Not Strictly Historic but.

[Peter Mallett]

What do the regulars on this forum think about Michael Schumacher? For my money he's good but not that good. He's definitely flawed and as such has won at least two devalued championships.

In this forum we twend to think about past achievements in their context. What about this man though because someday he will be a subject of history.

[Ray Bell]

Would a response like "The sooner the better..." give you some indication?

[Vitesse]

Too ruthless, no sportsman, no gentleman, self-opinionated, self-centred, cheating b*****d ... need I go on??

The sort of guy who picks up the ball and takes it home with him if he's losing ...

Nevertheless I admire his talent as a driver - but it doesn't mean I have to like him! I felt pretty much the same about Senna and Piquet too ...

And I'll definitely go with Ray's answer!!!

[marcus]

Michael who ????

he is good there is no doubting it ..I am not a fan nor am I a Michael hater..he is very good but just how he goes down in history remains to be seen.

[fines]

About the person, I think he oozes mediocrity in everything he does (except his driving, of course!), and he's completely devoid of humour - call that a square! Enough to make me wince whenever I see him. Maybe it's just a clash of personalities, but I thoroughly dislike the man.

About the racing driver, hmm. There's no denying he's been the best over the last, say ten years or so, even if I think that over short periods Damon Hill and Mika Häkkinen have been better, but consistency is on Schumacher's side, so overall I'd say he's the best. I can't stand those suggestions that he wouldn't have won a Mille Miglia in the fifties or a Targa Florio before WW1, that's bull. You can't compare that, and you can always only be the best of your time, so there's no point. Would Nazzaro win in today's Formula 1, or Moss? Thought not...

Now you look at his sporting behaviour, and the way he treats his rivals - yes, there's a big difference to the greats of the past (except for Senna, of course). But isn't he only the product of his times? Read a Button interview and you'll see it will become even worse! I think in the end it comes down to a general decline in personal values, as you can see in every aspect of life. I don't like it, but who am I to fight windmills? If the public supports 'heroes' like this, then so be it - I just lose my interest in the current form of this sport bit by bit. There are precious few current drivers whose views I still respect, let alone admire, and they're are mostly not amongst the best. I just hope we'll see another Damon Hill pretty soon.

[Ray Bell]

Oh,Michael, you're not looking for integrity are you?

[fines]

I guess that was what I was trying to say...

[Peter Mallett]

Ray thats the word. INTEGRITY.

I don't believe the overhyped drivers of today have any at all. That being so we should maybe refocus our attention and assess them on today's terms.

As such there is no denying that TGF is the best out there today. I think its a shamr though.

[TimD]

I feel like a lone voice crying in the wilderness here. It seems that amongst connoisseurs of the old school, there is precious little good to be said for Mr Schumacher.

I have to disagree with much that has been said.

In interview, I have only been struck by a young man possessed of the self confidence which comes from an assurance that he's at the peak of his craft. To many that would be indistinguishable from arrogance. But if you have an opportunity, look back and play interviews from 1991-3, as he was just starting to become fulfil his potential as a Formula 1 driver, and see the excited kid who can't quite believe he's standing alongside the kings.

My favourite moment? An interviewer after (I think) the '93 British GP.

Interviewer - "With this result, you're now third in the World Championship"

Schumacher (surprised) - "I am? That's - nice!"

He's still the same person, just more assured, more certain of his place in the history books.

Now then - on-track tactics. Unprincipled? Perhaps. Although it has to be said that a career of ten seasons seems to be characterised by many people on the basis of two split-seconds. And I have to say, I can't forgive him for 1997, if for nothing else, because I lost an expensive wager with someone specifically on whether Michael would try to take Villeneuve off if he had the opportunity! Cost me £50 that did!

Whether it was plotted or planned, I don't know. I rather doubt it, but I wonder if any criticism can be levelled, it should be on the grounds of impetuosity. A recklessness which clouded better judgement.

Which is what helps me to contextualise him. He is not my favourite, not amongst current competitors, and certainly not in terms of the history we are blessed with. The drivers I rank above him as a rule are more analytical, more thoughtful, or who instinctively pull away from a confrontation knowing that there will always be another corner, another braking point, another race, another championship to win.

Perhaps he's a product of his age - a product of a time where "now" is more important than anything else. When historical context counts for precious little in the eyes of the majority. When "past" is categorised as unimportant, slower, uncompetitive, irrelevant.

I enjoy watching Michael Schumacher race - certainly more than I did Senna - but I prefer watching Nuvolari, Moss, Stewart and Alboreto.

[TimD]

Oh, and Fines, I'll bet that Nazzaro and Moss would win comfortably in today's F1. But I'm certain they wouldn't enjoy it as much.

Farina would though.

[fines]

Why Farina?

[fines]

One thing I forgot is that, whenever racing greats are discussed, I always tend to favour those who had fewer accidents, like Varzi or Carraciola, because I think that's an extra measure of greatness that is often forgotten. Bearing that in mind, I think it's remarkable that, for example Senna had about 25 times as many accidents as Prost, or Schumacher about 20 as many as Häkkinen, at comparable overall speed.

[TimD]

Why Farina, you ask?

Simply because of all the giants of the 1950s, he had the reputation for the most "robust" driving style. Without for one second suggesting an absence of ethics, or a cavalier attitude, he was the most difficult to pass, the last person to willingly concede a place.

Stirling Moss has it that Farina was "hard". Not dirty, just "hard".

Of all of them, I reckon he would fit in best in this day and age.



I like your analysis taking into account a driver's accident rate. One has to be careful though to distinguish between carelessness, recklessness, mechanical failure and sheer rotten luck.

After all, if counting accidents as a cause of DNF, you could be unwittingly biased against Trevor Taylor, for example. Poor Trevor had an almighty accident at Spa when a Ferrari kissed his gear selector and knocked him into neutral. He even had an accident in Rouen when cresting a rise and finding the start/finish straight entirely blocked by the Gendarmerie!

[fines]

Originally posted by TimD
Stirling Moss has it that Farina was "hard". Not dirty, just "hard".

Ok, but I don't think he'd "enjoy" driving today! Farina was a bit of a loner, he didn't care too much for his fellow drivers. But not on the road! I wouldn't for a minute think he would either act like Tomas Enge in yesterday's F3000 race, nor that he'd accept such behaviour when in the position of Wilson. Let's face it, driving standards have sunk to a dramatically low level, and one of the reasons for that is that Michael Schumacher constantly gets away with his 'dirty' driving. Ok, it's the rules so you can't blame him, but the rules are BAD!!!

On a lighter note, last night I stunned some fellas discussing whether Schumacher would break "the" record by quipping: "I'd rather have him break his legs again than the record..."

[Jeroen Brink]

Schumacher triggered my preference for the previous eras of the sport.

Plus let me quote Nigel Roebuck in one of his milder comments on this person: "even if MS wins 100 GPs, he'll never be the equal of Prost"

[Vanwall]

The majority of posters here are in excellent company. I read the following quote from Jackie Stewart some three years ago in an excellent article in The (London) Times*. JYS concedes that MS is the current best there is but he had a wee sting to deliver: "But he has something I don't think is healthy. He has something I hope I never had." He referred to what he saw as MS' arrogance on the track. "Ayrton Senna had it and Michael has it. I never thought Ayrton reached his full potential because something was missing from his CV."

Sums it up beautifully to me. And the sad thing is that commercialisation is tending to make this attitude the rule rather than the exception.

Vanwall.

*Find it at : http://www.times-archive.co.uk/cgi-bin/BackIssue

[Vitesse]

There's also his arrogance off the track: I heard a story some years back describing how MS was gently reminded at Kyalami (1992?) that it was not the done thing to walk through the lobby of his hotel clad in nothing but swimming trunks - his answer: "Don't you know who I am???"

And I fully endorse your last paragraph Vanwall ...

[Diabando]

Wow..this is not what I expected to be reading in the hictoric forum today!

Like Tim, I have watched Michael since his debut. Whether or not I am a Schumi fan is irrelevant to this topic, what is relevant is how I think he will be "seen" in, say, 20 years.

Which is my problem, and here comes a good question for someone:

Who is that guy, who raced in the World Motorcycle Championship (500cc??) many many many years ago, who has the most number of wins? I know that people were getting excited because M. Doohan was getting close to his record, and people wondered if he would beat it (sorry, I am not good on motorcycle history - Muff??).

Anyway, this man is seen as less than satisfactory. It is commonly thrown about that the only reason he reached his record total number of wins was because he was on a far superior bike than the rest of the field, for numerous years, and thus dominated the sport. M. Doohan will in people hearts, be the man who won the most races fairly, regardless of what is written in statistics.

Geeze - I wish I could remember his name...think it starts with "A"

Thus, what I am trying to say, is that I feel Schumi will be seen the same way, but for different reasons.

At that time (with the bikes) there was very little parity, and then things changed. With regard to Schumi, I feel he will be seen as "the person who took advantage of the 90's issues regarding rules".

I think he will go down in history for many records being broken, but never as a fair, honest driver.

Which is a shame, becasue I think he is ace.

[Vanwall]

Diabando, leaping onto bikes scares me in more ways than one, but are you perchance referring to Giacomo Agostino?

Thought he was good.

Cheers, Vanwall.

[Vitesse]

He may perchance be referring to Giacomo Agostini - not so much a mistake as a typing error???

[Peter Mallett]

Do you mean a typo?

[Vitesse]

Or a typi

[angst]

Anybody who is active here and the F1 forum will be aware that I am no fan of Michael Schumacher. As for his position in he history of the sport, well I think there ae a few developments hat will have an effect on that.
I truly believe that a fair section of his wins have been achieved without the fullest regard for the regulations, shall we say. When this happens there are inevitably a number of people who have to be involved and /or possess information about it. At some point someone will let something slip. Then all the 'achievements' will have a very different slant on them.
I believe him to be a very good driver, but I don't believe him to be better than a number of his contemporaries. The likes of Hakkinen, Alesi, Hill, Frentzen, Villeneuve are all drivers who, I think, all things being equal would be pretty level.
Remember that in his F3 days he was regularly beaten by Frentzen and Wendlinger and that the Mercedes sportscar team believed Frentzen to be the better of the two. And if he's that good why is it he insists on his teammates complete subservience. Johhny Herbert recounted that after first practice at the Brazilian Grand Prix, where Johnny was very, very close to Schumacher's pace, the team informed him that from now on he would not be privvy to set-up info from Michael's car - bu that he would still have access to Johnny's info. That strikes me as someone who is not particularly confident in their ability to beat their teammate.
As for his personality, I don't think I have seen a more false individual in my life. He is like a very, very poor actor in post-race interviews. His whole persona is an act.
That's my view of Michael Schumacher.

By the way, the idea of Nazzaro or Moss or Farina in today's cars - now that would be interesting to see.

[Vanwall]

So it's open season on typos, eh? Yum, this is rich soil to till!

[Vitesse]

I notice you've edited that post Vanwall - it didn't have a typo in it by any chance did it???