Michael Schumacher

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Valentino Is God @ Mar 15 2007, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I like to make myself clear!
yes, we get that
It's cool..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Alex @ Mar 15 2007, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Could I just ask - why is your forum username: 'Franco Fangio' if you're a huge AS fan? Cheers.
lol
That has a different reason man. For some reason my brother started calling me Franco. That was years ago (I think like 8 years ago). So, Franco just became my nickname (don't think I'm trying to be a guy ).
I'm not sure bout the Fangio thing. I guess I thought it sounded cool

The thing is I support so many people, from Kimi to Senna and also football and tennis players, so I just use ''Franco Fangio''. You have to admit, it's kinda cool I cant blame people for sometimes thinking I'm a guy when they only know my username..ow well..




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Alex @ Mar 15 2007, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'd do the same but get my head bitten off mate!

EDIT:Got to go, talk tommorow !
Of course..I bet it's already bedtime for you
Kidding..

As has been said, saying who is the best ever is extremely difficult, if not impossible. I just tend to put them in three categories.

In the first, the indisputable legends of the sport, the masters. Senna, Clark, Schumi, Fangio, Prost, and Stewart.

Then you have guys that were very quick, but whom possibly didnt achieve everything they could have done, and as a result are quite underrated. In this group I normally have Mansell, Graham Hill (imagine what he could have done if he'd started racing earlier), Damon Hill for the same reasons, and a special mention for Stirling Moss, who is a WC in my eyes no matter what the record books say!!

Then you have the drivers who were tragically killed before they had a chance to show us the full extent of their talent, drivers like Von Trips, Peterson and the immortal Gilles Villeneuve. Lets not forget Cevert and Bellof either.

Thats how I sort em anyway. Picking just one from all that lot? I'd rather not

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Orrmate @ Mar 15 2007, 10:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As has been said, saying who is the best ever is extremely difficult, if not impossible. I just tend to put them in three categories.

In the first, the indisputable legends of the sport, the masters. Senna, Clark, Schumi, Fangio, Prost, and Stewart.

Then you have guys that were very quick, but whom possibly didnt achieve everything they could have done, and as a result are quite underrated. In this group I normally have Mansell, Graham Hill (imagine what he could have done if he'd started racing earlier), Damon Hill for the same reasons, and a special mention for Stirling Moss, who is a WC in my eyes no matter what the record books say!!

Then you have the drivers who were tragically killed before they had a chance to show us the full extent of their talent, drivers like Von Trips, Peterson and the immortal Gilles Villeneuve. Lets not forget Cevert and Bellof either.

Thats how I sort em anyway. Picking just one from all that lot? I'd rather not

Just remove Schumi from the top group and you've got it!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Orrmate @ Mar 15 2007, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As has been said, saying who is the best ever is extremely difficult, if not impossible. I just tend to put them in three categories.

In the first, the indisputable legends of the sport, the masters. Senna, Clark, Schumi, Fangio, Prost, and Stewart.

Then you have guys that were very quick, but whom possibly didnt achieve everything they could have done, and as a result are quite underrated. In this group I normally have Mansell, Graham Hill (imagine what he could have done if he'd started racing earlier), Damon Hill for the same reasons, and a special mention for Stirling Moss, who is a WC in my eyes no matter what the record books say!!

Then you have the drivers who were tragically killed before they had a chance to show us the full extent of their talent, drivers like Von Trips, Peterson and the immortal Gilles Villeneuve. Lets not forget Cevert and Bellof either.

Thats how I sort em anyway. Picking just one from all that lot? I'd rather not
Yeah man, and that's totally understandable!!!
Sometimes I'm talking with people about this subject, and we then try to figure out who the best one is, but we can't figure that out I think.
If you look at the different eras, it's clear to see that the cars are so much different from each other. Nowadays safety is a normal thing in f1, back then, it wasn't. Because of these circumstances we can't decide who the best one is.

My top 3 is:
Senna, Schumacher and Clark (not necesarrily in this order)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Valentino Is God @ Mar 15 2007, 11:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Just remove Schumi from the top group and you've got it!
Where does MS belong in your opinion?

Schumi has been a great driver that i will not deny.
But even if he has won 7 world titles putting him up with Senna and Clark is over the top.
Of his titles:
1994 - he cheated
1995 - fair play he won that year easily - with the best car.
2000 - 2004 he always had the best car and whenever Barrichello even got near him the team orders were put into place.

So how can you say that he is one of the very best drivers ever?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Valentino Is God @ Mar 15 2007, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Schumi has been a great driver that i will not deny.
But even if he has won 7 world titles putting him up with Senna and Clark is over the top.
Of his titles:
1994 - he cheated
1995 - fair play he won that year easily - with the best car.
2000 - 2004 he always had the best car and whenever Barrichello even got near him the team orders were put into place.

So how can you say that he is one of the very best drivers ever?
Well, I will try to explain it to you

94: Schumacher was simply the better one during that season. They fought for the title till the very last race. If we look at the total amount of points I think MS did a better job overall. Stats show he had 92 points and Damon had 91, but MS wasn't allowed to race for 2 races and he was also disqualified 2 times (one time a victory and the other time a 2nd place I think). Those 2 disqualifications costed him 16 points!!! And the two times he wasn't allowed to race probably costed him points as well. Don't get me wrong now, I'm sure there were reasons for not letting MS race those 2 races, and to disqualify him for 2 other races, but my point is that Damon wouldn't be so close if that wasn't the case. Michael was the deserved winner in 1994!!! I want to say, I dont like/approve what he did in Adelaide, but regardless of that, MS was the deserved winner that season (IMHO).

95: Yes, he won that year easily, with indeed the best car (LIKE DAMON HILL IN 96..Like I said before, the one in the best car usually wins, that's just the way it is).

00-04: Yes, he often had the best car. So?? Is that a bad thing? He moved to Ferrari in 96 to do exactly that (make ferrari a winning team again!!!) In 2002 and 2004 the ferrari was dominant, but in 2003 they weren't dominant, they did win, and I dare to say that someone else (in the Ferrari) wouldn't have won the title in 2003, but michael did. In the end Ferrari was indeed the best, but they weren't that strong (in comparison to 02 and 04). In 2000 MS won, but I have to say mclaren was also very strong that season.
About barrichello..eventhough I do think Barri is a good driver, he's not a match for MS. He's NOT a real winner, otherwise he would never have played 2nd fiddle to MS. I, again, do not approve these things (letting one driver play 2nd fiddle), but Ferrari felt they had to do that in order to win as much as they could. That's exactly what happened, MS won 5 titles in a row. I obviously remember austria 2002, we all do. That was just SAD!!!! I didnt like that at all!!! But still, regardless of these things, MS was simply the better one. Barrichello is a very solid driver, but he's just not a real winner, like DC for example, who also played 2nd fiddle to his teammates at mclaren, only at mclaren they dont do it as obvious as ferrari.

So, to answer your question: So how can you say that he is one of the very best drivers ever?

It's quite simple actually. MS won in 94 and he deserved to (not talking about adelaide, but talking bout the whole season). In 95 he again won. No doubts I think about whether he deserved to win or not.
After winning two titles in a row Michael had the courage to go to ferrari and built with them together to a winning team (Like Valentino did when he moved to Yamaha, he also felt he needed a new challenge, I have great respect for both Vale and MS for doing that!!). I think that was a great thing to do. He went to ferrari and it started out bad, but through the years he made them (with brawn of course) a winning team again. He fought with JV for the title in 97, but in the end he lost out. Villeneuve had the better car without a doubt!!! Willams was really the best team that year. Still MS managed to score 78 points (to JV's 81 points!!!!). I think that shows how good MS performed in 97.
MS won 7 titles, he could (and I think would )have won last season (and made it title number 8) if he didnt have that blown engine!!! I know ifs dont count, but I am 100% sure that he would have won in 99 as well. I mean..IF Eddie Irvine almost won it, then MS would have won it for sure (if it wasn't for his broken leg after the silverstone crash!!). This all being said, MS is also a very very complete driver and the passion he has to win, and the hard work through the years make him without doubt one of the best EVER (IMO)!!!
Not even to mention he never complained about his team performances in public (when things werent goin well..early ferrari time), something what Fernando for example did do.

So, imo, it's really NOT ''over the top'' to put him in the same league as the great Ayrton Senna and Jim Clark.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Franco Fangio @ Mar 15 2007, 11:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well, I will try to explain it to you

94: Schumacher was simply the better one during that season. They fought for the title till the very last race. If we look at the total amount of points I think MS did a better job overall. Stats show he had 92 points and Damon had 91, but MS wasn't allowed to race for 2 races and he was also disqualified 2 times (one time a victory and the other time a 2nd place I think). Those 2 disqualifications costed him 16 points!!! And the two times he wasn't allowed to race probably costed him points as well. Don't get me wrong now, I'm sure there were reasons for not letting MS race those 2 races, and to disqualify him for 2 other races, but my point is that Damon wouldn't be so close if that wasn't the case. Michael was the deserved winner in 1994!!! I want to say, I dont like/approve what he did in Adelaide, but regardless of that, MS was the deserved winner that season (IMHO).

95: Yes, he won that year easily, with indeed the best car (LIKE DAMON HILL IN 96..Like I said before, the one in the best car usually wins, that's just the way it is).

00-04: Yes, he often had the best car. So?? Is that a bad thing? He moved to Ferrari in 96 to do exactly that (make ferrari a winning team again!!!) In 2002 and 2004 the ferrari was dominant, but in 2003 they weren't dominant, they did win, and I dare to say that someone else (in the Ferrari) wouldn't have won the title in 2003, but michael did. In the end Ferrari was indeed the best, but they weren't that strong (in comparison to 02 and 04). In 2000 MS won, but I have to say mclaren was also very strong that season.
About barrichello..eventhough I do think Barri is a good driver, he's not a match for MS. He's NOT a real winner, otherwise he would never have played 2nd fiddle to MS. I, again, do not approve these things (letting one driver play 2nd fiddle), but Ferrari felt they had to do that in order to win as much as they could. That's exactly what happened, MS won 5 titles in a row. I obviously remember austria 2002, we all do. That was just SAD!!!! I didnt like that at all!!! But still, regardless of these things, MS was simply the better one. Barrichello is a very solid driver, but he's just not a real winner, like DC for example, who also played 2nd fiddle to his teammates at mclaren, only at mclaren they dont do it as obvious as ferrari.

So, to answer your question: So how can you say that he is one of the very best drivers ever?

It's quite simple actually. MS won in 94 and he deserved to (not talking about adelaide, but talking bout the whole season). In 95 he again won. No doubts I think about whether he deserved to win or not.
After winning two titles in a row Michael had the courage to go to ferrari and built with them together to a winning team (Like Valentino did when he moved to Yamaha, he also felt he needed a new challenge, I have great respect for both Vale and MS for doing that!!). I think that was a great thing to do. He went to ferrari and it started out bad, but through the years he made them (with brawn of course) a winning team again. He fought with JV for the title in 97, but in the end he lost out. Villeneuve had the better car without a doubt!!! Willams was really the best team that year. Still MS managed to score 78 points (to JV's 81 points!!!!). I think that shows how good MS performed in 97.
MS won 7 titles, he could (and I think would )have won last season (and made it title number 8) if he didnt have that blown engine!!! I know ifs dont count, but I am 100% sure that he would have won in 99 as well. I mean..IF Eddie Irvine almost won it, then MS would have won it for sure (if it wasn't for his broken leg after the silverstone crash!!). This all being said, MS is also a very very complete driver and the passion he has to win, and the hard work through the years make him without doubt one of the best EVER (IMO)!!!
Not even to mention he never complained about his team performances in public (when things werent goin well..early ferrari time), something what Fernando for example did do.

So, imo, it's really NOT ''over the top'' to put him in the same league as the great Ayrton Senna and Jim Clark.

Cheers for that, a solid good read and i agree with all that is written

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Valentino Is God @ Mar 15 2007, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The simple and correct answer is that he was a cheat.


I like you!

...and Jumkie's gonna get to like you too,.....in fact, he might like you so much, he'll eat you!!!!!!!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Alex @ Mar 16 2007, 09:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'> Nice one. Franco 'Fangio' has replied with a very good answer though.
Yes, of course!!!! Franco Fangio is a very smart ...., that's why!!

Sorry but Schumacher is not as good as Senna and Prost were.

You say that in 1994 he lost 16 points through being disqualified, but where would he have come in these races without cheating?

From 2000 - 2004 he had the best car. What i am saying is that almost any driver on the grid could have won the titles had they have being driving the ferrari.

Senna and co. were not cheats like Schumacher and did not always have the best car and so Schumacher cannot be grouped with them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Valentino Is God @ Mar 16 2007, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>From 2000 - 2004 he had the best car. What i am saying is that almost any driver on the grid could have won the titles had they have being driving the ferrari.

Shumacher made that ferrari what it was though, before him they were a joke, its like the Doohan thing. He had the best bike but he earned it and developed it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 16 2007, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Shumacher made that ferrari what it was though, before him they were a joke, its like the Doohan thing. He had the best bike but he earned it and developed it.

Ferrari were always one of the best teams probably 3rd best after Williams and Bennetton who both pretty much shot themselves in the foot - look at where Williams are now and where Benetton were before Renault came along in 2002.

In 1994 - 1995 Ferrari had Alesi and Berger as drivers - that is why they were not so good!

So saying Schumacher was THE reason Ferrari became so good is wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Valentino Is God @ Mar 16 2007, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So saying Schumacher was THE reason Ferrari became so good is wrong.

I agree, saying he was THE reason is quite shortsighted, but he made a large difference to the car and the team. Enough so to say that he didnt just get the best car and go win.

As for his earlier titles. Enven though there was controversey regarding the final race, Shumacher had shown himself to be the better driver all year in 94, despite the slightly inferior ford engine compared to Damons renault. In 95 he got himslef on equal engine terms and kicked ..., again proving his superiority. That is why he moved to a weaker team, new challange required.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Valentino Is God @ Mar 16 2007, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sorry but Schumacher is not as good as Senna and Prost were.

You say that in 1994 he lost 16 points through being disqualified, but where would he have come in these races without cheating?

From 2000 - 2004 he had the best car. What i am saying is that almost any driver on the grid could have won the titles had they have being driving the ferrari.

Senna and co. were not cheats like Schumacher and did not always have the best car and so Schumacher cannot be grouped with them.
Of course you can think that, we all have our opinions.
But to me it's more than clear he does belong in the same league as Prost and Senna. Actually I think MS is better than Prost. I think both Ayrton and MS are better drivers than Alain was. Obviously Alain was a great driver too, he was such a smooth and calculated driver, and obviously he won those 4 titles because of that!!!!

You know, in 02 and 04 probably any driver on the grid would have won if they were driving the Ferrari. But evenso, that has nothing to do with the fact MS is great or not. It's a fact that MS (with people like Brawn around him) built with ferrari to a winning team. That's why they were so great in 00-04. The hard work from 96 on resulted in them being a great team in the following years. So, to say..''he had a dominant car'' is true, but because of his hard work the team got to so far in the first place. That's why MS is imo one of the greatest ever. He has the ability to be the absolute number one. Ferrari knew that, that's why they wanted him, and MS knew he could do it, that's why he made the move to Ferrari in 96. People always complain about MS being the number 1 driver in the team. That indeed was the case, BUT why do you think he was? I rather see 2 drivers getting fair chances and battling it out (let that be clear!!!), BUT I do understand it from Ferrari's point of view though. Their aim was to win titles. That's what they wanted, and they knew they could do exactly that by having MS as the absolute number one. And he proved over and over again he absolutely WAS the number ONE!! The man won 5 titles in a row, not just because he had a winning able car, BUT because he is a true winner. At least I think so....

When Senna won, he ALWAYS had the best car. That's a fact, BUT I do realise he had Alain as his teammate in 88, and Ayrton beat him that year, and in 89 it was the other way around. Ow, I dont think Senna was always that fair either. People always seem to think he was, but he wasn't always, BUT I don't mind, cause these things made him (and that's also the case with MS) the great champ he was. He didnt care about 2nd place, all he cared for was winning..winning at ALL costs!!! I have respect for that, it only shows me they are REAL winners.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Mar 16 2007, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I agree, saying he was THE reason is quite shortsighted, but he made a large difference to the car and the team. Enough so to say that he didnt just get the best car and go win.

As for his earlier titles. Enven though there was controversey regarding the final race, Shumacher had shown himself to be the better driver all year in 94, despite the slightly inferior ford engine compared to Damons renault. In 95 he got himslef on equal engine terms and kicked ..., again proving his superiority. That is why he moved to a weaker team, new challange required.

Yeah, exactly!!
People only seem to remember Adelaide 94, but you know..the season had more races than Adelaide! Of course it wasn't nice what he did, but he definitely deserved to win in 94, cause..he simply was the better one overall.
That's why it was deserved, not just because he had more points, but he really did a better job that season.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Alex @ Mar 16 2007, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah but all teams have their 'slump' years and more often than not the big teams bounce back! Williams didn't do well last year, but they have still done extremely good things for F1 and won the title for Damon Hill in 1997. Fine it's 10 years ago but at least they're still a relatively good force in F1, I can see them bouncing back in the future.
You say that Bennetton (aka Renault now) were crap but Renault are 2 time defending constructor's champions, so like I said with Williams, they could also bounce back!

Hill won in 96..JV won in 97!!

I agree with some of what you say and yes maybe Schumacher was better than Prost.

The problem with watching Michael race was that Barrichello was never allowed to overtake this made many races very boring aswell.

But Senna was another level altogether, just wish he could have been around longer and shown Schumi who the real boss was.