68 replies to this topic

[Robbie]

Typical piece of anti-schumi stuff from the esteemed Nigel Roebuck:

"It's for this reason that I will never consider Michael Schumacher – even if he wins 100 Grands Prix – on the same level as Alain. It's not just winning; it's how you win."

Let's subtract from MS's wins all of those where he didn't behave "like a gentleman": 3 or 4 of the drunken starts from pole, and then the 2 or 3 times where he tried to take someone off.

What are we left with? (no, not c.45 'sporting' victories, stupid! according to Rosebuk we're left with nothing: you see, in the view of the ant-schumi folk all wins are unfair, because a few were.

Interesting logic.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Life would be boring if everybody the same guy all the time. Who you like and you you don't doesn't need be rational, its all about emotions. Remember, who you support = you who want to win Not who you think will win (but they two may be the same) If people want to hate anybody then fair enough, I don't begrude them for adding variety.

[LuckyStrike1]

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist
Life would be boring if everybody the same guy all the time. Who you like and you you don't doesn't need be rational, its all about emotions. Remember, who you support = you who want to win Not who you think will win (but they two may be the same) If people want to hate anybody then fair enough, I don't begrude them for adding variety.

Amen

[magic]

nige is right

[Smooth]

Nigel is so stuck in th past, and so headstrong about the drivers he does like, I don't think anyone takes him very seriously as a commentator on modern F1. He has a lot of good stuff to say about drivers from 20 years ago, and I think that is what people want from him. He takes a jab at Schumacher every week, most just pass right by as it seems to me he doesn't really care all that much at all about any driver since 1980 or so.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by magic
nige is right

Was he right when he said the same of Senna? Just curious.

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist
Who you like and you you don't doesn't need be rational, its all about emotions.

Exactly. What MS did or does hardly matters - oppinion of the esteemed Nigel Roebuck based entirely on emotions not brain.

Somebody like Damon Hill can hit cars on track at leasure, but somebody like Nigel Roebuck would never suggest that he didn't behave "like a gentleman" - everybody play their roles in Roebuck-Hill world

[Daemon]

Nigel Roebuck is a moron. The guy is the most biased writer I have ever read in any field. Maybe Schumachers grandfather shot his grandfather in the Great War, or Michael stole his lunchmoney whilst an exchange student to Britain, who knows, but I think only such a scenario could be possible, explaining the extreme animosity and condemnation that he regualary delivers to Schumacher. Either that or he is just a complete nutter.

And I'm sure he dislike Ralf to, because he is (A) German, (B) His Brother is Michael © his brother beat Damon Hill two years running.

Nigel Roebuck is a nobody journalist, and has little respect from his peers as he is simply a trash talker and sensationalist.

At the end of the day, Michael Schumacher is a 4 times world champion, the most successful F1 driver in history, and a multi-multi millionare, near billionare. Nigel Roebuck is a hack writer who can only sell his articles but putting some ridiculous and un-based claim putting down other people. He is Class A
F***knuckle.

I never liked Senna, nor Prost, but at least I give credit where it is due, and acknowledge their achievements, both as within a small league of the greatest drivers ever.

[Robbie]

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist
Who you like and you you don't doesn't need be rational, its all about emotions.

If that were so there would be little point in debate: I like blue, you like green? End of matter? Yes, probably when it comes to preferences that cannot be supported by standards that are clear to all.

So, do you believe in debate or don't you? Are you a rationalist or an irrationalist?

[Rene]

Its all subjective, you can dislike MS or any other driver, there is nothing wrong with that. However to simply say "I don't like driver X, therefore he sucks" shows little or no common sense. Even if you dislike a driver, shouldn't stop you from at the minimum acknowledging his accomplishments.

I never understand why anyone has such strong negative feelings for any driver. There is no one I dislike in real life as much as some posters on this board dislike current F1 drivers (Anti-MS and Anti-JV partisans come to mind).

[RJL]

Originally posted by Smooth
Nigel is so stuck in th past, and so headstrong about the drivers he does like, I don't think anyone takes him very seriously as a commentator on modern F1. He has a lot of good stuff to say about drivers from 20 years ago, and I think that is what people want from him. He takes a jab at Schumacher every week, most just pass right by as it seems to me he doesn't really care all that much at all about any driver since 1980 or so.

1982 actually; that was the year Gilles Villeneuve died.

[BuzzingHornet]

you see Schumacher on TV... Roebuck must see him in person hundreds of times a year. I'd guess he knows more about him than you and I do

Calling people Schumi haters really sucks... who actually HATES any sportsman/woman..? Everyone is allowed a personal preference, and if you don't like what NR writes then for fecks sake stop reading his columns

Schumacher is a controversial figure who has done questionable stuff as well as put in some great drives. I supoose it comes down to if you believe that one outweighs the other...

[Ricardo F1]

Total Toss - I mean I'm not exactly Schueys greatest fan because of some of his antics but if you're going to shoot the boy down at least do it by saying that he's fighting against a field of drivers so less acclaimed than Prost and without a team mate to worry about. Knocking Schuey for a few dodgy starts, taking Hill out in 94 and attempting Villeneuve, etc, in 97, means that Nige also doesn't think Senna was any good and what about Alain and his winning the WDC by taking Senna off????

[Don Capps]

Nigel Roebuck is a nobody journalist, and has little respect from his peers as he is simply a trash talker and sensationalist.

Strong words and quite incorrect words about Mr. Nigel Roebuck, Mr. "Daemon." His peers would take an exception to your statement about his status among them.

... I don't think anyone takes him very seriously as a commentator on modern F1...

Ditto to Mr. "Smooth" since Nigel Roebuck is one of the very, very few reasons many still bother to still read Autosport.

Roebuck has strong opinions about racing, based upon his many years of experience and simply calls them as he sees them. That I agree with his very low opinions of Senna and Schmacher does tend to prejudice my high opinion of his opinions, I must admit....

[Daemon]

Originally posted by Don Capps


Strong words and quite incorrect words about Mr. Nigel Roebuck, Mr. "Daemon." His peers would take an exception to your statement about his status among them.

Mr Daemon would be my father. I'm just plain Daemon.

Roebuck has strong opinions about racing. So do I. I also have strong opinions of Roebuck - thats he a waste of space on Autosport, and i'd much rather see a guy like Joe Saward in his place, who writes unbiased, accurate and informative articles. Thats what journalism is about.

[CeCe]

Roebuck is more than a journalist. He's writing editorially and within that format he can give an opinion. I would love to have a column called "Ask Cece" but would anyone ask my opinion about anything? NO. But thanks to the this forum, I get to give it anyway!

His disillusionment with Schumacher seems to correspond with his disillusionment in general with the "modern era." I agree that the innocence died for him 1982 and it comes through, to say the least. A great voice for the modern era just hasn't shown up yet.

[berge]

Originally posted by Daemon


Mr Daemon would be my father. I'm just plain Daemon.

Roebuck has strong opinions about racing. So do I. I also have strong opinions of Roebuck - thats he a waste of space on Autosport, and i'd much rather see a guy like Joe Saward in his place, who writes unbiased, accurate and informative articles. Thats what journalism is about.

maybe you should just say "I don't like Roebuck because he's not a michael schumacher ass kisser like I am and like everybody should be because michael is the greatest and I love him"
there. doesn't it feel better to get that off your chest.

[Daemon]

berge. I never knew you felt so strongly towards Schumacher.

I am a fan of Schumacher, and I gave him a serving to all who would listen aftere Jerez '97, as that was disgraceful. But one mistake does not make the man. Although many seem think think along these lines.

I dislike Montoya due to some rash and un-called for comments, directed towards another driver I have little liking. But when Juan puts in a good show, I commend him, when he changed his attitude, I applauded him, and never have I disrespected JVs World Title, despite, as I said, I have no particular liking for him.

And berge, i don't need to get anything off my chest. I say what I think, and could not give a toss what anyone thinks of my opinion. Just as Nigel couldn't care less what I think of him.

You and Don would almost think I was directing my critiscisms, however constructive or destructive, at you two. I can't comprehend the brain mechanics of that. I mentioned I did not like Roebucks style, and you seem to take it personally. Very strange indeed. But you are also fully entitled to your opinion, and will receive no ridiculous comments similar to your own from me. My regards;)

[miniman]

Who cares what good old Nigel says? I say Schummi is the greatest ever.

[berge]

Originally posted by Daemon
I mentioned I did not like Roebucks style,

"roebuck is a moron", "roebuck is a hack" etc...
It seems like you have an issue with more than just his writing style.

[Daemon]

Originally posted by berge


"roebuck is a moron", "roebuck is a hack" etc...
It seems like you have an issue with more than just his writing style.

Hmm. I ask the question again, why would you take that personally. It's pretty bizarre. Abuse Schumacher all you want, I couldn't care less really. What I care about is buying a magazine you expect to give good unbiased coverage of F1, and you get this one guys taking up the most important pages venting his frustrations at Schumacher. What I mean by this, is, i want to read a well presented article, that states the facts and events, not a personal opinion of a drivers questionable ethics, month after month. It's fairly annoying to get a years subscription, and have to put up with that. Especially considering you have brilliant F1 satirist and accurate, and excellent reported Joe Saward.

I don't like reading Peter Windsor either, because he is so blindly pro-schumacher it takes the perspective off the other teams and drivers who have achieved at any given weekend. I don't really respect his sycophantic style, as much as I dislike Roebucks derisive articles.

I'm not in this for a points scoring, childish debate, so I wash my hands of this thread. You can waste your time discussing this to your hearts desire. I've really no more time to waste. Thanks ;)

[George Bailey]

Mr Don Capps,

I believe most people following F1 have noticed a change in MS's attitude and on track behavior since the mid 90s. He has even been critisized here for being too easy going on the track, lacking the old fire.

In light of the current, mellow MS, and your sig file, what will you do with this new information?

[Peter]

Robbie, going back to your original post, was any mention made of Prost's dubious wins, or was it just Schumacher who was condemned?

I seem to recall that Prost won a championship by running a rival off the road, but maybe my memory is fading?

[Odyss]

Well said Daemon.

If Roebuck doesn't have the same regard, for a driver who wins 100 GP's, that he has for a driver who has won 51 GP's then that's HIS problem. He is entitled to his opinions and I'm entitled to consider them worthless babbling.

I also have a suspicion that MS would rather prefer to have 4 WDC's than to have Roebuck praise his driving skills.

[palmas]

You're all going Nigel's way: he makes stupid comments so people will talk about him. Don't give him the credit of mentioning his name.

[goldfishmung]

Who cares what 'Roebuck' says? Why are you getting so worked up. People have opinions, and 90% of them have no rational logic (on any subject). I doubt AS would have given a toss about what he thought and nor does MS. In last weeks autosport Ross Brawn says that in MSs younger days he did care and was very sensitive, but now he realizes that most opinions are illogical so he no longer cares. Maybe mine is illogical also. Someone will DEFINITELY say it is.

[HSJ]

The truth hurts, doesn't it? Especially when you don't like the messenger, one Nigel Roebuck...

Roebuck haters

[HSJ]

Ditto to Mr. "Smooth" since Nigel Roebuck is one of the very, very few reasons many

True. Autosport, like almost all mags, are basically MS fanclub publications. I just got my first F1 Magazine issue, and that one shows promise, it seems they don't have a religious attitude towards things, but more objective. Of course, this is just my impression after just one issue, ask me about my opinion again one year from now...

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Don Capps
Ditto to Mr. "Smooth" since Nigel Roebuck is one of the very, very few reasons many still bother to still read Autosport.

Let me re-word that for you:

Ditto to Mr. "Smooth" since Nigel Roebuck is one of the very, very few reasons many in the nostalgia forum still bother to still read Autosport.

;)


I didn't say anything out of whack about Nige: It is his constant negativity that turns me off. I like his stories about the more personal side of drivers of yore. That he refuses to get to know a younger generation in the same way shows an ignorance and intolerance I find all to often with so many people of his generation. He is not alone, nor is he a stereotype. I, at 33, find myself sticking with what I am comfortable. Perhaps it is a sign of getting old when I hear something on the radio and question 'Why the hell would nyone listen to THAT?'. I see NR the same way..... a bit of a romantic looking back through slighty rose colored glasses.

[Oho]

Ave !!!

For what it is worth, in his answer to the other question regrading Michael and Ferrari, Nigel gives a very positive view of him. True, for the most part he quotes Ross Brawn, but the decision to use the quotes and print them in his column were made by Nigel. For my taste he makes pretty much the most entertaining F1 read in the web. Perhaps it is because he holds a positive view on Mika and does not try to hide it. If Nigel doesn't rate Michael that is his and his choice alone. Anyone labeling him as a moron for that should take a good long look at the mirror, actually I dont know if that would help.

- Oho -

[b195]

Originally posted by HSJ

True. Autosport, like almost all mags, are basically MS fanclub publications.

Can you explain this to me, particularly re: Autosport.

[MichiganF1]

Journalists have at least some responsibility to put personal feelings aside and write about the facts. Roebuck's interesting to read but really he just leave Schumacher alone. It's obvious he can't be objective at all.

[Oho]

Ave!!!!

Our Grand Prix Editor Nigel Roebuck answers your
motorsport questions every Wednesday. So if you want
his opinion on any motorsport matter drop us an e-mail
here at Autosport.com and we'll forward on a selection
to him. Nigel won't be able to answer all your questions,
but we'll publish his answers here every week. Send
your questions to AskNigel@haynet.com.


It is his opinion you ask, it is his opinion you get.


- Oho -

[Smooth]

Originally posted by MichiganF1
Journalists have at least some responsibility to put personal feelings aside and write about the facts. Roebuck's interesting to read but really he just leave Schumacher alone. It's obvious he can't be objective at all.

He is not reporting news, he is paid for his opinion. I have no problem with it, I just choose to read it for what it is. I would say, though, his column would be much better if he would just call it 'A look back' or something. Doing something similar to what Don Capps does, concentrating on the 70's and 80's, and focusing on the personalities, would be playing to his strengths.

He doesn't like what F1 has become (does anyone, save Bernie and Max??), but instead of attacking the institution, he attacks the players.

That he doesn't like Schumacher doesn't bother me. When I started going to GP's with my dad in the early 90's, my perception of the drivers I had seen on TV, and read about in magazines, was turned upside down. I remember seeing Schumacher for the first time in person at Estoril in 1991, and the second in Monaco in 1992. I was hooked, and told my dad he would be the guy to beat my hero, Senna, very soon. My dad hated Senna, and by the end of the year, didn't care much for Schumacher. I really don't know why, he just had vibe I guess. But, hey, I liked Kiss when I was 12, he liked the Moody Blues.

He now doesn't even watch F1 now, he thinks it is a bore. I think he had to wear a patch to get over it though. The rest of us stay hooked, despite what Max and Bernie have done to our favorite sport, nay our addiction, and I assume Nigel is similar: It is hard to walk away from something that has given you so many good memories.

[karlth]

Originally posted by Smooth
He doesn't like what F1 has become (does anyone, save Bernie and Max??), but instead of attacking the institution, he attacks the players.

It is not true to say that he is purely nostalgic as he values some of the current drivers; Montoya, Alesi, Villeneuve and Hakkinen come to mind.

He seems to dislike drivers who lack the racing spirit(whatever that is) and those who are willing to break the rules to win.

[berge]

nigel roebuck is an idiot because holds schumacher the driver in very high regard but he finds some of his actions reprehensible.
is this, basically, what the crux of the argument is?

here's the solution. don't read his columns.;)

[berge]

Originally posted by Smooth

He now doesn't even watch F1 now, he thinks it is a bore. I think he had to wear a patch to get over it though. The rest of us stay hooked, despite what Max and Bernie have done to our favorite sport, nay our addiction, and I assume Nigel is similar: It is hard to walk away from something that has given you so many good memories.

and you think Roebuck should write in the "Nostalgia Forum"

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by karlth
He seems to dislike drivers who lack the racing spirit(whatever that is) and those who are willing to break the rules to win.

Small correction : He seems to dislike some selected drivers who lack the racing spirit.

Since Roebuck and the likes have their own peculiar notion of 'racing spirit', there is nothing unusual there really ;)

[Williams]

Originally posted by MichiganF1
Journalists have at least some responsibility to put personal feelings aside and write about the facts. Roebuck's interesting to read but really he just leave Schumacher alone. It's obvious he can't be objective at all.

Every newspaper has an editorial section where selected members of the the newspaper staff gets to air their views of a current topic. There is no pretense of objectivity, unlike in the news section of the paper, and I think Roebuck falls into that category. It's all opinion and I don't think Roebuck says otherwise.

[berge]

careful,
you might get considered a schumacher basher for defending "that moron" roebuck.;)

[Todd]

I dropped Autoweek after several years as a subscriber because they ran Nigel Roebuk's stilted editorials as their F1 coverage. That means that they were passing it off as news, which it was not.

Oho,

If Nigel doesn't rate Michael that is his and his choice alone. Anyone labeling him as a moron for that should take a good long look at the mirror, actually I dont know if that would help.

If NR was a football columnist that didn't rate Michael Schumacher, than it would make him merely ignorant of F1. That NR is a motor racing columnist that doesn't rate Michael makes him a moron. Nigel is in the wrong business.

[flyboy]

Being a "great" driver is about more than the number of wins you accumulate. Granted, Shoe and Senna are/were VERY talented and fast drivers, but I agree with Nige, they are not among the "Greats", IMHO.
For comparison, look at Gilles V., Stewart, Clark, Fangio, Moss, Andretti. In statistical terms, Fangio is head and shoulders above Shoe (almost 50% strike rate) and Clark and Stewart are not far behind. And all of these never left you queasy in the stomach about cheering for them. They were great on and off the track.
So I will continue to appreciate the talent Shoe displays, but his character and track behavior will forever keep him from being in the same league with Gilles V., Stewart, Clark, Fangio, Moss, Andretti.
Nige:up:

[HP]

Originally posted by flyboy
Being a "great" driver is about more than the number of wins you accumulate. Granted, Shoe and Senna are/were VERY talented and fast drivers, but I agree with Nige, they are not among the "Greats", IMHO.
For comparison, look at Gilles V., Stewart, Clark, Fangio, Moss, Andretti. In statistical terms, Fangio is head and shoulders above Shoe (almost 50% strike rate) and Clark and Stewart are not far behind. And all of these never left you queasy in the stomach about cheering for them. They were great on and off the track.
So I will continue to appreciate the talent Shoe displays, but his character and track behavior will forever keep him from being in the same league with Gilles V., Stewart, Clark, Fangio, Moss, Andretti.
Nige:up:

With your point of view, I'm pretty much sure you will not find another "great" in years to come. Times are changing, and so do people and corporate values. F1 has changed, down to it's core values. It would be a huge research project to just figure out what a driver meant to people in their generation, why people thought a driver was great and why not. And even then contemporary people have and will disagree on greatness.

IMO, fixing myself upon a limited numbers of drivers and image of what IMO consist the ideal driver robs me only of the enjoyment of F1. I do have my personal preferences for sure, but seeing the different strengths of drivers and their cars and see how it pays off (or not) for them is part of the excitement. I think most people would stop watching F1 after a few years, if the perfect driver appears and just dominates the show. I haven't seen Fangio, but I consider him one of the "greats", and I choose him here as an example. Somehow I think I would have been quickly bored with F1 back then, because he was too dominant. No competiton for him, no sport left. Doesn't make Fangio less, though I still would have to research what made him so dominant. The cars he drove, the car preparation work, his driving, his natural talent (which needs to be attributed more to his parents than to himself), his fitness training, etc? Of course the information about Fangio is out, but most of what I have seen is written pro Fangio, which makes a fair evaluation pretty difficult.

Back to domination. How many people were bored with this season? One dominant driver and the rest more or less picking up bits and pieces. That said driver had input on the design of his car doesn't make it better as fan, altough I think it is a compliment to him.

Bottomline for me is that there are so many factors in play that everything is personal opinion on the "greats" in F1. Comparing them is at best an academic exercise. How refershing in comparison is Eddie Irvine when he declares he is the greatest after Schumi. Altough he seems IMO a bit very far off the mark, he just knows how to have fun, and get people reacting. But if the fun is out F1, many people wouldn't bother to watch 22 people driving in circles. BTW, that's IMO would be worse than 22 people going after one single ball ;)

[BRG]

Originally posted by Todd
That NR is a motor racing columnist that doesn't rate Michael makes him a moron.

What a sad statement. If someone doesn't share your views, he is a moron..

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by flyboy
They were great on and off the track.
So I will continue to appreciate the talent Shoe displays, but his character and track behavior will forever keep him from being in the same league with Gilles V., Stewart, Clark, Fangio, Moss, Andretti.
Nige:up:

And how exactly you or Mr Roebuck know about track behavior of Stewart, Clark, Fangio, Moss, etc. ?

There were no TV cameras on each corner in old times and Niki Lauda (among others) said the game was much more rough on those back straights then than it is now. And Lauda was actually in the car, whereas Nigel Roebuck was only using pit gossips.

As I said already, Roebuck is living in his illusionary 'black-and-white' world and should not be taken seriously. He may actually take our own Don's advise : The truth is rarely pure and never simple.;)

[BRG]

Originally posted by gray_cat
There were no TV cameras on each corner in old times and Niki Lauda (among others) said the game was much more rough on those back straights then than it is now. And Lauda was actually in the car, whereas Nigel Roebuck was only using pit gossips.

And because there was no TV, journalists had to get out and about around the race track instead of just sitting in the media centre watching the monitors and swallowing the PR men's garbage. In the past, you would have a track pass that allowed you to go almost anywhere in the infield - photographers would stand virtually on the apex of corners - so journalists of Roebuck's generation probably saw far more racing from close-up than do the modern generation.

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by BRG
... journalists of Roebuck's generation probably saw far more racing from close-up than do the modern generation.

And they had a choice of what and how to report - they did not share what they saw on track with millions of TV watchers and dozens of video-recorders - Roebuck could make-up anything he wanted and you and I were left to share his opinion

[berge]

Originally posted by Todd
That NR is a motor racing columnist that doesn't rate Michael makes him a moron.

really?
I've always found his columns(and his race reports) very interesting and, certainly, unbiased.
But then again, if I was a card carrying, fanatical fan of a driver, and he dared critizise anything about that driver, I suppose I would consider him a "insert derogatory comment here" too.
fanatisizm has a way of doing that to one's perception of things.;)

[Todd]

Originally posted by gray_cat
And they had a choice of what and how to report - they did not share what they saw on track with millions of TV watchers and dozens of video-recorders - Roebuck could make-up anything he wanted and you and I were left to share his opinion

Since I got Speedvision, I've been wondering about historical race coverage. You only have to go back 9 months to see how little credibility the majority of print commentators have. What about when we were all left taking Rob Walker's word for it? Speedvision shows a number of programs such as "Legends of Motorsport" that feature actual file footage. The commentators, being English-speaking, are chauvanistic as all get out. It makes me wonder if Stirling Moss wasn't the Damon Hill of the '50s and '60s. He looks pretty ordinary compared to Fangio behind the wheel, but the British commentators act as if his driving made cars break as much as a lap in front of him. Has it always been as ridiculous as it is today? The best thing I can say about Moss with any certainty is that at least he recognizes Schumacher's skill.

[berge]

Originally posted by Todd


The best thing I can say about Moss with any certainty is that at least he recognizes Schumacher's skill.

you lost me. when has nigel roebuck questioned the skill level of michael schumacher.
awaiting your reply.







that's what I thought.