"You loser!"

Which way is it now? The forumers or the professsionals?
Or are both wrong when what they say does not suit your opinion?

;)

#3553 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 16:53

Love cheapracer saying that the forumers who have never raced a car in their lives know something all the insiders who do it for a living don´t.....
There comes Herbert saying that MS was nothing special. Well, is he an insider (having even been Michael´s teammate....), Herbert did it for a living.
But although Herbert is not a forumer "who has never raced a car in his life" he still gets called names by cheapracer:"You loser!"

Which way is it now? The forumers or the professsionals?
Or a both wrong when what they say does not suit your opinion?

;)

Since you seem to be acknowledging Johny Herbert's testimonial purely because he is an insider, are you willing to acknowledge other insiders opinions too ? Especially those who think Michael Schumacher is the greatest driver of all time ? Or does your appreciation of opinion only extend to those whose opinion matches with yours ?

#3554 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,760 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 July 2010 - 16:55

Since you seem to be acknowledging Johny Herbert's testimonial purely because he is an insider, are you willing to acknowledge other insiders opinions too ? Especially those who think Michael Schumacher is the greatest driver of all time ? Or does your appreciation of opinion only extend to those whose opinion matches with yours ?


According to a poll that was done among the F1 drivers, they regard Ayrton Senna to be the greatest driver of all time.
So get your facts right, first of all.


#3555 AlainProstX

AlainProstX
  • Member

  • 300 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 16:55

We can say that about Alonso and Hamilton too.So why just use moments and seasons that suit your pov?


I replied to our fanboy cheapracer, who thinks that Michael is sooooooo much better then Alonso, Hamilton and Rosberg.

I only wanted to say "If he is that good, why did he lose against Alonso in 2006?".

Guess what, he isn`t the only driver who lost a WDC against another good driver.

Alonso/Hamilton lost against Raikkonen in 2007.
Raikkonen/Massa lost against Hamilton in 2008.

I hope you understand what im trying to say. He was a great driver, like Hamilton in this driver generation, not more, not less. He wouldn`t become 7 time WDC in the current driver generation. Today, the competition between drivers and teams is much higher as it was in 97.

I mean, come on, Hamilton is in his 4th F1 season and has to drive against the reigning WDC for the second time.

#3556 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 16:56

Interesting theory. You are implying :
-that being in the right team at the right time is purely down to luck
-Getting a good drive has nothing to do with the driver at all
-Winning, even in a good car is a piece of cake

Well, some drivers just don't get the same breaks, Mika HAkkinen spent 3/4 of his career in a crappy McLaren until it all came toghether in 98. He was a great driver, but got the break later in his career. That's the case with most drivers. Hamilton and Vettel get their chances early, who knows what they can do with it.

#3557 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 1,759 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:01

Its not possible for a sportsman to be head and shoulders above his competition all the time. If you take their overall careers into perspective, MS is overall head and shoulders better than Hakkinen (this coming from a lifelong Hakkinen fan).

Just to give you an example. Nothing robs Roger Federer of his title as the greatest grass court player of all time, and not if Nadal challenges him for only a couple of years out of his 7 year reign. The key difference between a legend and a good sportsman is longevity and consistency.


That belongs to Pete Sampras....


I do think Roger is the greatest overall player of all time. But on grass? That belongs to Pete.

#3558 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:02

Thats correct, Senna proved his car was faster by gaining pole.

Oops, here we go ............. :lol:




Yes he was and I can prove it however you can not prove your assumption.




Waiting for "and the TC and launch control" smegheads now ........ :lol:


Senna was always in his customary Pole Position even in his second year at Lotus, braking recors in his next season and o on, when did Michael get his first Pole? after Senna died? oooops...!

You can't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

#3559 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:04

Well, some drivers just don't get the same breaks, Mika HAkkinen spent 3/4 of his career in a crappy McLaren until it all came toghether in 98. He was a great driver, but got the break later in his career. That's the case with most drivers. Hamilton and Vettel get their chances early, who knows what they can do with it.

I get the point you're trying to make. I was heartbroken after Hakkinen's accident in 1995 and thought he wouldnt return to the sport again. Yes, indeed I think Hakkinen may have done better if he had more chances in a championship winning car. However this does not reflect poorly on Schumacher's record in any way, does it ?

Advertisement

#3560 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:05

not when schumacher was at his peak though bit difference :rolleyes:

But yes in the same car though, big difference :rolleyes:

#3561 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:05

According to a poll that was done among the F1 drivers, they regard Ayrton Senna to be the greatest driver of all time.
So get your facts right, first of all.

The poll also claims Schumacher is the second best driver of all time. Do you agree with that assessment then ?

#3562 Fabs

Fabs
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:13

The poll also claims Schumacher is the second best driver of all time. Do you agree with that assessment then ?


Yeah! it is perfectly acceptable.. Michael is great and has a collection of wonderful performances.. he was fast and tough.. why not?

The thing is: in every other sport, a guy with statistical advantage of such magnitude would be considered THE BEST almost unanimously.. that happens with Pele, with Michael Jordan and with Roger Federer..

People say: They are the best of all time.. one or other may disagree.. but in general, they are the best

But I see Michael consistenly failing in grabbing 1st position in rankings, lists and people's opinion.. eventhough he has more than twice as many wins and titles than Senna

This is because people know that Michael's records dont reflect ALL the reality.. you know, Federer winning 16 slams in ALL surfaces has no buts or ifs.. it is unique.. Michael winning 13 races in 2004 could have been achieved by Senna, Prost, Stewart, Lauda or Clark.. even Piquet or Mansell would have won 10+ races with F2004

#3563 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:14

Destroy is too strong a word, I agree with you on that. But whether or not Schumacher would have been able to beat Hakkinen,Hill or JV in the same car in 95-00 is something that can never be proven (for either side). I personally thought Barrichello would be a strong threat to Schumacher after his occasionally great performances in the Stewart, but Schumacher did blow him away. Its the same with Massa who after 2006 gave a tough fight to Raikkonen in their time together. However I do tend to believe that Hakkinen as Schumacher's teammate between 98-00 would have been very interesting indeed.

As I said, for me the definition of greatness is being able to produce the goods inside out year after year for a long time. Schumacher did that better than anyone else before or during his time (I am still optimistic Hamilton can do something similar in his career, but its too early to call)

Depends what team they would be driving for, had they driven in a McLaren, it's possible that would have been interesting indeed. Had they been driving at Ferrari it wouldn't have been any competition at all, Schumacher would have done away with Mika like he did to all his teammates.

#3564 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:21

I get the point you're trying to make. I was heartbroken after Hakkinen's accident in 1995 and thought he wouldnt return to the sport again. Yes, indeed I think Hakkinen may have done better if he had more chances in a championship winning car. However this does not reflect poorly on Schumacher's record in any way, does it ?

seems like some people wont ackowledge his greatness because he didnt win 7wdc in a minardi

#3565 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:21

Yeah! it is perfectly acceptable.. Michael is great and has a collection of wonderful performances.. he was fast and tough.. why not?

The thing is: in every other sport, a guy with statistical advantage of such magnitude would be considered THE BEST almost unanimously.. that happens with Pele, with Michael Jordan and with Roger Federer..

People say: They are the best of all time.. one or other may disagree.. but in general, they are the best

But I see Michael consistenly failing in grabbing 1st position in rankings, lists and people's opinion.. eventhough he has more than twice as many wins and titles than Senna

This is because people know that Michael's records dont reflect ALL the reality.. you know, Federer winning 16 slams in ALL surfaces has no buts or ifs.. it is unique.. Michael winning 13 races in 2004 could have been achieved by Senna, Prost, Stewart, Lauda or Clark.. even Piquet or Mansell would have won 10+ races with F2004

I agree to a certain extent. However the ambiguity in opinion has to do with the sport more than it has to do with Schumacher's talent.
I think the major difference between F1 and other sports is, there are more invariables in this sport compared to others. Tennis, football, boxing is always going to be between man and man, wheras in F1 there is a machine involved.
There is no way one can prove that Schumacher isnt the best driver of all time, however there is a way to prove he is. He's done everything in the sport and owns every record book as well. Thats all I am trying to convey to you.

In motorsport you will never know for certain, records are the only way you have a fair idea about a driver. You cant prove Rossi is the all time greatest as well, however his records do seem to increasingly indicate the same.

Edited by SparkPlug, 17 July 2010 - 17:22.


#3566 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 710 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:22

Depends what team they would be driving for, had they driven in a McLaren, it's possible that would have been interesting indeed. Had they been driving at Ferrari it wouldn't have been any competition at all, Schumacher would have done away with Mika like he did to all his teammates.

Seeing as Michael took the fight to Mika and his dominant McLaren right until the last race, I think it's fair to say it wouldn't have been any competition with Mika regardless of which team they were at.

#3567 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:25

Depends what team they would be driving for, had they driven in a McLaren, it's possible that would have been interesting indeed. Had they been driving at Ferrari it wouldn't have been any competition at all, Schumacher would have done away with Mika like he did to all his teammates.

Well thats what you think. I dont agree. I think Schumacher was just better than all his teammates, thus there was a case to give him more facilities in comparison to his teammates. No F1 team would be stupid enough to give an inferior driver preference.

Ferrari wouldnt give Schumacher preferential treatment if he wasnt faster than his teammate. So if Hakkinen came into Ferrari and matched/beat Schumacher, Ferrari wouldnt add in an extra 10 kg in Hakkinen's car just to make him slower. It defies all logic

#3568 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:25

I get the point you're trying to make. I was heartbroken after Hakkinen's accident in 1995 and thought he wouldnt return to the sport again. Yes, indeed I think Hakkinen may have done better if he had more chances in a championship winning car. However this does not reflect poorly on Schumacher's record in any way, does it ?

Not at all, but it doesn't exactly say that Schumacher's stats can be used as the FULL measuring stick, as we all know circumstances play a big roll in it.

#3569 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 710 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:25

This has to be one of the most OVERRATED dominating performance EVER

Schumacher won 12 out of 13.

Barrichello, an average driver, scored 7 2nd places out of 13 (all of them behind Schumi).. which means that if he was the FIRST driver and racing with a Nakajima as 2nd driver, he would have won 7 out of the first 13 GPs.. which would be one of the MOST dominating stretches ever by a driver

7 wins is how many Rubens would have gotten without Schumacher competing.. you never know if he would have gotten 8, 9 or 10 if he also had first driver treatment.. received updates and the better strategy

That's how good that Ferrari was..

Not taking anything away from Michael.. but he thrived under circumstances that ANY great driver would have thrived.. that's why there are some drivers that are better than their record shows.. and some that are not as good as their record shows.. .Michael belongs to the latter

I'm not for one moment trying to suggest that the F2004 was the dominant car for most of that season, I was responding to the person saying that Button dominated 09 more than Michael has ever dominated. Judging by their performances in 04/09 against Barrichello, that clearly isn't the case.

#3570 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:26

Seeing as Michael took the fight to Mika and his dominant McLaren right until the last race, I think it's fair to say it wouldn't have been any competition with Mika regardless of which team they were at.

LMAO You win! :rotfl:

#3571 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:27

Well thats what you think. I dont agree. I think Schumacher was just better than all his teammates, thus there was a case to give him more facilities in comparison to his teammates. No F1 team would be stupid enough to give an inferior driver preference.

Ferrari wouldnt give Schumacher preferential treatment if he wasnt faster than his teammate. So if Hakkinen came into Ferrari and matched/beat Schumacher, Ferrari wouldnt add in an extra 10 kg in Hakkinen's car just to make him slower. It defies all logic

Well, just look at RedBull and see how much sense these Formula one teams make with regards to logic.

I don't mean to bust your chops, you seem like a fairly open minded Schumacher fan, I just don't think he was as great as ALL his stats suggest, however I do think he was great indeed and most definitely the best of his era.

For once I would like somebody to bring up his stats up until the 2000 season. Until then he had a more "normal" career and not such an extended one, as, most drivers at that comparable point in their careers are thinking retirement and don't last much longer than those 10 or 11 seasons. I think those stats will suggest he was still great, and comparable to Senna, but certain numbers wouldn't be as inflated as they ultimately were.

Edited by Birelman, 17 July 2010 - 17:32.


#3572 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:28

Not at all, but it doesn't exactly say that Schumacher's stats can be used as the FULL measuring stick, as we all know circumstances play a big roll in it.

Ofcourse I agree. But are there any circumstances that prove for certain that Schumacher isnt the greatest driver of all time ? You'll be hard pressed to find them.

#3573 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:30

Well, just look at RedBull and see how much sense these Formula one teams make with regards to logic.

Just because Red Bull does something stupid, it does not make Ferrari the same.
In any case, do you really think Schumacher was slower than Irvine, Barrichello, Massa, Herbert, Verstrappen or Brundle ?

#3574 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:32

Just because Red Bull does something stupid, it does not make Ferrari the same.
In any case, do you really think Schumacher was slower than Irvine, Barrichello, Massa, Herbert, Verstrappen or Brundle ?

some people seem to

#3575 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:33

Just because Red Bull does something stupid, it does not make Ferrari the same.
In any case, do you really think Schumacher was slower than Irvine, Barrichello, Massa, Herbert, Verstrappen or Brundle ?

Nope, I don't think that those drivers were better than him, no. I also don't think he was 1 second faster than them as his records might suggest. Or as some of his fans might outrageously claim. Such is exactly the sticking point between his rabid fans and his so called haters. Somewhere in the middle, there is a truth.

Edited by Birelman, 17 July 2010 - 17:36.


#3576 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:36

some people seem to

As far as Irvine is concerned, he has acknowledged that he was slower than MS
Barrichello had no less than 3 contract extensions at Ferrari (and had an offer with Williams for 2003), so I dont know why he remained in Ferrari if he thought he was being treated unfairly. Was he just a sucker for punishment ?

Brundle was Schumacher's teammate when he was into his first full season. Its hard to believe that he would have been given preferential treatment as a rookie.

#3577 Fabs

Fabs
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:38

Just because Red Bull does something stupid, it does not make Ferrari the same.
In any case, do you really think Schumacher was slower than Irvine, Barrichello, Massa, Herbert, Verstrappen or Brundle ?


Austria 2002 comes to my mind

Edited by Fabs, 17 July 2010 - 17:38.


#3578 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:38

Nope, I don't think that those drivers were better than him, no. I also don't think he was 1 second faster than them as his records might suggest. Or as some of his fans might outrageously claim.

May well be true. We'll never know that for sure will we, but I'm glad that we agree on the opinion that Schumacher was better than each of his teammates. So atleast for me, this does warrant some sort of preferential treatment inorder to maximise Ferrari's chances for a win.
This year, its quite likely that Schumacher will play the support role from now on, as will Massa. Its perfectly fair for the teams who put in millions of dollars and months of toil for results IMO.

#3579 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:41

As far as Irvine is concerned, he has acknowledged that he was slower than MS
Barrichello had no less than 3 contract extensions at Ferrari (and had an offer with Williams for 2003), so I dont know why he remained in Ferrari if he thought he was being treated unfairly. Was he just a sucker for punishment ?

Brundle was Schumacher's teammate when he was into his first full season. Its hard to believe that he would have been given preferential treatment as a rookie.

As far as Irvine. He had accepted to be Mike's slave, he liked his partying, and women. He'd much rather take the big money at Ferrari and have a decent ride and party all night than go work hard in a midfield team, which would have been his other options. All he had to do was roll around in that red car and he was a hero, nothing was expected of him but not to mess up Schmacher's races. Heck, you'd stay at Ferrari too if you knew couldn't beat Schumacher anyway.

Schumacher was hired on the spot by Briatore when Briatore saw the potential in him in Spa 91. We all know Briatore and what #1 driver means for him, remember Singapur? Schumacher was alot better than the aging Brundle, of course, but the fact he was a rookie doesn't mean much in that regard.

Edited by Birelman, 17 July 2010 - 17:44.


Advertisement

#3580 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:50

Well, just look at RedBull and see how much sense these Formula one teams make with regards to logic.

I don't mean to bust your chops, you seem like a fairly open minded Schumacher fan, I just don't think he was as great as ALL his stats suggest, however I do think he was great indeed and most definitely the best of his era.

For once I would like somebody to bring up his stats up until the 2000 season. Until then he had a more "normal" career and not such an extended one, as, most drivers at that comparable point in their careers are thinking retirement and don't last much longer than those 10 or 11 seasons. I think those stats will suggest he was still great, and comparable to Senna, but certain numbers wouldn't be as inflated as they ultimately were.

Firstly, I am not a Schumacher fan. I know its hard to believe, but its true. I am a Hakkinen fan for life, and somehow this return of Schumacher 'the old guy' has me very interested this season.
Even before his 3rd WDC I thought he was a great driver. After the 99 season, I used to think MS was only slightly better than Hakkinen . However he won 5 more championships after that, which is a truly great achievement no matter which way you look at it. He did have a good car all these years, but then which WDC didnt ?
You cant just discount his stats like that as if he got them all on a platter. He did have offers to race for both Williams and Mclaren after 95, he could have easily had 3 more shots at the WDC between 95-00.

As far as Irvine. He had accepted to be Mike's slave, he liked his partying, and women. He'd much rather take the big money at Ferrari and have a decent ride and party all night than go work hard in a midfield team, which would have been his other options. All he had to do was roll around in that red car and he was a hero, nothing was expected of him but not to mess up Schmacher's races. Heck, you'd stay at Ferrari too if you knew couldn't beat Schumacher anyway.

Schumacher was hired on the spot by Briatore when Briatore saw the potential in him in Spa 91. We all know Briatore and what #1 driver means for him, remember Singapur? Schumacher was alot better than the aging Brundle, of course, but the fact he was a rookie doesn't mean much in that regard.

So you do agree that he was better than Brundle, yet you seem to think there isnt enough basis to dedicate more resources around him. Obviously Briatore must have seen his best chance of success lay with Schumacher, thats why he put his attention there. Same is the case with Ferrari as well. You do agree with this dont you ?

Edited by SparkPlug, 17 July 2010 - 17:51.


#3581 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,760 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 July 2010 - 17:57

The poll also claims Schumacher is the second best driver of all time. Do you agree with that assessment then ?


Yes.


#3582 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 18:01

Yes.

Not bad, I will keep this in mind and bookmark this page for future reference :up:

#3583 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 18:06

Brundle was Schumacher's teammate when he was into his first full season. Its hard to believe that he would have been given preferential treatment as a rookie.

flavio apologised to brundle saying he wouldnt have sacked him if he realised it was schumacher who was so good and not that brundle was crap so yea i dont think schumacher got preferential treatment

Edited by arknor, 17 July 2010 - 18:06.


#3584 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,760 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 July 2010 - 18:09

Not bad, I will keep this in mind and bookmark this page for future reference :up:


SparkPlug - nice new signature you have! :lol:


#3585 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 18:11

SparkPlug - nice new signature you have! :lol:

Well, for a seasoned anti MS to acknowledge that Schumacher is the second greatest driver of all time, is HUGE. So, its better kept on my sig than anywhere else :)

#3586 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,362 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 18:15

As far as Irvine. He had accepted to be Mike's slave, he liked his partying, and women. He'd much rather take the big money at Ferrari and have a decent ride and party all night than go work hard in a midfield team, which would have been his other options. All he had to do was roll around in that red car and he was a hero, nothing was expected of him but not to mess up Schmacher's races. Heck, you'd stay at Ferrari too if you knew couldn't beat Schumacher anyway.

Schumacher was hired on the spot by Briatore when Briatore saw the potential in him in Spa 91. We all know Briatore and what #1 driver means for him, remember Singapur? Schumacher was alot better than the aging Brundle, of course, but the fact he was a rookie doesn't mean much in that regard.


Irvine knew that from the start, and always said that he couldn't live with Schumacher's speed, so just worked on making the car good for the both of them (he maintains that he was a better developer of the car, as Schumi just drove round any flaws).

Despite this attitude, Irvine's work on the car was underrated and was a big part of what made Ferrari tick, as did Barrichello in the other half of the Schumacher era... These guys worked on the things that Schumacher was too fast and too good to know were even there... Because they weren't as good, they could feel a problem or flaw straight away, and both had good feedback that had a positive effect on the car.

#3587 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,760 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 July 2010 - 18:17

Well, for a seasoned anti MS to acknowledge that Schumacher is the second greatest driver of all time, is HUGE. So, its better kept on my sig than anywhere else :)


To complete the quote though, who is then # 1?
Nah, you don't have to answer that one ;)

I think Ayrton would/could be in similar trouble like Michael is now - after regs changes, three years away from the sport, a whole new generation of hungry drivers, and with Lewis Hamilton another driver emerging who would in the future be closing in on the mantle greatest/second greatest/third greatest driver of all time.

Sadly Ayrton never had the chance to get into the trouble that Michael is in now, and I have to say I would rather prefer Ayrton being in that kind of trouble than dead.

#3588 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 18:22

To complete the quote though, who is then # 1?
Nah, you don't have to answer that one ;)

I think Ayrton would/could be in similar trouble like Michael is now - after regs changes, three years away from the sport, a whole new generation of hungry drivers, and with Lewis Hamilton another driver emerging who would in the future be closing in on the mantle greatest/second greatest/third greatest driver of all time.

Sadly Ayrton never had the chance to get into the trouble that Michael is in now, and I have to say I would rather prefer Ayrton being in that kind of trouble than dead.

Well to me, in my opinion (please note the emphasis),Alain Prost was a better driver than Senna. That belongs to another thread anyway, not here.
Atleast for me, my top 4 would be easy : 1. Schumacher 2. Prost 3. Senna / Lauda

I cant rate Fangio because I havent seen him race.

Edited by SparkPlug, 17 July 2010 - 18:23.


#3589 TC3000

TC3000
  • Member

  • 998 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 18:57

Well, some drivers just don't get the same breaks, Mika HAkkinen spent 3/4 of his career in a crappy McLaren until it all came toghether in 98. He was a great driver, but got the break later in his career. That's the case with most drivers. Hamilton and Vettel get their chances early, who knows what they can do with it.


well said Birelman
being in the best car surely helps, but you still need to find the motivation
and the dicipline to put in the effort year in year out.
To still do that, after you have won 4 or 5 WDC, and would have nothing left to prove, get´s respect from my side.
This is by no means an easy sport, a good car count´s for a lot, but you still need to drive it well, and keep all
the people in the team and yourself focused on the goal. This is easier said then done.

IMHO Hamilton,Vettel,Alonso & Button can go on and try to emulate this kind of success.
With Hamilton,Vettel and Alonso having the best chances at the moment.
Purely based on there age, and in what type of car/team they are, at this stage in there careers.
Time will tell what happens.

I´m not a Schumi fan, but I have respect for him and for what he has achieved, as I have respect for the achievements
of any other driver. If you win a WDC you have done something better, then the others at the time.

I was really surprised, that he has come back, as I don´t think he had something left to prove to the world.
And I don´t think he will need the money either.

That he came back, to measure himself against the new generation, is something for which I respect him more now.
It will be interesting to see how it develops.
I hope he will see out the three seasons he has commited to.
Let´s give him some credit. I´m looking forward to next year, good things take time to develop.
I think he (because of his age and his expirience) knows, when there is the time to fight, and when there is the time
to prepare for the fight. I don´t think he will try to "overdrive" his car. He will know, what he and the car can do at the time.
And I´m sure, he will know, where the gains are to be made, and he will be working on it.

I think, it´s good for F1 (in general) to have him back.
So why I may can`t applaud his results at the moment, I do applaud his courage for coming back.

Edited by TC3000, 17 July 2010 - 19:06.


#3590 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,760 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 July 2010 - 19:04

Well to me, in my opinion (please note the emphasis),Alain Prost was a better driver than Senna. That belongs to another thread anyway, not here.
Atleast for me, my top 4 would be easy : 1. Schumacher 2. Prost 3. Senna / Lauda

I cant rate Fangio because I havent seen him race.


We started off with the poll of the F1 drivers on the question "Who is the greatest driver of all time" and the drivers total result was Senna ahead of Schumi.
Indeed, I always rated Fangio and Clark, but I can concur with the conclusion 1. Senna 2. MS

It makes me glad to see you mentioning Lauda - a much underrated driver in my opinion. Of course, I may be biased as I am an Austrian.

#3591 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 17 July 2010 - 19:28

IMHO there can't be one, who's the greatest of all times. Every one of the greats has accomplished this in a particular period of time from history POV and under the conditions that have been dominant at that time.

For that reason I do not participate in polls trying to establish who's the greatest of all times.
Lauda for example was a legend back then even though following motor sport and F1 in particular was not easy behind the Iron Curtain.

#3592 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 21:30

he was beating senna in sennas last races though



And this shows that he was heads and shoulders better than his rivals?

(Not to mention the fact that they weren't even in the same car...)

How legal was MS's Benetton?

#3593 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 21:59

Seeing as Michael took the fight to Mika and his dominant McLaren right until the last race, I think it's fair to say it wouldn't have been any competition with Mika regardless of which team they were at.


What dominate Mclaren? Once MS broke his leg and Irvine got into the spotlight of Ferrari being #1 driver, he almost won the title in that Ferrari :drunk:

edit: Even Mika Salo was winning races in that Ferrari ( due to team orders, he had to pull over for Irvine though, because he was now the #1 driver at Ferrari )

Edited by Simon Says, 17 July 2010 - 22:01.


#3594 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:03

As far as Irvine is concerned, he has acknowledged that he was slower than MS
Barrichello had no less than 3 contract extensions at Ferrari (and had an offer with Williams for 2003), so I dont know why he remained in Ferrari if he thought he was being treated unfairly. Was he just a sucker for punishment ?

Brundle was Schumacher's teammate when he was into his first full season. Its hard to believe that he would have been given preferential treatment as a rookie.


Like Irvine is the yardstick for being a good driver.

Webber in his Minardi was beating Irvine in a Jaguar. :rotfl: ( someone in a Minardi shouldn't be giving you trouble if you drive for a well funded team like Jaguar )

edit: So I knew back then that Webber was an ace driver like we see today :p

edit2: Dunno, but Brundle was giving MS a really hard time back in 1992. Yet Mika had no problems dealing with Brundle.

Edited by Simon Says, 17 July 2010 - 22:07.


#3595 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:12

seems like some people wont ackowledge his greatness because he didnt win 7wdc in a minardi


Michael johnson and Carl Lewis have more titles than Usain bolt, does that make them a better athlete then him?

If you don't know this sport, I can assure you that Usain Bolt is far and beyond anything Michael Johnson and Carl Lewis ever are/were.

It takes alot more than fancy titles in a top car to be considered the best, because in F1, it's not a fair sport with equipment being the dominant factor.

edit: JV even proofed it. He's a WDC but there are other drivers that haven't won a single WDC that beat him in the same car.

Edited by Simon Says, 17 July 2010 - 22:16.


#3596 sephiroth

sephiroth
  • Member

  • 461 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:19

Yeah! it is perfectly acceptable.. Michael is great and has a collection of wonderful performances.. he was fast and tough.. why not?

The thing is: in every other sport, a guy with statistical advantage of such magnitude would be considered THE BEST almost unanimously.. that happens with Pele, with Michael Jordan and with Roger Federer..

People say: They are the best of all time.. one or other may disagree.. but in general, they are the best

But I see Michael consistenly failing in grabbing 1st position in rankings, lists and people's opinion.. eventhough he has more than twice as many wins and titles than Senna

This is because people know that Michael's records dont reflect ALL the reality.. you know, Federer winning 16 slams in ALL surfaces has no buts or ifs.. it is unique.. Michael winning 13 races in 2004 could have been achieved by Senna, Prost, Stewart, Lauda or Clark.. even Piquet or Mansell would have won 10+ races with F2004


Its because Ayrton died. In a racing crash. Look at the myth of Gilles, same with Ayrton.

Thats Ayrton's claim to fame - Imola 1994.

edit:
whoops wrote Imola 2004. That wasn't Ayrton's claim to fame at all.

Edited by sephiroth, 17 July 2010 - 22:20.


#3597 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:40

LOL, the same Senna who whined and bitched about his car being a shitheap although good enough to put on pole 3 races in a row who whined and bitched that others had traction control because "he went out and listened to them himself".

Mind you the other couple of hundred techs and engineers who design and build the very systems and spend thousands of hours listening to F1's didn't mention a thing :lol:

Then theres the launch control that even put MS into 3rd from 2nd in one of those 3 races.... :lol:

You guys are quite entertaining ....

Posted Image

Where was Damon Hill in those first 3 races?

#3598 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:48

LOL, the same Senna who whined and bitched about his car being a shitheap although good enough to put on pole 3 races in a row who whined and bitched that others had traction control because "he went out and listened to them himself".

Mind you the other couple of hundred techs and engineers who design and build the very systems and spend thousands of hours listening to F1's didn't mention a thing :lol:

Then theres the launch control that even put MS into 3rd from 2nd in one of those 3 races.... :lol:

You guys are quite entertaining ....

Posted Image


Senna was correct, later was found that MS did have illegal driving aids on his Benetton. :rolleyes:

Senna was that good of a driver to put that shitheap of a Williams on pole positions 3 times in a row yes, that's how good he was.

Williams improved their car massively, that shows you how little chance MS really had against Senna if he was still around.

edit: But I believe this topic is about MS, so no idea why people keep bringing up Senna :rotfl:

First let MS proof himself to beat a top driver, then we can talk about being the best driver in F1. Beating someone like Irvine is not impressive and being #1 in a team :rolleyes:

2006 is all the proof that is needed for me. Alonso in an inferior Renault beat MS that year. Drivers like Alonso and Lewis can beat MS in the same car ( and Senna )

Edited by Simon Says, 17 July 2010 - 22:57.


#3599 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:54

I guess we shall never know...coz look at last year when his car was a dog, so was he lol

You think?

Advertisement

#3600 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 23:04

Its because Ayrton died. In a racing crash. Look at the myth of Gilles, same with Ayrton.

Thats Ayrton's claim to fame - Imola 1994.

edit:
whoops wrote Imola 2004. That wasn't Ayrton's claim to fame at all.

I'm guessing you didnt follow F1 back then?