24 replies to this topic

[G-R]

I've looked on the net and stuff to find if this is going around, but it isn't. Anyway, on teletext, it has this.

It goes on to say that prost says "schumacher is able to get into a car and be immediately quick. In that content, he's better than I was"

Something like that. If any other NZers can get what it says and type it here, it'd be good, someone is watching TV right now and doesn't want to be disturbed. I'll try and get the whole thing later though.

Flamebait? Maybe, I might have to award this a flamebait award;)

[theMot]

from that point of view maybe schue is better. I still think Prost is king though.

[DangerMouse]

In that context - true, but put Prost in a team like the current Ferrari with it's unlimited budget and a tailor made car the other competitors might as well not bother turning up.

Don't forget Prost nearly won the title in a Ferrari that was about 50 points being the Macs in the WCC, definately an inferior car, but his technical skills got the thing working well.

Schumacher isn't in the same league as Prost - Look at who Prost won his titles against.

[CA]

Well Dangermouse,

Schumacher won a title in a season that technically included Senna,

I guess you're right in suggesting Hill was a low caliber driver to race for the title I'll give you that, but I'd suggest that Hakkinen and JV could probably hold their own in any era.

[G-R]

Alain Prost, the most successful Grand Prix driver of all time, has paid tribute to new world champion Michael Schumacher saying the German is a better driver than he was.
Prost, now a team owner, has won more Formula One races than anyone in history, but he believes Schumacher's talent surpasses his own in certain areas.

"I wasn't able to drive every car at top speed straight away. In that he is better than me," said Prost, referring to Schumacher's amazing ability to push it to the limit on his first flying lap out of the pits.

The Frenchman, now 45, drove for Ferrari in 1990-91. He came close to winning the championship in his first year, but lost out when he was barged out of the Japanese Grand Prix by arch-rival Ayrton Senna.

Big risk

Prost was eventually sacked by Ferrari for publicly criticising the car at the end of an uncompetitive 1991 season in which the team did not win a race.

He believes Ferrari took a big risk in concentrating its whole team on one driver in the way it has with Schumacher.

But he says it would not have ended its barren spell if it had not. Schumacher has this year become the first man to win the drivers' world title for Ferrari since Jody Scheckter in 1979.

"It was a risk for Ferrari to introduce the Schumacher system," said Prost. "Naturally you can criticise that everything was done to cater for just one man. But for Ferrari it was the only way. To succeed they needed the discipline.


"Without a driver of his calibre, Ferrari would hardly have survived the last five seasons without a title. Without Michael, the team would have been politically destroyed."


That was the article and a bit more, thanks to raelene at dailyf1 (the same person here, but she posted this at DF1)

[karlth]

"... saying the German is a better driver than he was."

That is not what he said.

This is what he said:

"... but he believes Schumacher's talent surpasses his own in certain areas." Quite different.

[Huw Jenjin]

Quite right Karl, Micheal makes Alain's "chops" look quite amateurish.

[theMot]

Originally posted by Huw Jenjin
Quite right Karl, Micheal makes Alain's "chops" look quite amateurish.

does anyone else in here get tired of decoding ******?

[Mosquito]

"I wasn't able to drive every car at top speed straight away. In that he is better than me," said Prost.

Well, I can not see how this translates to Prost saying Schumacher is a better driver.

Just for the childish comparison: Prost beat Senna in equal cars. Was Senna faster than Schumacher? If so, then a > b > c

Ok, whatever, but I think this is YET AGAIN a quote taken totally out of context and misinterpreted to fit the posters view.

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by CA
Schumacher won a title in a season that technically included Senna

By technically you mean three races in which Senna qualified on pole in each?

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Maldwyn
By technically you mean three races in which Senna qualified on pole in each?

I agree it is a stretch to say Schuey had to beat Senna to the title in '94, remeber Senna didn't win either of those. and Schuey did beat Senna on points in his first full year..... Chew on that!

[Harald]

Alain Prost was the first WDC to 'tag' Michael. I distinctly remember him telling Bob Varsha of ESPN at Spa in 1991 that there was something very idiosyncratic about the way Michael cornered. He concluded that Michael would either paint the wall or go on to become a great driver.

As an admirer of Michael's, I have always appreciated Alain for concentrating on what Michael does on the track - and he has knocked Michael's poor judgement as a driver when Michael genuinely deserved it (especially Jerez 1997 which Alain called 'absolutely idiotic') -instead of going off to Kansas over all the other 'counterhype' Michael gets off the track.

So, in a sense, I think these comments coming from Alain now are a sort of vindication of his early 'prognosis' about Michael.

He has generally had a fairly good eye for talent in F1 and I still think Alain may be the all-time champion at bringing some pretty sick cars home, and winning races in cars that even Senna later had to confess he probably couldn't have even finished in. Of course, there were no pit stops then, so being able to nurse a car home was a critical talent and Alain had it in spades.

The man is just a class act. I hope he and his team can turn things around next year. I don't know how much longer I could stay interested in an F1 that has no room for an across-the-board Champion like Alain.


Harald
DC
USA

[Force Ten]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Ok, whatever, but I think this is YET AGAIN a quote taken totally out of context and misinterpreted to fit the posters view.

Right, Mosquito. I was actually about to post a new topic on a similar subject. I might aswell do it here.

I AM BETTER THAN MICHAEL SCHUMACHER!

See, I can play both guitar and bass, Michael can't, so in that aspect I am better than Michael Schumacher.

[RedFever]

children.....

[FerrariFanInTexas]

I think the comments about the car being designed for Michael are interesting. I remember that when Prost and Mansell drove together for Ferrari, Mansell felt that Prost was getting favorable treatment from the Team.

The clearest memory I have is one race that season when Mansell had to switch to the spare car, which that race was set up for Prost. Mansell failed to finish the race, and said afterwards that he thought someone was trying to kill him. Apparently the car had so much oversteer that it was impossible for Mansell to control. The Team's comment was that the car was set-up for Prost, and that this was apparently Prost's favored set-up.

Not the same as Team Michael like we supposedly have now, but Ferrari has long been accused of favoring one driver over another. I think what Michael has done is to play off of that by making sure that he gives as much input into the car as possible, so that the finished product does suit him. If it suits his teammate as well, so much the better.

He's really ideally suited to the Ferrari system.

Avanti Ferrari!

[Harald]

RedFever

How 'bout Suzuka!!!

As I say when my other errant children - the LA Dodgers and Dallas Cowboys - finally snatch long over-due victory from the jaws of all-too-typical defeat:

IT IS D##N SURE ABOUT TIME!!!

I mean my beloved youngest niece was all of four months old the last time a Ferrari drive won this Thing and she is now a grown woman of 21 years - that's with a 'y' .

Sorry, folks: I had to get that one out.

Now, to the Point:

I tend to agree with your signature line, but do you still think Giancarlo is championship material?

What's up with him? I always thought he - like Jacques' daddy before him at Ferrari - tended to rely far too much on natural talent and the ability to 'read' the track the day of the race. He once supposedly said he never worried about qualifying because you can't win the race in qualifying. That was the rookie in him talking, no doubt, but that's my point: GCF ain't a youngster no more and Flavio probably has a very short clock running on him.

Besides, judging by Flavio's public report cards on Giancarlo, it is clear this 'f##k the set-up: let's race!' attitude is not fitting in with the team regime Flavio is - or, more likely, is accountable to Renault for - putting in place as Benetton morphs into Team Renault.

I, like Sir Stirling, am beginning to move GCF from the 'best bet' to the 'longshot' category on my list of possible future WDCs. How about you?

I do have to confess to an agenda here: maybe Luca di ought to invite Montoya to lunch . . . Assuming, of course, he doesn't embarrass himself - never mind me and my in-laws in Cusco, Peru - next year at WilliamsBMW.

What do you think?


Harald
DC
USA

[Mickey]

Sir Stirling?

Not being in England anymore, I must have missed this one. Last I know was Frank Williams getting the knighthood, and jurnos were eager to see also a "Sir" in front of JYS. But nothing did I know of a knighthood for Moss. Is this a recent event? Or perhaps has he been a knight for a very long time and I just didn't know about it? Would be funny though, because I've often heard Williams being referred to as "Sir", while I've never heard of "Sir Stirling Moss".

And why on earth didn't I just ask "Is Moss a knight?", anyway, instead of all this rubbish to justify my question?

[RedFever]

he is just suffereing from the consequences of two major crashes recently and Flavio being a dick (Fisi almost assaulted him in Indy, the team had to devide them). I think he needs a different team, like Jordan. I sure haven't changed my opinion on his driving ability. A driver doesn't go from best of the rest to nothing in 4-5 races. You either can drive or you can't. He does.

[Todd]

Best of the rest? Have you looked at the season long qualifying differentials? Is Wurz 2nd best of the rest?

[RedFever]

he had more points than anyone not driving a Ferrari or a Mac.........

[Pacific]

Of course Senna had the poles...that Williams Renault was WAY ahead of anything else on the grid. What Schumi did in 1994 was unreal. Senna probably would have clobbered the field that year had he lived, but he died, and that left Damon Hill to lead the charge. Hill did quite good considering the position he had been thrust into. But he was no Ayrton Senna.

Michael Schumacher is one of the top drivers in F1 of all time.

As for not having competition to race against, I disagree. However, the competition is now in the form of aerodynamicists and engine designers. The technical crews of all the teams and engine manufacturers keep things in F1 at an all-time high in closeness. In the not so distant past, the % which Mazzacane is typically behind Michael or Mika would have put him firmly in the mid-field. Instead, he's 22nd. I remember when 22nd often meant 108%, not 104% and even less.

Also, in many regards, right now, mechanical reliability is up in F1 for the most part.

I think many of the drivers are underrated. We don't have the illusion of people being dominant because there are not cars so dominant any more. The field is closer, make a mistake and you REALLY pay. The era with Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet, Patrese, Berger, Alboreto for a time and then Alesi was HIGHLY competitive. Thierry Boutsen was often decent too. But, when you review, Patrese on back weren't THAT awesome. Senna, Prost, and Mansell were very good. F1 has that right now with Schumacker, Hakkinen, and Villeneuve. Jacques just happens to be team building right now. Then we have another 10 very good drivers. All 22 drivers are quite good.

No, F1 is at an all-time high in competitiveness. People just need a reason to bitch and belittle the achievements of the new drivers imposing upon the heroes of youth. Past eras had many greats, but this era has as many if not more with the focus on driver fitness and training and mental preparation. Drivers with the concentration that Schumacher has in F1 mixed with skill demand all the rest of the field do the same, and it will never switch back. Unless Takagi somehow stays how he is, and wins the F1 WDC. That WON'T happen, sorry.

As for Schumacher being better than Prost...it's hard to know. I think Schumacher will break nearly all the records if he continues as long as he could AND SHOULD. It's possible the best driver right now is somebody we don't expect, he's just not in a good car. (I so suspect Nick Heidfeld is underrated after this season, not the best, but he's a possible example of somebody hiding due to his car.)

[Williams]

Prost can be taken at his word when he says that MS is better in the "get in and drive" department. But Prost and MS are two totally different drivers.

Prost excelled in the technical aspect of his game, in setting up the car aerodynamics and suspension. He also had great mechanical sympathy and knew how to nurse his tires and fuel in order to win later in the race, after everyone else had burnt their cars out. He was also the smartest driver on the grid, knowing when to push hard and when to settle for points, knowing that a single race does not a championship make. Prost was the master at winning at the slowest possible speed.

Michael's forte is adapting his driving to the conditions, whether we are talking about the condition of his car, the pace of the competition, or the weather and road conditions. He can change his driving style to drive around car problems, and has an uncanny instinct for finding the right cornering trajectories for a track quickly. This means that he learns new tracks quickly and adapts to changing track conditions faster than anybody else.

Although Michael is reknowned for thinking on the hoof, he doesn't seem to have the same long-term patience that Prost had when plotting a season's campaign, and as a result makes mistakes born from simply pushing unnecessarily hard, at times when Prost would have been content to wait and let things come to him.

On the other hand, Prost was not comfortable with driving in the rain, while MS is an acknowledged master of this particular craft. Where MS revels in such conditions, Prost was just happy to survive them.

Since Grands Prix are now substantially sprint races, an ability to judge fuel consumption and save tires are no longer as relevent as when Prost raced. And with the advent of intensive telemetry, car setup, while still critical, is not the required art it was in Prost's time, since the cars are 90% setup for the track when they leave the factory. Therefore to compare MS and AP as drivers is a perfect example of why it is impossible to compare drivers of different eras.

We don't know that Prost could not have raced well in this era or that MS could not have raced well in Prost's era. But the statement that A > B can only ever be an oversimplification.[p][Edited by Williams on 10-13-2000]

[Bex37]

Originally posted by CA
Schumacher won a title in a season that technically included Senna

Oh dear ...............................

Now we are really in the gutter. Must admit, I find this comment quite offensive (and I'm not easily offended). Poor Ayrton.

One minute silence ......................................................................................................................................................

Is it too much to ask to limit the driver comparisons to seasons where both drivers actually stayed alive or am I just being a bit overly sensitive ??????????

[theMot]

im leaning towards overly sensitive...

[CA]

Bex 37,

That comment about Senna, wasn't intended to offend, it was merely rebuting the claim by Dangermouse that Schumacher had limited opposition for his WCs. I guess I could have pointed out that he had raced Senna in previous years with some success, but I was really trying to answer the assertion that Schumachers championship was somewhat less worthy because of his opposition.

Sennas death was a tremendous loss for the entire sport, but its somewhat revisionist to suggest that the first three races of 1994 never occured. In the future I'll take more care when trying to prove a point, but I'm afraid in regards to Senna I can't treat him as some sort of sacred cow, no more than I would any other driver who died on the track.