Deconstruction of Schumi greatness #2

[mattikake]

A stat of consistent competitiveness, regardless of car advantage, that I noticed today. So I knocked up a vid pointing it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSKDwkJlcY8

Despite all his 'non-sporting' advantages, Schumi's time at the top was not as devastatingly consistent as his 7 WDC's imply...

[El Guapo]

Oh dear

[stifler]

Oh dear God. You are fking joking right? Did the comments on the first video not give you some idea? Do you have fire brigade spec overalls? You are gonna get flamed so badlý for this, you're gonna end up looking like the english patient.

I look forward to another 18 pages of you arguing that black is white.

[BonzoGuinness]

Could you not have knocked up a table in your post, rather than a video? Most of us can read quite quickly and youtube doesn't exactly have fast forward. Also I'm not a huge Mercury/Queen fan.

Edited by BonzoGuinness on Monday 1st June 23:16

[Mr_Thyroid]

Lets deconstruct your statistics:

You say Schumachar was not in contention for the title in 97. In actual fact he was 1 point ahead going into the final race.

You say Senna was in contention in 92 and Schui was not. Senna finished 4th Schumi finished 3rd.

Also in 92 Senna finished 58 points behind Mansell whereas in 96 Schumacher only finished 38 points behind Hill.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT?

[EDLT]

Give Schumi his due, he is quite good at physics.

[mattikake]

Ooh you lot hate this?





Excellent!

[stifler]

Troll?

Why bother?

[Killer2005]

BonzoGuinness said:

Could you not have knocked up a table in your post, rather than a video? Most of us can read quite quickly and youtube doesn't exactly have fast forward. Also I'm not a huge Mercury/Queen fan.

Edited by BonzoGuinness on Monday 1st June 23:16

I'd need to see a Pie Chart at least

[greygoose]

El Guapo said:

Oh dear

+ 1

[Corpulent Tosser]

Killer2005 said:

BonzoGuinness said:

Could you not have knocked up a table in your post, rather than a video? Most of us can read quite quickly and youtube doesn't exactly have fast forward. Also I'm not a huge Mercury/Queen fan.

Edited by BonzoGuinness on Monday 1st June 23:16

I'd need to see a Pie Chart at least

Forget the chart, i'll just have the pie

[profstoff]

I think this is an interesting way of comparing drivers from different eras but I would like to know how you define being in contention for the title

[Alex97]

Mr_Thyroid said:

You say Schumachar was not in contention for the title in 97. In actual fact he was 1 point ahead going into the final race.

I think he's showing his lack of Formula 1 knowledge. A quick look at the WDC for that year will show Schumacher with 0 points. Do your research properly next time!

[german tony]

The Benetton had illegal tration control fitted in '94, so that's 1 WDC less as far as I'm concerned. Then you have the following year in which he should not have been allowed to participate having drivem his WDC rival off the road the previous year.

Which leaves us 5 titles at Ferrari with whom the FIA had a special arrangement at the time. We'll remove those then too shall we?

In short, you don't need to play games with stats & youtube to realise that Schuamcher is not worth the effort - & any effort used in trying to convince his fans that they've been had is wasted too. I live in the hope that come the final reckoning (should there be 1) the Schumacher fetishists will be going straight down - something to do with worshipping false idols.

snigger

[mattikake]

profstoff said:

I think this is an interesting way of comparing drivers from different eras but I would like to know how you define being in contention for the title

Well this is it, I'm hiding my opinion behind stats. Being a contender for the WDC is about who *I* viewed as a contender, using my own personal knowledge of F1. I.e. I could've said in '66 JC was a contender, but the H16 engine came too late, even though JC was the clear class of the field and could've won every race again.

Alex97 said:

Mr_Thyroid said:

You say Schumachar was not in contention for the title in 97. In actual fact he was 1 point ahead going into the final race.

I think he's showing his lack of Formula 1 knowledge. A quick look at the WDC for that year will show Schumacher with 0 points. Do your research properly next time!

I was going to reply with - I'm glad you brought '97 up. It's strange, *I look at the stats* and in '97 JV won by a country mile from HHF. Did Schumi even compete? Did he do something so embarassingly terrible for the sport he's been removed from the history books altogether? I don't get it?

Fate meant he was never going to be a contender in '97.

Mr_Thyroid said:

You say Senna was in contention in 92 and Schui was not. Senna finished 4th Schumi finished 3rd.

Senna was Mansell's only real rival and was the only driver to take it to Mansell on a couple of occasions. Of course Senna's challenege eventually faded. Schumi was just the best of the rest, picking up points.

Mr_Thyroid said:

Also in 92 Senna finished 58 points behind Mansell whereas in 96 Schumacher only finished 38 points behind Hill.

...so on comparison, Schumi was also not a challenger in '96 and was never going to be a challenger. It was a fight between JV and DH. It just show's Schumi's consistency of being the best of the rest again.

I mean, to just read the stats and come up with a few hardcore points score figures would be exceedingly dumb, right?

Mr_Thyroid said:

WHAT ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT?

I thought that was obvious. I'm on about p!ssing off Schumi stat fanboys on stats. I wanted to see how much it hurts to use some cold hard figures to make a point.

Seems to be working better than I could possibly have hoped!

[stifler]

Mattikake.

Do you realise the irony of your hatred of the so-called Fanboy?

The irony being that you are possibly the biggest Fanboy that I have ever heard of.

[entropy]

STOP THE COCK!

[profstoff]

mattikake said:

profstoff said:

I think this is an interesting way of comparing drivers from different eras but I would like to know how you define being in contention for the title

Well this is it, I'm hiding my opinion behind stats. Being a contender for the WDC is about who *I* viewed as a contender, using my own personal knowledge of F1. I.e. I could've said in '66 JC was a contender, but the H16 engine came too late, even though JC was the clear class of the field and could've won every race again.

This statement alone makes a nonsense of your analysis. There are lies, damn lies and statistics but your statistics are without foundation. I appreciate what you're doing, I never bought into this Schumi-mania, but you have to have some sense behind it. Define the criteria for "Being in contention" (eg within reach of the title going into the last race, or however you want to define it) then do your stats again.

mattikake said:

I thought that was obvious. I'm on about p!ssing off Schumi stat fanboys on stats. I wanted to see how much it hurts to use some cold hard figures to make a point.

See above, they're not stats it's your opinion.

[Wanta996Gotta]

I dont understand all the negative responses. All i have taken from this is that Schumacher was not as good as the Giants of F1 in Senna,Fangio & Prost etc,etc

Surely this is common knowledge? He was a great Champion of his time as Federer and Woods are today but no-one claims that he is better than Senna,Fangio and Prost.

Edited by Wanta996Gotta on Tuesday 2nd June 12:14

[bosscerbera]

Schumacher won 7 WDCs, others won several WDCs before seatbelts were invented. Who's the daddy? Who cares?

Can't we just prepare a nice, polite petition to Schumi asking him to return the OP's gerbil and bring a speedy end to hostilities?