476 replies to this topic

[holiday]

Ayrton had incredible mental strength.... You are quite funny if you do not think Ayrton could not handle Michael. And I am a big Schumacher fan. Ayrton had a quality that Schumacher does not have, to be honest.

Yep, the notorious James Dean factor: the younger you die, the better you get in hindsight...

[DutchCruijff]

He broke down in front of Balestre and in front of other drivers. He bullied other drivers, ie. Irvine/Schumacher. He pulled off many a underhand move, notably brake-testing Schumacher in Brazil. He had way, way too much faith in God, something which is proven to be a sign of a weak mindset. He possessed a siege mentality, notably the Stewart interview where it looked as if his very integrity was being questioned.

He resorted to trying to play mind games with a young Schumacher whilst he was in a Benetton so you're trying to tell me that he wouldn't resort to the same tactics with a peak Schumacher?

Edited by DutchCruijff, 30 April 2013 - 12:59.

[as65p]

Hm, for a Schumacher thread it took quite long this time before the ever-present bitterness over his legacy in relation to Sennas raised it's head.

Now in full swing, however.

[MightyMoose]

Please return to the topic, this is not a discussion about Senna, nor even Schumacher's legacy the title is quite specific.

Also, the personal attacks have no place in this forum, pack it in, or I will be back to drive over your nuts!

[DutchCruijff]

A Schumacher thread is always worth reading - for the special mental state some Schumacher fans find themselves in when they are trying to assert their idols place in the history of motorsport.

Says the guy who holds Schumacher responsible for Senna's death your words mean zilch.

[holiday]

Should we now look at Schumacher's return in a more positive light given that the old man was usually quicker in terms of race pace?

The benchmark for Schumacher is a very different one. He is the first driver over 40 to be competitive in modern formula 1. To judge his return we need to see the current crop of top drivers competing in the same age group. Then we could draw some valid comparisons like Alonso and MS compared at the age of 41. Right now we only have Mansell for this who was in 1994 overweight, slow, unmotivated and gifted with a spaceship of a car, although he kept it on the road at least.

[Kingshark]

This coming from someone who wasn't even old enough to watch Senna race.

There's always something called videos and DVD.

I saw Senna race. He was good, but nowhere near as glorified as he was made out to be. I often feel that his fanbase outweighs his actual talents as a driver, which was undoubtedly large.

Oh btw, Jim Clark was still the fastest and most naturally talented driver in history, though that doesn't make him the best.

Grow up and learn your history.

I already have, and all I see is Michael heading the scoreboard with 7 world titles?

Yours is an opinon that Schumacher was the greatest and nothing more.

And it's nothing but your opinion that Senna was the greatest.

[BoschKurve]

I agree.

Look at everything Senna tried to do in 1993 to get a drive at Williams. He even offered Frank to drive for free. What a disgrace. McLaren gave him 3 WDC and now he says this?

Schumacher lost both 97 and 98 because of an inferior Ferrari, yet never gave up.

Schumi's mental strength >>> Senna's or anyone else's in F1 history.


Why such a trolling response? Simply because you cannot stand the truth.

Michael is the GOAT and that's a fact.

Just a couple of points to make...

Senna's mental toughness is well known. There was no one mentally tougher than Senna. He had a singular focus from the day he first drove in the 1984 season all the way to the end. I find it sad when people opt to trash his mental toughness. You've got Dutch spouting off as usual even though he was 1 year old when Senna was killed, and has exhibited a continued lack of knowledge regarding Senna every time I see him post on Senna. I'm sure he will come back with some anger-filled post because I've said this. Senna was emotional no doubt, but one should not mistake that with a lack of mental toughness. If he had a lack of mental toughness, he would not have had the career that he did.

Keep in mind, Schumacher drove for two teams which received the preferred winner status from old Maximilian Mosley. Senna never drove for a team that was favored by the FIA the way Benetton and Ferrari were, nor was he ever a favored person of the FIA.

Schumacher lost 1997 because he opted to try and run Villeneuve off the track at Jerez. He may or may not have won 1998 depending on whether he runs into the back of Coulthard at Spa. At a minimum he still would have been in a good position to win the title if he won that race.But guess what, you could say every driver who did not win a title in any given year solely because they had an inferior car. Inferior cars do not win championships with the exception of 1967 and 1982 off the top of my head. The Lotus 49 and the Ferrari 126 C2 were the two best cars in both of those seasons. Ferrari did win the Constructor's title in '82 in spite of not finishing the season with the two drivers they started off with.

[Cavani]

some of the laps that senna did , schumi couldn't have done them

[Collombin]

I often feel that his fanbase outweighs his actual talents as a driver, which was undoubtedly large.

Oh the irony.

Oh btw, Jim Clark was still the fastest and most naturally talented driver in history, though that doesn't make him the best.

Given what you've said, care to explain his weaknesses that offset this, just for those members not young enough to be history experts?

I already have, and all I see is Michael heading the scoreboard with 7 world titles?

If that's all you can see, you're kind of proving his point.

[1Devil1]

Just a couple of points to make...

Senna's mental toughness is well known. There was no one mentally tougher than Senna. He had a singular focus from the day he first drove in the 1984 season all the way to the end. I find it sad when people opt to trash his mental toughness. You've got Dutch spouting off as usual even though he was 1 year old when Senna was killed, and has exhibited a continued lack of knowledge regarding Senna every time I see him post on Senna. I'm sure he will come back with some anger-filled post because I've said this. Senna was emotional no doubt, but one should not mistake that with a lack of mental toughness. If he had a lack of mental toughness, he would not have had the career that he did.

Keep in mind, Schumacher drove for two teams which received the preferred winner status from old Maximilian Mosley. Senna never drove for a team that was favored by the FIA the way Benetton and Ferrari were, nor was he ever a favored person of the FIA.

Schumacher lost 1997 because he opted to try and run Villeneuve off the track at Jerez. He may or may not have won 1998 depending on whether he runs into the back of Coulthard at Spa. At a minimum he still would have been in a good position to win the title if he won that race.But guess what, you could say every driver who did not win a title in any given year solely because they had an inferior car. Inferior cars do not win championships with the exception of 1967 and 1982 off the top of my head. The Lotus 49 and the Ferrari 126 C2 were the two best cars in both of those seasons. Ferrari did win the Constructor's title in '82 in spite of not finishing the season with the two drivers they started off with.

A team that get banned and punished for things that are completely laughable (Silverstone 1994) to take the championship to the last round are clearly sign of favoritism . Take your blinkers off or try to find a better argumentation - this is nonsense . In a perfect world Schumacher would have taken the title three races before the end in 1994, nothing more nothing less, why would Mosley let that happened? Imagine Schumacher goes out at Adelaide, Max couldn't have done anything about Hill winning the title. I love your "stories", repeating it over and over again. Perhaps somebody start to believe it some day. I wait for the nothing but bruise control quote, that would make my day, again. As mentioned this thread is not about Senna and Schumacher. But with Senna fanboys around here, it was only a matter of time, this thread transforms in the old battlefield.

[BoschKurve]

A team that get banned and punished for things that are completely laughable (Silverstone 1994) to take the championship to the last round are clearly sign of favoritism . Take your blinkers off or try to find a better argumentation - this is nonsense . In a perfect world Schumacher would have taken the title three races before the end in 1994, nothing more nothing less, why would Mosley let that happened? Imagine Schumacher goes out at Adelaide, Max couldn't have done anything about Hill winning the title. I love your "stories", repeating it over and over again. Perhaps somebody start to believe it some day. I wait for the nothing but bruise control quote, that would make my day, again. As mentioned this thread is not about Senna and Schumacher. But with Senna fanboys around here, it was only a matter of time, this thread transforms in the old battlefield.

Keep believing whatever you want.

[halifaxf1fan]

I think you'll find that it is the other way around.Senna's fragile mental state wouldn't be able to hack it with a peak Schumacher. Senna was too emotional and could never be the consistent dominating machine that Schumacher was.

This isn't true.

Senna was strong because of his emotions and beliefs. His beliefs were inpenetrable.

[Briz]

I don't think saying Senna was fragile is the best wording, I think it is in a way correct but also a bit too broad to call him that. He would not be weaker than Schumacher under pressure if they're battling for the win in a championship deciding race. Where he would definitely lose out compared to Schumacher is in those races where patience and bringing home good points is required... Having followed his last couple of seasons and watched records of older races lately, I think he tended to take too many gambles and also make mistakes when not being involved in the fight for the win. He needed to be in the spotlight. His emotions were definitely hindering him when it was not going his way. That actually brings us to the original topic of this thread, I think Schumacher suffered similar weaknesses after his 2010 return - he often didn't have the required patience to maximise his season points tally

[exmayol]

The benchmark for Schumacher is a very different one. He is the first driver over 40 to be competitive in modern formula 1. To judge his return we need to see the current crop of top drivers competing in the same age group. Then we could draw some valid comparisons like Alonso and MS compared at the age of 41. Right now we only have Mansell for this who was in 1994 overweight, slow, unmotivated and gifted with a spaceship of a car, although he kept it on the road at least.

QFT!

[exmayol]

I think Schumacher suffered similar weaknesses after his 2010 return - he often didn't have the required patience to maximise his season points tally

MSC himself said he did not come to race for points but rather for wins so him not caring that much about points tally is understandable. Not saying it's right or wrong though, that's up for MGP to decide.

[jj2728]

And it's nothing but your opinion that Senna was the greatest.

Ok, I'll make this easy for you. Please point out to me where I have ever said that IMHO Senna was the greatest. You won't, simple as that.
What I have said is that Schumacher's return will be looked upon, most likely, IMHO, as a failure, results-wise. And for those of you that are so keen on results, this should make some sense.
There is no way to label any driver as the greatest. Now, if it's solely results you are speaking of, then there is no question that Schumacher is the greatest.
But, IMHO, there is more to greatness in a driver than results.
Some keep coming up with the naive assertion that certain drivers are elevated to 'greatness' because they died on the race track. What people fail to realize is that these same drivers were already considered (prior to their deaths) as greats by their peers. A higher compliment I cannot think of.
Michael Schumacher was, is and will most likely always will be a polarizing figure in the world of motorsport. There are those that idolize him and his accomplishments and there are those that loathe him.
These are opinons of which everyone is entitled to. I, (and I'd be willing to bet many others are) am neither here nor there with regards to him. He was very good. His work ethic was excllent, but he had the might of Ferrari behind him, which at times I think is overlooked. His skills were very good and he had some excellent drives yet he resorted to tactics that IMHO will tarnish his legacy and IMHO be the root cause for this polarization regarding him.

[BoschKurve]

Ok, I'll make this easy for you. Please point out to me where I have ever said that IMHO Senna was the greatest. You won't, simple as that.
What I have said is that Schumacher's return will be looked upon, most likely, IMHO, as a failure, results-wise. And for those of you that are so keen on results, this should make some sense.
There is no way to label any driver as the greatest. Now, if it's solely results you are speaking of, then there is no question that Schumacher is the greatest.
But, IMHO, there is more to greatness in a driver than results.
Some keep coming up with the naive assertion that certain drivers are elevated to 'greatness' because they died on the race track. What people fail to realize is that these same drivers were already considered (prior to their deaths) as greats by their peers. A higher compliment I cannot think of.
Michael Schumacher was, is and will most likely always will be a polarizing figure in the world of motorsport. There are those that idolize him and his accomplishments and there are those that loathe him.
These are opinons of which everyone is entitled to. I, (and I'd be willing to bet many others are) am neither here nor there with regards to him. He was very good. His work ethic was excllent, but he had the might of Ferrari behind him, which at times I think is overlooked. His skills were very good and he had some excellent drives yet he resorted to tactics that IMHO will tarnish his legacy and IMHO be the root cause for this polarization regarding him.

[Shambolic]

I can't help feeling that there was an element of the Mercedes team that never wanted Schumacher there. Something never gelled properly, much like Montoya or Alonso at McLaren. I've also never believed in the arrogant superior attitude Schumacher. I wouldn't say he's vulnerable, but he's definitely sensitive to situations he finds himself in.

He came back to prove something to himself and the world. He expected (as did many F1 fans) to land himself a drive in if not the fastest, then at least a competitive car. Instead he got the silvery donkey, a car which was vintage Brackley as opposed to cash cow double D'd Honda. He was running to different technical regulations than when he'd first retired, the cars being different enough to make him virtually a rookie, 7 titles or not. He, possibly aided by the team, would get lost with setup. He'd overdrive in an attempt to keep his confidence as he saw the podium places vanish up the road, and his team mate all too often ahead of him too. The times he was on top of things in his first year back, the car or team would intervene. I still remember Suzuka most clearly, and for those who think Ross was out of order for this years "hold station", look to that Suzuka race for an equally morale crushing command.

He actually didn't do as badly in his first year as is perceived, but it was still not a good performance overall. Year two saw a massive upturn, only with ever increasing team troubles compared to Rosberg, and too many mid grid starts putting him among drivers fresh from rubbin's racin' GP2. His racecraft was still adequate, but his risk awareness was lacking, or perhaps simply not tuned to this calibre of competitor. Still, in "real points" (instead of these days of being rewarded simply for showing up) he was roughly 4 points, or one third place, off his team mate, and that was after more mechanical issues, team issues, and yes, some unfortunate mistakes.

Year three and when the team didn't fail him through mistimed qually laps, pitstop blunders (I still personally doubt he'd have won China, regardless of what an engineer said.. But he did lose a bagful of points), his car would fail instead. It was like watching 1996, except less amusing because the bulk of the failures happened when the car was good, and his team mate was scoring heavily despite not always matching, never mind beating, his pace. The points at the end of the year look terrible, until you realise that damage was done with a gearbox, a pit stop, a Grosjean and a DRS here and there. Not to mention a questionable penalty from a dithering Senna, but then that penalty maybe saved us from the heartbreak of seeing him retire from a commanding lead at a track he always threatened, but never had the luck, to dominate in the record books.

This year Rosberg has looked strong, but so far has had issues beyond his control holding him back. Notably a car failure and a Brawn special strategic call. Comparing Schumacher to Hamilton is difficult because the car is different, the team seem more endeared to him, the competition has gained or dropped (McLaren in particular have fallen back enough to give Merc an extra place thus far), Rosberg is another year in the team... But so far, if it can be accepted Schumacher was never far behind, and often level or ahead of Rosberg last year, then given Rosberg hasn't been far behind, and at times has been ahead (in pace if not places) of Hamilton, then it does leave the question, what if Mercedes had been capable of building a half decent car that could stay in one piece.

For the record, I'm comparing a 2012 Schumacher to a 2012/ 2013 Rosberg and Hamilton. To me Schumacher was never as good after his Silverstone shunt. Before then he had been a perfect mix of Mansell's courage, Prost's intelligence, and Senna's speed. Some of that courage and speed seemed to leave him when he came back, although the last year of his first career the courage, and at times speed, were gloriously back. The books might say he finished far down the field in Brazil that year, but the race was vintage Schumacher. So for a driver past his already past best, to be matching and even beating drivers young enough to be his children, in a sport ever more fixated with youth, shows not only was his comeback savaged by media and public venomous perception, but also that his first career was a lot more special than the vultures would ever admit.

[George Costanza]

Did you watch Michael in 2000? He was absolutely stunning in the last 3 to 5 races that season, to say he wasn't as good as prior to his accident is funny. Maybe he lost some raw speed due his age, to mid 20s, to his early 30s, but his race craft did not suffer, if anything it was better than it was for 2000 to 2002 seasons.

Edited by George Costanza, 01 May 2013 - 02:24.

[George Costanza]

Yep, the notorious James Dean factor: the younger you die, the better you get in hindsight...

Ayrton was already a living legend in 1994 before he died.... So that analog does not apply.

[Shambolic]

Did you watch Michael in 2000? He was absolutely stunning in the last 3 to 5 races that season, to say he wasn't as good as prior to his accident is funny. Maybe he lost some raw speed due his age, to mid 20s, to his early 30s, but his race craft did not suffer, if anything it was better than it was for 2000 to 2002 seasons.

Watched every race. His intelligence was as strong, if not stronger, but I felt there was something lacking in other areas. I couldn't put my finger on it, it wasn't his ability to race, or win, it was something in how he went about racing and winning. He became more Prost, I suppose, in my eyes, and a bit less Senna and Mansell. I suppose the only way I can explain is aside from occasional races, his driving became more brains than balls. Which still gets the job done, but somehow I found it a bit less spectacular. Perhaps he had simply peaked, he was 10 years into his career by the early 2000s.. Which doesn't mean he wasn't any good, if I were a team boss right now I'd rather have a past it Schumacher than an on it Di Resta, Hulkenberg, Sutil, Perez..

[Gyno]

Ayrton was already a living legend in 1994 before he died.... So that analog does not apply.

No he wasn't.
He wasn't like by many who saw him as the dirtiest driver ever in F1 history.
But after his death, all of a sudden he was a saint that never step a foot wrong.

[aditya-now]

Just a couple of points to make...

Senna's mental toughness is well known. There was no one mentally tougher than Senna. He had a singular focus from the day he first drove in the 1984 season all the way to the end. I find it sad when people opt to trash his mental toughness.....Senna was emotional no doubt, but one should not mistake that with a lack of mental toughness. If he had a lack of mental toughness, he would not have had the career that he did.

Nice to find a Senna retrospective in a Schumacher thread - and fitting, concerning the time of the year and the day.

[Cavani]

No he wasn't.
He wasn't like by many who saw him as the dirtiest driver ever in F1 history.
But after his death, all of a sudden he was a saint that never step a foot wrong.

Dirtiest driver in F1 ? LOL

[Beamer]

Dirtiest driver in F1 ? LOL

Well... like em or not... He was. Great to watch, but dirty as hell, he'd do anything for a win. That's what made him great, but he was by no means a clean driver....

[MightyMoose]

Please return to the topic, this is not a discussion about Senna, nor even Schumacher's legacy the title is quite specific.

Also, the personal attacks have no place in this forum, pack it in, or I will be back to drive over your nuts!

Didn't seem to have much effect, we're still debating Senna and therefore it seems apparent we've all had our contribution opportunity and can't stick to the topic. Hence, thread closed.