120 replies to this topic

[FORZA JUVENTUS]

Everyone knows that Michael Schumacher is one of the greatest f1 drivers ever. Before he came to ferrari he was already a 2-time world champion but some people might believe that achievement may have been accomplished due to Senna's death but i actually think that even if senna was alive Schumacher would still beat him during the '94 and '95 seasons and force him into retirement. Just like someone like Montoya or Alonso need to do now to make Schumacher retire and allah may finish his domination in the sport. Schumacher was the animal of speed of mid 1990's, he was the new star that would make Senna think twice about driving a race car again. Senna's fatal accident may in fact had to do something with Schumacher pushing him to the limit that Ayrton lost control of his car and smashed into the wall. At any rate, Schumacher pushed aside one of the all time greats and became the next best driver of his generation. Ever since joining ferrari, schumacher has won 5wdc's with little competition from drivers like hill, villeneuve, hakkinen, raikkonen, montoya and coulthard. Since new century Schumacher has been driving the most dominant and reliable car in the field and as a result has won 4 consecutive championships (2000-2003). In '96, he was beaten by Damon Hill in a not so reliable and fast car, in '97 he was beaten fair and square by Villeneuve, in '98 he was beaten by a much faster Mclaren Mercedes of Mika Hakkinen, in '99 Schumacher broke his joint and lost any hopes of winning the championship, he was unlucky. Ever Since the 2000 season, Schumacher has been on a roll, driving the fastest and most reliable car in f1, which produced 4 straight championships and counting others in progress .......... So is Schumacher is as good as Senna or an exceptionally lucky driver?????? I think he has the combination of both thats why he has achieved whatever he has!!! the greatest of all time by statistical perspective.
Thoughts/Opinions

[vapaokie]

Yes and yes; and the old saying of chance favors the prepared (ie., you make your own luck) holds true. He has developed himself and his team to the top of the game.

[FORZA JUVENTUS]

if senna was as lucky as schumacher is, he would have destroyed Schumacher's reputation but his death made him a villain.

[philhitchings]

It was all luck every single point no talent at all

[SlateGray]

"It's better to be lucky than good"

In the case of MS it is his Huge talent combined with Ferrari's Huge talent combined with more than their fair share of good luck.

[ViMaMo]

need both to be a multiple world champion.

[SeanValen]

If he was very lucky, he'll be a 9 times world champion today, 1997-98-99 could have gone differently for him, he's just been around so long, 2nd oldest driver in f1 now? He's won championships and lost championships. Apart of his professionality is to make some of his luck, knowing some isn't given for free, make some of your luck +luck given free=alot of luck to help you, at the same time, he's had some badluck as well, just not recently, his f1 career starts from Spa 91, not the last few seasons, got to take everything into account.

[Chevy II Nova]

This thread will be heading straight down as soon as the first anti-MS posts..

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by vivian
need both to be a multiple world champion.

Agreed.

[smithy]

The harder he works/trains/practices, the luckier he gets.

[black magic]

I never cease to be amazed at those who claim he is "lucky"

after damn near 200 gps how can you claim that luck plays a significant role. how big a sample do you need before you conceed he's that good.

statistically no one has more luck than anyone else. 200 is a large enough sample. was jordan "lucky". is woods" lucky"

(I'm excluding the trite saying the more you practice the luckier you get)

the other fact is that people are very good at remembering the things that went right but not those that went wrong.

[smithy]

Originally posted by black magic
...(I'm excluding the trite saying the more you practice the luckier you get)...

Webster's Dictionary defines trite as: "a once effective phrase or idea spoiled from long familiarity."

OK.... so it might be spoiled from overuse but it's still absolutely true.

[beanoid]

He's good. One makes one's own luck, by and large.

[ScudBoy]

Originally posted by vivian
need both to be a multiple world champion.

I believe that you need to be good and NOT UNLUCKY to be a world champion.

Which I think defines Schumacher and Ferrari better.

How is it that good reliability of the Ferrari is seen as good luck rather then just good preperation?

In this regard Schumacher has not been UNLUCKY that his car has failed him. But there is nothing lucky about it the fact that he has enjoyed good reliability recently.

It's not unlucky that JPM's BMW engine blows up while he is in the lead. It is poor manufacturing or poor quality control.

[velo]

Originally posted by smithy
The harder he works/trains/practices, the luckier he gets.

smithy
if "luck" = talent, skill and hard work, then, ok...he's ''lucky''!!!

[HBoss]

It's a combination of both.

How many times did he spin and continue in the race, and eventually winning them? I remember Monaco 97, Argentina 98, Hungaroring 98, Indy 00, Imola 03... All of them were crucial races for his championship hopes, he won them all, despite spinning or suffering off course excusrions. But then he also delivered fantastic performances on other events in which the pressure was so that only the greatest ever could withstand, Monza 98, Monza 00, Monza 03, Hungaroring 98. But then he also fumbled under pressure, Adelaide 94, Jerez 97, Nurburgring 98, Suzuka 98, Suzuka 03...

If we put everything together, I beleive we have in front of us the greatest driver ever, who's greatness comes not from raw speed, inate talent, ice cold thinking and unique race craft, but from an excelling combination of all these factors, plus a huge ammount of luck, determination and motivation.

[Zmeej]

Combination.

[tweiss]

Originally posted by SlateGray
"It's better to be lucky than good"

In the case of MS it is his Huge talent combined with Ferrari's Huge talent combined with more than their fair share of good luck.

[Vilenova]

If you'd rather be lucky than good then be prepared to take bad luck as well.
If you're good, you make your own luck. At least it seems that way to the people you're crushing week in, week out.

Schumacher is good. Damn him.

[Rene]

Originally posted by vivian
need both to be a multiple world champion.

Strike the word "multiple" from that sentence....no one wins a lucky WDC....every single one of them was well earned and deserved (although not all WDC's are equal in terms of merit)...

[kouks]

Originally posted by Rene


Strike the word "multiple" from that sentence....no one wins a lucky WDC....every single one of them was well earned and deserved (although not all WDC's are equal in terms of merit)...

Exactly, you can win a lucky race "Fissi in a Jordan last year" but highly unlikely you can have that sort of luck throughout the whole season and become WDC.

Simple really, you win a WDC you're good!

[HBoss]

But then one lucky event can also have huge consequences on the championship outcome.

What if Schumcher had lost controle of his car wheh he had a small trip on the grass last year at Imola?

There is too much involved to say that a championship was decided on luck, but sometimes one can think/ponder/imagine how much influence did one small isolated event have in the season.

Just some food for thought...

[skylark68]

I look back to his WDC against Hill - he was great that year and lucky as he brushed the wall and his car luckily (for him) swerved directly into Hill's car giving MS the crown.

He is truly a great driver but I recall him stating that you still need some luck. For example, two teams battling for second place is lucky for him, as was a bit of the case last year.

However, since 1994 (10 years), he has been in the top 3 each year (except 1999 when he was injured) and since that time has demonstrated an achievemnt level unparalled in sport. Great, with some luck thrown in for good mix.

[ViMaMo]

Originally posted by Rene


Strike the word "multiple" from that sentence....no one wins a lucky WDC....every single one of them was well earned and deserved (although not all WDC's are equal in terms of merit)...

sorry, i did not mean that at all. every WDC is well earned. i was refering to any world champion trying to be multiple world champion, people will tend to attribute more and more luck. i believe in some good luck too.

[beanoid]

Originally posted by HBoss
What if Schumcher had lost controle of his car wheh he had a small trip on the grass last year at Imola?

But doesn't the fact that he maintained control of the car fall into the "good" column?

[AlexS]

I dont see him very lucky: he broke a leg which isnt something comon(thankfully) in F1 this days.


By the samples of luck it is said here about Shumi( a rather limited set with every thing that happens in a race) : spins, offs etc also can be said of any other driver if he was in spotlight of best ever´s.

This year just reminding of Mr. Montoya and Mr. Massa spins.

[The Stig]

The point MS was lucky at is when Eddie Jordan gave him the chance to debute in F1.
For the rest, it´s his talent which brought him to the point where he is now: The best F1 driver so far.

[Johny Bravo]

72 times lucky and 6 times luckiest of the year.

[Frans]

: Luck and Germans........ ya should write a book about it...................

nothing else, not a single piece of talent would be required.

[ASD]

lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky
lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky
lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky
lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky
lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky
lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky
lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky lucky
lucky lucky ??

Yeah, right

[Group B]

Originally posted by Frans
: Luck and Germans........ ya should write a book about it...................

Do please elaborate...

[Thunder]

Where is unlucky choice? He only had luck when he didnt need one single bit of it. If he had been as lucky as 2002 between 97-99 he would have won all those 3 wdcs too.

[HJK]

MS is the greatest f1 driver...eh who knows, who cares. Is it luck? Sure, he could have had a small genetic mutation shortly after conception and become nonviable (gasp what would the racing world have been if The Micheal had never been born?). We are are unbelieveably lucky just to be born. I think there is luck and driving ability involved with his f1 dominance, but there is something else.

What I find truly dazzling about this man is his political cunning. He has consistently manipulated a complicated corporatized monied world, and come out on top. Of course, it is in something as inconsequential and narcassistic as auto racing, but it is still impressive. If only wonderwoman had a talkshow, where her guests were forced to tell the truth (remember her s&m truth lasso?)...I would love to know the real inside story on this guy's career. Like just about everything in the media, we never will, of course. But just imagine if he told the whole story of his career sans public relations BS, image mangers, and sponsors all the while being compelled to tell the truth. I'd set my vcr for that!

Of the six billion people on the planet right now, he is not the best driver. He is probably not even one of the top 20. He is 35 years old, well passed his physical peak, but he has orchastrated the world's priemier racing series so that he is the winner every time (with the brief michelin induced exception of last year). Wow.

Sure its part circumstance, part driving ability, but its also because this man knows how stack the deck. I just wish it wasn't so freaking BORING...oh well maybe I'll just skip this year, and see how competitive f1 is next march. I have a feeling things wont change until he retires though, because political cunning dosen't degrade with age like physical prowess. And it might be another year or two before his ever increasing physcal deficiets surpass his political gifts. Lets just hope he is the last f1 king for a looooong time.

[Group B]

Hmm, that would be facinating; I'd love to know how he controls how good the competion are, makes Ferrari give him £25m a year unneccesarily, fools most of the experts into thinking he's one of the best, and even slipped traction control onto that Jordan for his first ever visit to Spa in 1991. A clever man indeed.

[scdecade]

What was the race last year when his car caught on fire and he just sat there and waited for them to put it out? He went on to score 2 points I believe. I don't know if you call that luck or not but he's very, very, very fortunate. What other driver upon seeing flames around the cockpit wouldn't have leapt out of the car flailing like a fish out of water?

[PedroPeter]

He is a very lucky driver for being gifted with such extraordinary inborn talent.
Actually the simple hypothesis of a driver achieve 6 WC and 71 wins, based on luck, is imbecile.

[Big Block 8]

Originally posted by Group B
fools most of the experts

*This isn't too hard after all - after the last Malaysian GP both Eddie Jordan and Keke Rosberg got sentimental and told, how the public should look at what the #2 Ferrari is doing in "similar circumstances" and with "similar equipment" (Barrichello 4th). According to them, RB's 4th supposedly was an indication of Ferrari's "true pace" and "how anything beyond that is from Schumacher's astonishing talent only". I suddenly felt 10 years younger. Unfortunately and apparently, neither of these experts had heard (or perhaps cared) about the different rubber compounds RB and MS were using.

*Not a "flame" attempt, merely an observation.

[Group B]

Damn, you've destroyed my argument and converted me big block; clearly this mistake shows that the team owners (with the exception of SuperRon of course) are all idiots and imbeciles, who, together with ex drivers and life long commentastors and journos, can't hold a candle to truly perceptive peope like you and dan2k when judging drivers. Now I see it all, MS is the of course the biggest fraud in sporting history.

[HBoss]

Originally posted by beanoid


But doesn't the fact that he maintained control of the car fall into the "good" column?

And losing controle falls into the "bad".
So if good and bad cancel each other, all that is left is luck. And in that case iit was good luck.
Of course I only refer to that small event, not his entire career.

[Amir_S]

Question: "Is Schumacher that good or is he just very lucky??"

Answer: I believe Bladrian put it best: "People who believe Michael has merely been lucky since 1992 are stupid. And I don't mean 'stupid' in the schoolground insult sense;I mean deep, ingrained, basic inability to feed themselves without messing, plain dumb stupid. Dirt dumb stupid."

13 and still counting.......

[Henri Greuter]

Both.
With enough approval for everyone to see I believe.

Henri Greuter

[GDoering]

I agree that it's both but most of it is he's just that good. You don't compete for the championship every year for 10 years unless you've got some unbelievable talent. He's had both his share of good and bad luck. If you would've taken a poll after the '99 season I doubt there would've been too many saying we was lucky then.

[Mpower]

A combination of both.....
But I dont think Luck played that large of a role in his success as much as his excellent driving ability and the other 200 or so Ferrari employees who dont get anywhere near the recognition that Schumacher gets for achieving the same goal.

[Mpower]

btw...Hey Greg

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by Amir_S
Question: "Is Schumacher that good or is he just very lucky??"

Answer: I believe Bladrian put it best: "People who believe Michael has merely been lucky since 1992 are stupid. And I don't mean 'stupid' in the schoolground insult sense;I mean deep, ingrained, basic inability to feed themselves without messing, plain dumb stupid. Dirt dumb stupid."

13 and still counting.......

No one is saying it is ALL luck. Just that he has better than average luck.

Which takes nothing from his skill BTW!

[GDoering]

Originally posted by Mpower
btw...Hey Greg

Hey Mpower, long time no see

[Williams]

To illustrate this concept of luck, cast your mind back to a race a few years ago when Hakkinen was second behind Schumacher, decided he wasn't going to catch Schumacher and probably wouldn't pass him anyway, and so backed off. At some point in the proceedings, Schumacher spun off the track, but had enough time ahead of Hakkinen to get back on and continue to the checkered flag.

Now if Hakkinen had kept his pace up he might have been able to sail past Schumacher in the gravel trap for the win, and we would have all talked about how "lucky" Hakkinen had been that day.

Schumacher has won races on the basis that he was simply there when some other unfortunate git landed on the wrong side of lady luck. Some call it luck. I don't.

[rce]

Originally posted by vapaokie
Yes and yes; and the old saying of chance favors the prepared (ie., you make your own luck) holds true. He has developed himself and his team to the top of the game.

I agree, although I voted that he good (not both)! As I truely believe that you create your own luck.

[Menace]

Originally posted by Williams
To illustrate this concept of luck, cast your mind back to a race a few years ago when Hakkinen was second behind Schumacher, decided he wasn't going to catch Schumacher and probably wouldn't pass him anyway, and so backed off. At some point in the proceedings, Schumacher spun off the track, but had enough time ahead of Hakkinen to get back on and continue to the checkered flag.

Now if Hakkinen had kept his pace up he might have been able to sail past Schumacher in the gravel trap for the win, and we would have all talked about how "lucky" Hakkinen had been that day.

Schumacher has won races on the basis that he was simply there when some other unfortunate git landed on the wrong side of lady luck. Some call it luck. I don't.

I think you are right on the money here Williams.

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by Williams
To illustrate this concept of luck, cast your mind back to a race a few years ago when Hakkinen was second behind Schumacher, decided he wasn't going to catch Schumacher and probably wouldn't pass him anyway, and so backed off. At some point in the proceedings, Schumacher spun off the track, but had enough time ahead of Hakkinen to get back on and continue to the checkered flag.

Now if Hakkinen had kept his pace up he might have been able to sail past Schumacher in the gravel trap for the win, and we would have all talked about how "lucky" Hakkinen had been that day.

Schumacher has won races on the basis that he was simply there when some other unfortunate git landed on the wrong side of lady luck . Some call it luck. I don't.

So it's the other guy's bad luck. But you don't beleve in luck so what side of what did the unfortunate git lnd on?

Can't have your luck and eat it too!