97 replies to this topic

[DOHC]

In what order do you rate Michael Schumacher's WDC titles?

Personally, I think that 94 was surrounded by too many questionable things to be rated highly.

95 was a strong achievement.

Then 00 stands out as a great achievement, a championship won with strong competition from Häkkinen/McLaren.

01 was ok, while 02 with a vastly better car, team orders and grabbing the title in July, with all the mess of "dead heats" etc. doesn't stand out as a major achievement.

Then 03 again was a better achievement.

So, to open up for discussion: I rate 95 and 00 as the two best, 01 and 03 in the second category, with 94 and 02 in the last.

The floor is yours!

[Bladrian]

Actually, I tend to rate his '94 victory as one of his more notable achievements. At the beginning of the season he saw off Senna, and then he had to catch up 3 race bans worth of points.

Remarkable.

[Marlowe]

The 2000 season was a great season. His reaction and his comments to his teammates during the WDC victory lap was something special. It really showed he is made of marshmallow under that cold and tough image he projects. He's a great champion.

[MortenF1]

'00-'95-'01-'03-'02-'94...

[blip]

I agree: '94 seems too murky to really decide one way or another. He certainly drove well, there's no question about that. But was his car always legal?

1995 and 2000 were clearly the best: his car disadvantage was probably bigger in '95, but he was fighting a much better driver in '00. Some of his drives in '95 were incredible: Spa, Estoril and Nurburgring for example. He put in some great drives in '00 too, but nothing quite so spectacular. The pitstop passes at Imola and Suzuka were special, but they don't compare to some of the on-track passes he did in '95.

I'd rate the others as: '01 (perfect performance in a very strong car), '02 (waaay too easy, plus Austriagate), '03 (some great drives, but overall too messy considering his quality and the quality of his equipment).

[maclaren]

I would say #6 was the worst in terms of his driving but best in terms of fighting back from behind.

[F1Johnny]

95
00
94
03
01
02

1995 - MS crushed the opposition and out psyched DH. It was almost embarrasing for the Williams team. This was when he showed he was a class above the rest.

2000 - First for Ferrari and beating the great MH was quite a task

1994 - beating Senna in Brazil and overcoming the race bans

2003 - tough opposition, but some ugly drives, but then he showed his experience and mettle

2001 - Good drives, but his competition was splintered between MH and DC and so not much of a challenge

2002 - too easy.

[Todd]

'94 - Won inspite of being excluded from 1 in 4 races. Amazing season in which merit triumphed over an establishment determined to maintain the status quo. It isn't by accident that Michael is the only driver to beat Williams and McLaren in the past 20 years.

'95 - Won with a car that was decidedly 2nd best. In car camera shots demonstrated just how much Michael was carrying the poorly balanced B195 on his shoulders. Stunning.

2000 - History making victory in a Ferrari that was closely matched to his worthy adversary's McLaren. Too bad every season can't be as exciting as that one was.

2001 - Unshackled from the burden of bringing a WDC to Ferrari, Michael towered over the others.

2002 - At last, Michael did exactly what I always said he would with the sort of equipment advantage enjoyed by various McLaren and Williams drivers through the years. He made F1 a bore. Significant of his season was his lack of costly errors. Has any driver ever gone that many consecutive races without costing themselves a strong finish? Will anyone else ever do it?

2003 - Ferrari and Michael still the strongest team, but the deck was stacked against them. Did the other teams know that Ferrari relied on shifting ballast between qualifying and race to make their tires work and last? They were submarined. But they still came out on top. Genius.

Ranking them? I don't know. They are all pretty great in their own ways.

[gerry nassar]

I'd rank them:

1995
2000

1994
2001
2003
2002

But to me - I personally think 1997 and 1998 would belong in the top group - non WDC years but he was as strong or stronger than in his championship years.

[Scudetto]

Originally posted by F1Johnny
95
00
94
03
01
02

1995 - MS crushed the opposition and out psyched DH. It was almost embarrasing for the Williams team. This was when he showed he was a class above the rest.

2000 - First for Ferrari and beating the great MH was quite a task

1994 - beating Senna in Brazil and overcoming the race bans

2003 - tough opposition, but some ugly drives, but then he showed his experience and mettle

2001 - Good drives, but his competition was splintered between MH and DC and so not much of a challenge

2002 - too easy.

What he said.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

2000 -- Finally!!
1995 -- **** the guy is really good, and there's more to come!
2003 -- Sometimes messy, but beautiful in the end!
2002 -- The slaughter! Give best car to MS, he will finish in July for gods-sake.
1994 -- Here comes the young-one.
2001 -- Confirmation of supremacy, but nothing spectacular.

[GadgetMan]

How do I rate MS' 6 WDC's?

Most of them establishment assited coronation except maybe 95 and 2003...

GadgetMan

[GadgetMan]

Originally posted by GadgetMan
How do I rate MS' 6 WDC's?

Most of them establishment assited coronation except maybe 95 and 2003...

GadgetMan

I would add that even 2003 does not pass the smell test considering the double standards used by the FIA iin respect of the tire controversy and racing penalties consistently handed to Montoya but not to MS (re Silverstone - pushing Alonso out of the track at very high speed in the hangar straight).

I consider Michael the best out there but I am simply disgusted at the way everything revolves around making him win in F1.

GadgetMan

[m__schumacher]

i rate them as follows:

2003: His best so far. No team orders, having two strong opponents and not the best car from mid-season to end

1995: He did not have the fastest car throughout the whole season! Yet he won the title because Hill was no match to Michael

1994: The same as 1995 but he did not have the best car from mid-season to end, like 2003

2000: A very good championship against e very respected driver.

2001: I could rate this, as his best since he did not do many mistakes... anyway

2002: Had the best car and won the championship. What else to expect?

[Todd]

Originally posted by GadgetMan
How do I rate MS' 6 WDC's?

Most of them establishment assited coronation except maybe 95 and 2003...

GadgetMan

1994? The establishment helped him by excluding him from 4 races and changing the rules to ruin his car's handling advantage.

[ViMaMo]

2000,2003,1994,1995,2001,2002... seeing michael bang away at the steering after winning at suzuka showed how much he wanted the title.with a great comeback win at monza after dnfing 3 times in a row and the rivals closing up.

[Ricardo F1]

2000, 1995, 2001, 1994, 2003, 2002

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by GadgetMan
How do I rate MS' 6 WDC's?

Most of them establishment assited coronation except maybe 95 and 2003...

GadgetMan

he's not the only one .. remember 1997?

[Fortymark]

Todd

changing the rules to ruin his car's handling advantage.

Yeah right . Schumacher mania to the extreme..
Two dead drivers and changes to cockpit design is ruining Schumacher´s handling advantage

[Pikachu Racing]

1995, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2002, 1994

[MuMu]

The 94 and 95 titles were very impressive - he was clearly the best out there in those years.
The last 4 titles were easy, with him having the best car and no competition from his team-mate.

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Fortymark
Todd




Yeah right . Schumacher mania to the extreme..
Two dead drivers and changes to cockpit design is ruining Schumacher´s handling advantage

... and he quietly glides over the fact that the race bans may have been a bit of a disadvantage to Schumacher.

Anti-Schumacher mania to the extreme.

[HBoss]

1994 - I don't rate it highly because his car was significantly better than the Williams for the first half of the season, his opponent was Hill and there were too many questions regarding wheter his car was legal or not.

1995 - A terrific season, much much better than 1994, but his opponent was still Hill, who made it all too easy, and his Beneton was the dog people want us to beleive it was

2000 - His best, for sure. It was against his greatest rival and he somehow managed to turn the tide after Spa and romp towards the title, not to mention the nerve wrecking Jananese GP, which was the most intense and emotionally shaterring I remember watching after Senna died

2001 - I don't rate it as high as 2000 or 1995, his car was by far the best during the season, Hakkinen had his mind on retirement and Coulthard isn't consistent enough to bring in good results during an entre season

2002 - By far, the easiest of them all, yet I still rate it higher than 1994. Even Barrichello could have been the champion in that car.

2003 - The most difficult title for him to acheive, and it also seemed as if it was the one in which Schumacher commited the most mistakes and had more disapointing races. He didn't always have the best car, but the driver he beat to the title didn't have a car as good as his. It certainly helped him that the FW25 was a dog early in the season while Montoya commited many mistakes and his engine broke twice. I do rate it higher than 1994.

I guess my order would be 2000, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 1994, with the titles in 2000 and 1995 being worth much much more than any of his other titles.

[Amir_S]

1. 1995- a car clearly secondbest to the williams. Amazing Senna like drives at Spa and nurburgring. Dominant.

2. 1994- Underpowered engine. Saw off Senna in the first 3 races. Came back despite being excluded unfairly from 4 races and still he won. Amazing.

2. 2000- Joint second. Amazing seasson. Equal cars, amazing competitor in Hakkinen. First Ferrari title in 21 years. Amazing drives at the Nurburgring, Monza, Indianapolis and Suzuka. MS at his best. Great seasson 9 wins and 9 poles.

4- 2003- A strong comeback. A clear tyre disadvantage, a pointssystem that handicaped him badly, 4 race winning top teams, some great drivers like Montoya and Alonso and to a lesser degree Raikkonen to fight against. And still he came on top with most wins and poles. Was under strong preassure coming to Monza and did another 2000 comeback.

5- 2001- Finally the best driver in the best car and a supreme demonstration of why he is the best.

6- 2002- The most dominant package MS has ever had and he didn't waste any of it winningan impressive 11 races and scoring 7 poles.

[Rediscoveryx]

2000
1995
1994
2003
2001
2002

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Marlowe
The 2000 season was a great season. His reaction and his comments to his teammates during the WDC victory lap was something special. It really showed he is made of marshmallow under that cold and tough image he projects. He's a great champion.

Good point - note how he was repeating the phrase "we did it" rather than focusing on his own achievement. Shows what a team player he is

[Fortymark]

1995
Schumacher did an better job than Hill and Coulthard, the Benetton team was much better than Williams with strategy and pitstops. It wasn´t only Hill that didn´t drive so well.

2000
Although he was lucky that Hakkinen had bad luck and Ferrari team politics

2001
Best car and best reliability, still outdriving on many occasions.

2002
Superior car and superior reliability, Barrichello really had the pace of MS 90% of the time.

1994
Best car first half of season. Good drives in the beginning of year but didn´t look so steady in the later part. Cracked under pressure in the last race and had to ram Hill to be champion.

2003
The least impressive season, no doubt. Had the package for most of the season but wasn´t able
to clinch the title until the last race. Won because of better reliability, marchals pulling him out of the graveltrap and his teammate stole points from his main competitors.

[Timur]

Originally posted by Todd
'94 - Won inspite of being excluded from 1 in 4 races. Amazing season in which merit triumphed over an establishment determined to maintain the status quo. It isn't by accident that Michael is the only driver to beat Williams and McLaren in the past 20 years.

'95 - Won with a car that was decidedly 2nd best. In car camera shots demonstrated just how much Michael was carrying the poorly balanced B195 on his shoulders. Stunning.

2000 - History making victory in a Ferrari that was closely matched to his worthy adversary's McLaren. Too bad every season can't be as exciting as that one was.

2001 - Unshackled from the burden of bringing a WDC to Ferrari, Michael towered over the others.

2002 - At last, Michael did exactly what I always said he would with the sort of equipment advantage enjoyed by various McLaren and Williams drivers through the years. He made F1 a bore. Significant of his season was his lack of costly errors. Has any driver ever gone that many consecutive races without costing themselves a strong finish? Will anyone else ever do it?

2003 - Ferrari and Michael still the strongest team, but the deck was stacked against them. Did the other teams know that Ferrari relied on shifting ballast between qualifying and race to make their tires work and last? They were submarined. But they still came out on top. Genius.

Ranking them? I don't know. They are all pretty great in their own ways.

Could not agree more

I'd try to rank the achievements though:

2003 -- 6th WDC
2000 -- first for Ferrari after 21 years draught, several years of hard work, coming back after injury
1994 -- first for himself
1995 -- dominant win in a not the best car
2002 -- all podium finishes -- remarakable achievement, even in the best car on the grid
2001 -- dominant win, still a very interesting season

[coyoteBR]

Frans Version:

"How do you hate Schumacher's six titles?"

[DOHC]

Interesting answers, keep them coming!

[Simioni]

2000 - even though he was very evenly matched with Mika, they both drove on an extremely high level. Mika though had a couple of poor races, MS didn't. Very few mistakes, no off-days worth of note. His best WDC.

1995 - benefited by very weak opposition, but maximised the opportunity to the fullest. 9 wins with a car that was not the best is a remarkable achievement regardless.

1994 - His only rival died early on, the legality of his car was questionable, benetton's cheating with the fuel rig was decisive in his first win, his infraction at Silverstone and the spin at Spa allowed the FIA to step in, and the title was finally clinched in very unimpressive form. Looking at it superficially it doesn't seem like a very commendable achievement, but the driving itself could have led to the most dominant WDC ever if not for the FIA's interference. So a mixed bag. He was benefited by the circunstances, but hurt by the system.

2001 - Had the fastest, most consistent car and the usual strong reliability, which coupled with superior and most consistent driving on his part led to a very comfortable WDC. However it could have been even more if not for a few poor races. His qualifying performances though were brilliant.

2002 - Given he had one of the most dominant cars ever, a teammate relegated to supporting role from the get go and with far inferior reliability, this probably tops Mansell's 92 title as the easiest WDC ever. Still, he seized the opportunity to rewrite most of the record book.

2003 - many mistakes, many off-days and a miserable title-clinching performance marks this season out as his worse so far. Moved his title count up one digit, but didn't add anything positive to his reputation.

I think though that Schumacher's best form was seldom witnessed when he actually won the title. I'd rank 1992, 1996, 1997 and 1998 ahead of all his winning years except for 2000 and 95. Testimony again that if the car isn't there, victory most likely won't be either even if you have the best at his very best. Fortunately for MS, the car was there often enough.

[blip]

Great post Simioni, except I wouldn't put the fact that "the car was there often enough" down to fortune alone: the effort the whole team put in during those hard years certainly helped make that happen.

Its interesting that you mention Brazil '94:

benetton's cheating with the fuel rig was decisive in his first win

On the surface, that stands out as a remarkable drive, but the time that MS gained in the pitstops due to illegal rigs allowed him to pass and then stay ahead of Senna. Plus, there was the doubt about TC and LC, particularly at Aida where MS made that stunning start. Given his generally poor performance in starts over the last few years, it certainly adds weight to the suspicion that all was not legal.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Todd


2003 - Ferrari and Michael still the strongest team, but the deck was stacked against them. Did the other teams know that Ferrari relied on shifting ballast between qualifying and race to make their tires work and last? They were submarined. But they still came out on top. Genius.

.

A thread made for you

I thought the cars could not be touched between qualifying and the race?
Isn't this cheating?

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by Simioni


2003 - many mistakes, many off-days and a miserable title-clinching performance marks this season out as his worse so far. Moved his title count up one digit, but didn't add anything positive to his reputation.

Call me strange, but I believe racing whilst grief-stricken by death of mother, staging a wonderful comeback infront of pressure-cooker Monza or fighting oil/fire/rain Austria/USA certainly did not detract from his rep (whatever that might mean anyways; on-track, off-track, in the kitchen?).

I 'Dunno, have we all become so cynical and expert-like and detached from reality (forgetting that there are humans behind the wheel and are subject to fallability) that the horse we stand on has doubled in height, and all we arm-chair experts over-analyze are some silly mistakes and forget everything else 'positive' in the name of a good post?

Call me strange...[I have been many times]

[blip]

Originally posted by jimm
I thought the cars could not be touched between qualifying and the race?
Isn't this cheating?

The car was designed before the rule-changes came into effect. It was designed to take advantage of the fact that changes between Qual. and Race were possible.

[holiday]

Originally posted by Simioni
Moved his title count up one digit, but didn't add anything positive to his reputation.

Fortunately, for most ears this sounds like a contradiction in itself.

[DOHC]

Originally posted by holiday


Fortunately, for most ears this sounds like a contradiction in itself.

Unless, of course, the addition was the one you hint at in your sig... :

[jimm]

Originally posted by blip
The car was designed before the rule-changes came into effect. It was designed to take advantage of the fact that changes between Qual. and Race were possible.

Meaning what??? THe car was not touched or was touched for the races?

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by jimm


Meaning what??? THe car was not touched or was touched for the races?

Were not - Todd just made up a load of bull to try and elevate Schumachers performance this year.

[blip]

Originally posted by jimm
Meaning what??? THe car was not touched or was touched for the races?

It wasn't, obviously. So it suffered as a result. See the Tehnical Review for details.

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


Were not - Todd just made up a load of bull to try and elevate Schumachers performance this year.

Read the article blip linked to and post again.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by George Bailey


Read the article blip linked to and post again.

Check the smilie and post again.

No doubt the 03GA wasn't probably as perfect as it could have been because of the changes (that Ferrari agreed to) - but Todd would no doubt have us believe it was running on three wheels because of these conspiracys against Ferrari which 'submarined' them. Given that it was still the best car of the year it clearly didn't do that much damage, even if they did need the FIA to step in and help post Hungary.

[Bladrian]

Ricardo,

I just can't buy that. The 'best' car of the year - with arguably the best driver in it - got lapped by a Toleman/Benetton/Renault? What would be your definition of the 'worst' car on the track? ..... I don't recall any Reliant Robins racing this year ......

Sooner or later you lads are going to have to admit that the illegal Michelins were giving their teams an unusually large advantage - and that state of affairs just could not, in all fairness, continue. I would like to see the teams that were using those tyres have their points removed from them, but that won't happen - I guess the FIA are favouring Williams/McLaren/Renault ......

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


Check the smilie and post again.

No doubt the 03GA wasn't probably as perfect as it could have been because of the changes (that Ferrari agreed to) - but Todd would no doubt have us believe it was running on three wheels because of these conspiracys against Ferrari which 'submarined' them. Given that it was still the best car of the year it clearly didn't do that much damage, even if they did need the FIA to step in and help post Hungary.

I see, saying Todd was lying about the ballast was a joke. Pretty funny stuff.


Every year there is a "best car" by definition, but clearly the gap between #1 and #2 varies by a huge amount from year to year. That pretty much makes repeating over and over that MS had the best car in 2003, or (94, 95, and 2000 for that matter) a meaningless statement. I have no doubt MS could have won the WDC in each of those years given his competitors cars.



I think an argument could be made for any of the 6 years in terms of a combination of the difficulties overcome, or the brilliance of his individual drives. It's like pets or kids, I'd hate to have to choose one over another.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Bladrian
Ricardo,

I just can't buy that. The 'best' car of the year - with arguably the best driver in it - got lapped by a Toleman/Benetton/Renault? What would be your definition of the 'worst' car on the track? ..... I don't recall any Reliant Robins racing this year ......

Sooner or later you lads are going to have to admit that the illegal Michelins were giving their teams an unusually large advantage - and that state of affairs just could not, in all fairness, continue. I would like to see the teams that were using those tyres have their points removed from them, but that won't happen - I guess the FIA are favouring Williams/McLaren/Renault ......

BS!

It was only illegal after the FIA reinterpreted the rule. IF it had worked for Ferrari they would have used it and that would have been it. teams get advantages by reading between the lines.

Name a car that was not lapped at sometime this year. Besides because of Renault used the suspension designed by Michelin, it was probably the best car in long corners, something that Hungery has alot of. However, at the rest of the tracks, Ferrari was the best or sometimes second best to williams.

IF you think MS did a great job all year and was getting the most out of a bad package then why was Rubens blowing him away in the races he did poorly at? RB certainly did not look like he was going to get lapped before the suspension went in Hungery. At Silverstone, RB left him for dead. Simply, using RB, who you know is not an equal partner in the team, as a yardstick, you see that MS was NOT GETTING THE MOST out of the car at every track. If you added the .3 or so sec to RB's times (like he has been over the last few years) when MS was way behind he would have had a season like 2001.

[Bladrian]

"IF you think MS did a great job all year and was getting the most out of a bad package ..."


Now where did I say that? I can't even remember thinking it .... although you, apparently, do.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Bladrian
"IF you think MS did a great job all year and was getting the most out of a bad package ..."


Now where did I say that? I can't even remember thinking it .... although you, apparently, do.

Ricardo said "Check the smilie and post again.

No doubt the 03GA wasn't probably as perfect as it could have been because of the changes (that Ferrari agreed to) - but Todd would no doubt have us believe it was running on three wheels because of these conspiracys against Ferrari which 'submarined' them. Given that it was still the best car of the year it clearly didn't do that much damage, even if they did need the FIA to step in and help post Hungary."

To which you replied "Ricardo,

I just can't buy that. The 'best' car of the year - with arguably the best driver in it - got lapped by a Toleman/Benetton/Renault? What would be your definition of the 'worst' car on the track? ..... I don't recall any Reliant Robins racing this year ......

Sooner or later you lads are going to have to admit that the illegal Michelins were giving their teams an unusually large advantage - and that state of affairs just could not, in all fairness, continue. I would like to see the teams that were using those tyres have their points removed from them, but that won't happen - I guess the FIA are favouring Williams/McLaren/Renault ...... "


The statement that " just can't buy that. The 'best' car of the year - with arguably the best driver in it - got lapped by a Toleman/Benetton/Renault? What would be your definition of the 'worst' car on the track?" suggests that you beleive that the car was NOT the best this year and offer as proof that the car was lapped by a Renault in Hungary.

With the statement that "Sooner or later you lads are going to have to admit that the illegal Michelins were giving their teams an unusually large advantage - and that state of affairs just could not, in all fairness, continue. I would like to see the teams that were using those tyres have their points removed from them, but that won't happen - " sounds like you are saying that the tires are what was giving Williams et al the advantage during the midpoint of the season when MS was not doing so well.

My point is that EVEN with the advantage that michelins could have potentially offered, judging by RB's performances against the same cars with the same Ferrari that MS had, MS should have still been able to win with the car he had especially being "arguably the best driver". Also, because RB seemed in little danger of being lapped in the same race where "arguably the best driver in it - got lapped by a Toleman/Benetton/Renault" suggests that it was not the fault of the car that MS got lapped.

[Bladrian]

I can't accept Silverstone as a valid basis for comparison either ...... that race was as much a statistical anomaly as was Brazil - or do you accept Fisichella's win as indicative of his car's speed?

The mad priest at Silverstone threw a spanner in many works, including the fact that Michael was stuck behind Rubens in the pits. Add to that the fact that they used different tyres, and it becomes valueless as a basis for comparison.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by DOHC
In what order do you rate Michael Schumacher's WDC titles?

Personally, I think that 94 was surrounded by too many questionable things to be rated highly.

95 was a strong achievement.

Then 00 stands out as a great achievement, a championship won with strong competition from Häkkinen/McLaren.

01 was ok, while 02 with a vastly better car, team orders and grabbing the title in July, with all the mess of "dead heats" etc. doesn't stand out as a major achievement.

Then 03 again was a better achievement.

So, to open up for discussion: I rate 95 and 00 as the two best, 01 and 03 in the second category, with 94 and 02 in the last.

The floor is yours!

I agree with your list except that 02 was better than 03. First of all IMO MS's peak years were 97-01, and in 02 a very slight decline started, but definitely in 03, and I expect it to only get worse in 04 and beyond (assuming there IS a beyond 04 for him in F1).

Overall I would thus say

1. 95 and 00
2. 94 and 01
3. 02
.
.
.
4. 03

MS's 03 WDC campaign was IMO the least impressive successful WDC campaign since Hill in 96, even JV in 97 was better, though only just.

[HSJ]

Excellent lists and posts from Simioni and Fortymark.