The Michael Schumacher Debate Thread
Discussion
LDN said:
Taking out the word ‘win’ or ‘won’; the intention of my point is clear as day. And with that in mind; Austria 2001 and Austria 2002 spring to mind; and that’s without any digging. On both occasions; a full blown, unashamed “move over for Michael”. In fact the 2002 incident was so controversial; in the extremity of just how unsportsman like it really was; that it is what sparked the debate on team orders. Add to that, the horrid tactics he’d often employ, he’s a flawed genius.
I’ve never met anyone that denied Schueys obvious skill; he moved the game on with regard fitness and all round dedication. But; is he overrated? Yes, he really is. As well, the game has moved on; as most sports do; and modern drivers have stepped things up to another level. Alonso already showed that against MS!
So you have accepted that Schumacher was only gifted one win by his team mate, we're making some progress. Still no acknowledgement on Malaysia 99 or USA 02 though where he gifted a win to both Irvine and Barichello.I’ve never met anyone that denied Schueys obvious skill; he moved the game on with regard fitness and all round dedication. But; is he overrated? Yes, he really is. As well, the game has moved on; as most sports do; and modern drivers have stepped things up to another level. Alonso already showed that against MS!
Your declarative statement about him being overrated is nothing more that one person's opinion. Plenty will agree with you, plenty more will not.
Alonso beat MS fare and square. To suggest that the game had moved on though is disingenuous to how good he was for nearly 15 years prior to that. If you think that the MS that turned up in Australia 06 was just as quick, determined, hungry and capable as the MS that turned up in Australia 96 then you're an idiot.
Most sporting greats lose that little bit extra that made them special as they get older. Schumacher was no exception. His decline started in 2003 and he was finished by 2006. It's why his comeback was such a calamity, not because the "game moved on".
whatxd said:
LDN said:
Taking out the word ‘win’ or ‘won’; the intention of my point is clear as day. And with that in mind; Austria 2001 and Austria 2002 spring to mind; and that’s without any digging. On both occasions; a full blown, unashamed “move over for Michael”. In fact the 2002 incident was so controversial; in the extremity of just how unsportsman like it really was; that it is what sparked the debate on team orders. Add to that, the horrid tactics he’d often employ, he’s a flawed genius.
I’ve never met anyone that denied Schueys obvious skill; he moved the game on with regard fitness and all round dedication. But; is he overrated? Yes, he really is. As well, the game has moved on; as most sports do; and modern drivers have stepped things up to another level. Alonso already showed that against MS!
So you have accepted that Schumacher was only gifted one win by his team mate, we're making some progress. Still no acknowledgement on Malaysia 99 or USA 02 though where he gifted a win to both Irvine and Barichello.I’ve never met anyone that denied Schueys obvious skill; he moved the game on with regard fitness and all round dedication. But; is he overrated? Yes, he really is. As well, the game has moved on; as most sports do; and modern drivers have stepped things up to another level. Alonso already showed that against MS!
Your declarative statement about him being overrated is nothing more that one person's opinion. Plenty will agree with you, plenty more will not.
Alonso beat MS fare and square. To suggest that the game had moved on though is disingenuous to how good he was for nearly 15 years prior to that. If you think that the MS that turned up in Australia 06 was just as quick, determined, hungry and capable as the MS that turned up in Australia 96 then you're an idiot.
Most sporting greats lose that little bit extra that made them special as they get older. Schumacher was no exception. His decline started in 2003 and he was finished by 2006. It's why his comeback was such a calamity, not because the "game moved on".
Whereas, in every case MS was gifted a win or a position; that was to help him along his way to a championship.
Who’s being disingenuous now?
As far as progress being made; MS being gifted a win / or gifted a position for points is the same thing as far as this debate goes. But you already know that.
We are talking about Schuey enjoying unprecedented number one status; the likes most drivers would be embarrassed by; indeed, in 2002; Schuey said as much; and was even in tears over it.
You don’t know F1. I can tell. You believe MS worthy of his plaudits. I don’t, but happy to agree (to disagree).
LDN said:
You seem pretty wound up by all of this... and without wanting your head to explode; in both cases where MS moved over; there was no championship at stake... right?
Whereas, in every case MS was gifted a win or a position; that was to help him along his way to a championship.
Who’s being disingenuous now?
You don’t know F1. I can tell. You believe MS worthy of his plaudits. I don’t
So I don't know F1 but at the same time you claim there wasn't a championship at stake in 99 when he moved over for Irvine?Whereas, in every case MS was gifted a win or a position; that was to help him along his way to a championship.
Who’s being disingenuous now?
You don’t know F1. I can tell. You believe MS worthy of his plaudits. I don’t
Come on, Lewis Hamilton's PistonHeads PR guy can do better than that, surely
whatxd said:
LDN said:
You seem pretty wound up by all of this... and without wanting your head to explode; in both cases where MS moved over; there was no championship at stake... right?
Whereas, in every case MS was gifted a win or a position; that was to help him along his way to a championship.
Who’s being disingenuous now?
You don’t know F1. I can tell. You believe MS worthy of his plaudits. I don’t
So I don't know F1 but at the same time you claim there wasn't a championship at stake in 99 when he moved over for Irvine?Whereas, in every case MS was gifted a win or a position; that was to help him along his way to a championship.
Who’s being disingenuous now?
You don’t know F1. I can tell. You believe MS worthy of his plaudits. I don’t
Come on, Lewis Hamilton's PistonHeads PR guy can do better than that, surely
My work here is done
Last time it was "you don't know F1" this time it's "got yourself in a right mess".
C'mon, why not respond to what I actually said rather than coming back with some random drivel?
You claimed the two occasions when MS moved aside for his teammate to win, he did so because there wasn't a championship on the line. That is a nonsense claim because the title was very much on the line in 99.
I understand though that spreading the good name of Lewis Hamilton on PistonHeads.com is your forte and that 90's F1 is not a subject you know much about because it predates the one and only, Lewis Hamilton.
C'mon, why not respond to what I actually said rather than coming back with some random drivel?
You claimed the two occasions when MS moved aside for his teammate to win, he did so because there wasn't a championship on the line. That is a nonsense claim because the title was very much on the line in 99.
I understand though that spreading the good name of Lewis Hamilton on PistonHeads.com is your forte and that 90's F1 is not a subject you know much about because it predates the one and only, Lewis Hamilton.
whatxd said:
Last time it was "you don't know F1" this time it's "got yourself in a right mess".
C'mon, why not respond to what I actually said rather than coming back with some random drivel?
You claimed the two occasions when MS moved aside for his teammate to win, he did so because there wasn't a championship on the line. That is a nonsense claim because the title was very much on the line in 99.
I understand though that spreading the good name of Lewis Hamilton on PistonHeads.com is your forte and that 90's F1 is not a subject you know much about because it predates the one and only, Lewis Hamilton.
I meant that Michael didn’t have a championship on the line; of course. And on the other occasion; you agree with me.C'mon, why not respond to what I actually said rather than coming back with some random drivel?
You claimed the two occasions when MS moved aside for his teammate to win, he did so because there wasn't a championship on the line. That is a nonsense claim because the title was very much on the line in 99.
I understand though that spreading the good name of Lewis Hamilton on PistonHeads.com is your forte and that 90's F1 is not a subject you know much about because it predates the one and only, Lewis Hamilton.
So now that last point has been clarified; that’s all of them...
In any case. I respect MS massively. You seem to also. Happy days.
The fact remains that for a number of years Rubens car reliability was very suspect and I cant remember but didnt Michale manage to finsh a huge amount of races without a single failure, while Rubens had numerous mechanicals, engine failures etc.
That for me is more than coincidence I am afraid.
I take nothing away from either, MS was hte best of his time, only beaten by better guys at certain times, sometimes in better cars, sometimes better drivers. But his reign was immense.
Most, with any sense though will point at numerous things, his poor choices of moves in 94, 97 and how anyone can firgoive the monaco parking incident?
This says to me he probably knew what was going on at Benetton in 94 and was all for it, and that was the beginning of it all. Senna knoew it, and I am no Senna fan at all, but he knew there was something going on.
I think simply, there is a lot to like about Michael, but a lot to hate too, not the case with a lot of WC's. You can say the same about Vettel, to some extent even Alonso and Hamilton even and for me you can also say the same about Senna.
But Michael set new standards in ruthlessness, poor moves, literal win at all costs whether they be legal or not.
And that is how I will always remember him I am afraid
That for me is more than coincidence I am afraid.
I take nothing away from either, MS was hte best of his time, only beaten by better guys at certain times, sometimes in better cars, sometimes better drivers. But his reign was immense.
Most, with any sense though will point at numerous things, his poor choices of moves in 94, 97 and how anyone can firgoive the monaco parking incident?
This says to me he probably knew what was going on at Benetton in 94 and was all for it, and that was the beginning of it all. Senna knoew it, and I am no Senna fan at all, but he knew there was something going on.
I think simply, there is a lot to like about Michael, but a lot to hate too, not the case with a lot of WC's. You can say the same about Vettel, to some extent even Alonso and Hamilton even and for me you can also say the same about Senna.
But Michael set new standards in ruthlessness, poor moves, literal win at all costs whether they be legal or not.
And that is how I will always remember him I am afraid
chunder27 said:
But Michael set new standards in ruthlessness, poor moves, literal win at all costs whether they be legal or not.
And that is how I will always remember him I am afraid
I always think the ruthless moves in F1 started with Senna; for me the way he took Prost out at Suzuka in 1990 remains probably the worst piece of driving I've ever seen and just a shame the rules at the time allowed him to keep the championship by doing it. However, by the same token his opening lap at Donington in 1993 was probably the best piece of driving I've ever seen and there's the similarity between Senna and Schumacher; both brilliant drivers but both capable of doing things they didn't need to do given the ability they had.And that is how I will always remember him I am afraid
I agree Schumacher took the level of ruthlessness shown by Senna and moved it up a level and I also agree that a) something dodgy was going on at Benetton in 1994 and b) Schumacher must have known about it. So personally I think Schumacher was a terrific driver but I also think the way he sometimes went about things taints his reputation somewhat; perhaps wanting to see people win in the right way is a bit of a British thing but too often Schuey failed in that respect IMHO.
Having said that I certainly wouldn't have wished upon him the awful accident he suffered and it's very sad to hear of his current condition; I would like to think there's still a chance he'll improve significantly but I get the impression the nature of his head injury makes that very unlikely....
JNW, I agree fully.
Michael basically drove an F1 car like a go kart both in setup, style and ruthlessness. That single mindedness has to be admired.
But like Senna, his inability to judge the human level was perhaps even worse. Senna could be amazingly kind, very human and very caring.
But on track he was a ruthless, arrogant, nasty piece of work as Jackie put to him and you saw the petulant, childish response. Senna was a little boy in many ways, a real man in others, a real mixture.
Schumacher to me was far more ruthless for longer, he showed little of the humanity Ayrton did publicly, though he was obviously a very decent fella to thousands of people and his family.
One thing about him I do admire is his ability to rally people around him, he was a real leader in that respect in a way I doubt any other will be. You can see others trying to replicate it, but not get close.
Michael basically drove an F1 car like a go kart both in setup, style and ruthlessness. That single mindedness has to be admired.
But like Senna, his inability to judge the human level was perhaps even worse. Senna could be amazingly kind, very human and very caring.
But on track he was a ruthless, arrogant, nasty piece of work as Jackie put to him and you saw the petulant, childish response. Senna was a little boy in many ways, a real man in others, a real mixture.
Schumacher to me was far more ruthless for longer, he showed little of the humanity Ayrton did publicly, though he was obviously a very decent fella to thousands of people and his family.
One thing about him I do admire is his ability to rally people around him, he was a real leader in that respect in a way I doubt any other will be. You can see others trying to replicate it, but not get close.
JNW1 said:
I always think the ruthless moves in F1 started with Senna; for me the way he took Prost out at Suzuka in 1990 remains probably the worst piece of driving I've ever seen
In isolation i agree ...but in the context of '89 & specifically Suzuka '89 everyone knew what was comingangrymoby said:
JNW1 said:
I always think the ruthless moves in F1 started with Senna; for me the way he took Prost out at Suzuka in 1990 remains probably the worst piece of driving I've ever seen
In isolation i agree ...but in the context of '89 & specifically Suzuka '89 everyone knew what was comingI take your point about it being at least in part retribution for Suzuka 1989 but for me the two events had little in common other than both featuring Senna and Prost; one was a clumsy closing of the door at a low-speed chicane with no other cars around, the other quite deliberately ramming the other off the track at high speed and with 20-odd other cars close behind. I think we all knew Senna would happily take Prost off given half a chance but I don't think many of us thought he'd do what he did at that first corner!
Quite why the rules weren't changed after that to prevent world championships being won in that way I don't know; if they had been perhaps Schumacher would have thought twice about driving into Damon Hill at Adelaide in 1994 but equally I suppose he might have done it anyway and then tried to argue it was just a racing incident after the event?
Derek Smith said:
Odd, then, that after Johnny Herbert outqualified Schumacher, gaining pole, he was not allowed access to Schumacher's data but Schumacher was allowed full access to his.
Why would Johnny want to see data that revealed how to go slower ?Johnny was quick, but MS was usually quicker. All down to his bespoke technique and commitment.
Silverstone data overlays here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtaV_cOGgTM
Edited by sparta6 on Saturday 8th September 10:00
JNW1 said:
angrymoby said:
JNW1 said:
I always think the ruthless moves in F1 started with Senna; for me the way he took Prost out at Suzuka in 1990 remains probably the worst piece of driving I've ever seen
In isolation i agree ...but in the context of '89 & specifically Suzuka '89 everyone knew what was comingI take your point about it being at least in part retribution for Suzuka 1989 but for me the two events had little in common other than both featuring Senna and Prost; one was a clumsy closing of the door at a low-speed chicane with no other cars around, the other quite deliberately ramming the other off the track at high speed and with 20-odd other cars close behind. I think we all knew Senna would happily take Prost off given half a chance but I don't think many of us thought he'd do what he did at that first corner!
JNW1 said:
Quite why the rules weren't changed after that to prevent world championships being won in that way I don't know; if they had been perhaps Schumacher would have thought twice about driving into Damon Hill at Adelaide in 1994 but equally I suppose he might have done it anyway and then tried to argue it was just a racing incident after the event?
Wouldn't have made any difference in 1994 as the stewards saw no issues with the collision and deemed it a racing incident which, of course, it was!cb1965 said:
JNW1 said:
Quite why the rules weren't changed after that to prevent world championships being won in that way I don't know; if they had been perhaps Schumacher would have thought twice about driving into Damon Hill at Adelaide in 1994 but equally I suppose he might have done it anyway and then tried to argue it was just a racing incident after the event?
Wouldn't have made any difference in 1994 as the stewards saw no issues with the collision and deemed it a racing incident which, of course, it was!
I don't dispute Schumacher was a top driver but IMHO he didn't deserve the title in 1994; little doubt he amassed points early in the season as a result of his team cheating and I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he crashed into Hill at Adelaide. The move he tried on Villeneuve in 1997 proved he had it in him to try to deliberately take a rival off in order to win a title and personally I think that's precisely what he did (and got away with) in 1994. At the time his track record for being ruthless wasn't quite so well established so maybe the stewards gave him the benefit of the doubt (wrongly in my view).
cb1965 said:
I actually think Senna pushing Prost against the pitwall in Estoril was as bad as Suzuka and certainly as bad as Schumacher/Barrichello, but no one (other than Prost) seems to remember it. I guess they would if Senna had been German.
I remember it and agree that move wasn't great either; however, Prost was never pushed over the white line at the edge of the track and his wheels were never anywhere near as close to the pit wall as Barrichello's were at Hungary in 2010 following the move by Schumacher. The videos of both are on YouTube and I think most would say Schumacher's move on Rubens was the worse of the two (although neither was good). I don't think there's really much of a comparison between Estoril 1988 and Suzuka 1990; in the former the two never really came close to contact but in the latter they did and, given the pre-meditated nature of the collision, that incident was far worse IMO.
However, looking back I do think the move by Senna at Estoril marked the start of the deterioration in his relationship with Prost; Imola the following year obviously ignited the flames but I think it was all simmering after that squeeze on the pit straight at Estoril.
JNW1 said:
cb1965 said:
JNW1 said:
Quite why the rules weren't changed after that to prevent world championships being won in that way I don't know; if they had been perhaps Schumacher would have thought twice about driving into Damon Hill at Adelaide in 1994 but equally I suppose he might have done it anyway and then tried to argue it was just a racing incident after the event?
Wouldn't have made any difference in 1994 as the stewards saw no issues with the collision and deemed it a racing incident which, of course, it was!I don't dispute Schumacher was a top driver but IMHO he didn't deserve the title in 1994; little doubt he amassed points early in the season as a result of his team cheating and I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he crashed into Hill at Adelaide. The move he tried on Villeneuve in 1997 proved he had it in him to try to deliberately take a rival off in order to win a title and personally I think that's precisely what he did (and got away with) in 1994. At the time his track record for being ruthless wasn't quite so well established so maybe the stewards gave him the benefit of the doubt (wrongly in my view).
I disagree with most of what you say btw, but really what's the point as my opinion won't be swayed and yours won't either so let's leave it there.cb1965 said:
JNW1 said:
cb1965 said:
JNW1 said:
Quite why the rules weren't changed after that to prevent world championships being won in that way I don't know; if they had been perhaps Schumacher would have thought twice about driving into Damon Hill at Adelaide in 1994 but equally I suppose he might have done it anyway and then tried to argue it was just a racing incident after the event?
Wouldn't have made any difference in 1994 as the stewards saw no issues with the collision and deemed it a racing incident which, of course, it was!I don't dispute Schumacher was a top driver but IMHO he didn't deserve the title in 1994; little doubt he amassed points early in the season as a result of his team cheating and I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he crashed into Hill at Adelaide. The move he tried on Villeneuve in 1997 proved he had it in him to try to deliberately take a rival off in order to win a title and personally I think that's precisely what he did (and got away with) in 1994. At the time his track record for being ruthless wasn't quite so well established so maybe the stewards gave him the benefit of the doubt (wrongly in my view).
I disagree with most of what you say btw, but really what's the point as my opinion won't be swayed and yours won't either so let's leave it there.). However, in the context of this thread I was just making the point Herr Schumacher would stop at nothing in order to win - even if that meant doing something illegal and/or unsporting - and IMO Hill was just an unfortunate victim of that at Adelaide in 1994.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff