Winning Cars...NOT!

[Gt_R]

i promised i aint gonna thread in the Anti-Schuey post...but saw something that i would like to ask.

I heard somebody say that Michael Schumacher has never proven himself as he had ever winning cars...

And whoever that is seriously think that the 96 Ferrari and 92 Benetton is a winning car? Being 3rd in the championship doesnt equate that it is a winning car, for christ sake! Williams in 2000 is 3rd...did they win anything?? And RALF AND JENSON were widely praised as excellent drivers...no?

Before MS joined Ferrari...how many races did Ferrari win in the past decade? I do not think that Michael "that not so great" is so lucky as to join Ferrari at the same time as Ferrari suddenly decides to build a "winning car" after 21 years. And how many established racers had attempted to win the WDC for Ferrari before Michael?

If Michael never proves himself just because the car he drove had won races and so he is driving a winning car which thus gives him the good result...using this very argument...NO OTHER DRIVERS HAD EVER PROVEN THEMSELVES... And i guess David must be the worst driver on the grid and the most unproven one i suppose... Despite having the best car at his disposal in all bar '96, his equipment record is far greater than Michael's...yet look at his record...i always thought his record is respectable...but after hearing all... i just realise how pathetic it is.

Furthermore, i think i prefer to agree with the likes of Frank Williams, Ross, Jean and the likes...i'm glad what i see is similar to what they have in mind too...that we see Michael until now being still the best F1 driver of this generation.

And before i am charged for anything...i would just say "Michael did wrong in 97...nobody denied it...nobody said it was correct...but it is a fact that he is the best on the current grid DESPITE (and not "because of") what he had done in 94 and 97. And i see that different people likes different drivers...i like Schumacher and is pleased with what he had done so far...you like your own, and perhaps...you can spend some time in Church instead of condemning Schumacher, pray that your beloved driver can beat MS in the statistic stakes..."
...let not Schumacher spoil the party this weekend...so lets watch the next race happily...

Cheers!

note: dont mind if theres plenty of typo mistakes here...me aint check what i typed ....

[JeremySmith]

What in heavens name are you talking about?

[Gt_R]

Complicated huh?
On second read....i dont really understand what i am typing too... at least..i dint seem to transfer my immediate train of thoughts into the post... this is what happens when i just reply without serious planning...but roughly the idea is there~

[drexel]

Dont worry Gt_R, i understood it all perfectly. He put his cred on the line when he went to Ferrari on a personal crusade. A team that hadn't won a WDC in 20 years basically. And you think they pay him 3 times the amount of any other driver for no reason in particular.

Note: I started the thread as a pro-schu one, trying to suggest that the particular indiscretions are the downside of the way he pushes himself to be the best. But when you get posts accusing him of attempted murder and saying he has never proven himself and always had the best car, it's time to give up.

[Blackjack21]

Who cares?

[Don K]

Originally posted by Jersound
What in heavens name are you talking about?

This started in another thread.

Someone said, that Michael had never proven himself, because he only had results in "winning cars".
When I told him/her I didn't consider the '91 Benneton and the '96 Ferrari to be winning cars, he/she objected that both cars actually did win a race.

Now Gt_R points out that this means that to prove yourself, you actually have to win a race without the car you are driving in winning that same race.
Which obviously means that no F1-driver has ever been able to prove himself.

[economy_waffle]

exactly. why is everyone so anti MS? i mean u just have to face up to the fact that he is definately one of the greats there ever was in motor racing. look at the 91' jordan. in his first ever race in the car, he put it in 7th position. it was a shame he burnt out the clutch, but when has any rookie, ever put his car on 7th position with a new team with a new car - ahead of world champions? MS is great, his brother is only good.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Gt_R
And RALF AND JENSON were widely praised as excellent drivers...no?


Cheers!

Well GT_R not that widely. The next point is that the cars do not exist in isolation. They are the product of a team effort and their results speak not oly of the driver but of the team as well. In conclusion, I believe the best gauge of a driver/car combination is their performance against the nearest rival. The teams other car. When TGW was learning the ropes he was not as fast as his team mate. He did not stay in this situation for long though. He quickly rose to a prominence around the paddock that has alowed him to dictate who his immediate rival will be. Enter Eddie and Rubens.

[Total-F1]

Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna both resorted to such dastardly means to win championships - does it make them murderers?? They both had their detractors at the time, but in 20 years time, people will be going on about Schumacher was the best driver of all time, and how he has inspired them to go onto better things...

[EERO]

It is difficult to dispute that he is the best driver out there right now and has been since Senna's death. Clearly he was a phenom when he first appeared at Spa in a Jordan and won his first race there a year later, but as the esteemed Mr Mallet has pointed out in another thread:

Originally posted by Peter Mallett

I think the point may be that these indescretions(?) have tarnished his career in the eyes of some including me. However he is the best of his era.

Don't think we should start to compare him with previous drivers because that just wouldn't be valid.

Throughout his career in F1 he has lacked consistently strong competition, and he has been able to get his teams to focus on him alone to the detriment of his teammates. I would contend that he didn't need to, but he did, and for that reason his reputation to my eyes, is tainted. Great? Perhaps. Greatest ever? No way.

There is a long line in front of him. Let us also not forget that he has raced during a relatively safe period in the sport; perhaps his injury at Silverstone in '99 would have been fatal in earlier years and we all would have been left mourning what might have been.

When you consider the records of Clark and Moss, both of whom had their careers cut short, Fangio who didn't even arrive in Europe to race until he was 39, Stewart who called it quits before his 100th GP, and consider that the F1 season until the eighties had far fewer races making it statistically difficult to match Schuey's starting record, you can see that he had advantages to help him reach these milestones past drivers did not enjoy.

An finally, recall that this is the man who after driving an early 80's Ferrari Turbo GP car of the ilk upon which Senna and Prost cut their teeth, that the experience scared him and he said he wouldn't want to race such a car.

[Run Free]

There cant'b be an agreement over this argument: as there are two different ways to judge TGF's racing behaviour, it's the same judging his results.

Schumacher IMO (but I'm not the only RACING fan thinking this) is not the best of his era for a couple of reasons:

1) He always had winning cars (where a winning car is obviously a car capable of winning races). BTW, Ferrari in 1994/95 collected 2 wins, 4 poles and 22 podiums with Alesi & Berger.
TGF is the only WdC of the past 10 years to have had only winning cars in all his career.

2) He always had a number one status (except perhaps for his first year) and never proved himself against a competitive team mate. All the others did.

3) Half or more of his results (including a title) are due to cheating and/or team work, not to his skill: crashing out other drivers, using illegal devices, having races gifted from the FIA or even from the supposed-to-be rival teams, first of all Williams.
And maybe I've forgotten something...Oh yeah, obviously being in a team that MUST win for the audience, of course...

I'm not saying that TGF is not a good driver, as I don't think that any driver in his position should have won: for sure Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Hill should have done the same if not better, because all those former WdC have won in much more hard conditions. Schumacher has never proved to be the best and half of his results are not due to his skill.

[Run Free]

Originally posted by economy_waffle
when has any rookie, ever put his car on 7th position with a new team with a new car - ahead of world champions?

There was a rookie that put his car on first position with a new team with a new car, ahead of world champions: he was Jacques Villeneuve.
Jacques is for sure better than Schumacher (both of them).

[drexel]

Originally posted by Run Free
for sure Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Hill should have done the same if not better, because all those former WdC have won in much more hard conditions. Schumacher has never proved to be the best and half of his results are not due to his skill.

Dear me, i was going to try argue with some of the points in Run Free's post, until i read the last paragraph. Then i realised it's pretty hard to argue with someone who must be living in an alternate reality, where the 96/97 Williams and the 97/98 Macs were dud cars.

Hill, Hakkinen, Villeneuve, HAhHAHAHAHAhaahahahHAhaAha.

[Gt_R]

Run Free...i just cant agree with you more...
Mika had such a terrible time winning the WDC in 98...Of course... a car which is a lap faster than the rest and 1.5s faster over a lap constitutes to a non winning car.
And Jacques...it must be sooo hard for him to driver a Williams in 97 en route to the championship...especially when the Renault-Newey combination is clearly not as good as the slower Ferrari and less reliable Mclaren.
And how about Hill...how about the fact that he would not have won the Belgium GP in 98 if Eddie did not stop Ralf from challenging...well i guess Hill did not prove himself in Jordan...cos he HAD a winning car afterall in 98.

Now tell me...people say that good drivers in the back-marker teams (ie Alonso) cannot prove themselves as they do not have the equipment to do so convincingly...and you add on by saying that a good driver doesnt prove himself even if he wins (many times) in "winning" cars... THEN HOW ON EARTH DOES HE PROVE HIMSELF???!!!!

Quote Runfree: "for sure Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Hill should have done the same if not better"

For sure , the three (to you at least) should do the same, if not better...but would they? did they?


"3) Half or more of his results (including a title) are due to cheating and/or team work, not to his skill: crashing out other drivers, using illegal devices, having races gifted from the FIA or even from the supposed-to-be rival teams, first of all Williams."
Try naming a race won by any drivers that do not include teamwork! And as much as i would LOVE to believe you...name at least 24 races he won which are proven or strongly indicating that he cheated...


"1) He always had winning cars (where a winning car is obviously a car capable of winning races). BTW, Ferrari in 1994/95 collected 2 wins, 4 poles and 22 podiums with Alesi & Berger.
TGF is the only WdC of the past 10 years to have had only winning cars in all his career."

David is the only driver in the past 10 years to have winning cars all his life in F1 and championship winning cars in all but 1 of his season, yet not win a championship thus far...how much for being impressive?
And yes...Run Free...Michael's wins are not because of him being good...its just that he had winning cars... You must be influenced by Murray...try explaining to me how a driver wins a race without a winning car...more so a championship without a winning car?
JV had by far the best car at his disposal when he won the WDC in 97. Mika's Mclaren is by far the best no doubt in 98 when he won his WDC. Did Michael have the best car when he won in 94? in 2000? Even if he had the best...is the margin of the greatness of his equipment to others as great as that enjoyed by 97 Williams and 98 Mclaren?

Drexel...let me join you for a good laugh!

[Speed]

Originally posted by Gt_R
...me aint check what i typed ....

You better do it next time...

[Don K]

Originally posted by Run Free
1) He always had winning cars (where a winning car is obviously a car capable of winning races). BTW, Ferrari in 1994/95 collected 2 wins, 4 poles and 22 podiums with Alesi & Berger.
TGF is the only WdC of the past 10 years to have had only winning cars in all his career.

So you are looking for a WDC who never won a race?

[Don K]

Originally posted by Run Free
2) He always had a number one status (except perhaps for his first year) and never proved himself against a competitive team mate.

He did prove himself against a three-time world champion: Nelson Piquet.
In Michaels first year, he drove 5 races for Benneton.
In those 5 races, he finished 3 times (twice ahead of Piquet).
Michael scored 4 points, Piquet 4.5 (in a car Piquet had been driving for the whole season).

[Don K]

Originally posted by Run Free
1) He always had winning cars (where a winning car is obviously a car capable of winning races). BTW, Ferrari in 1994/95 collected 2 wins, 4 poles and 22 podiums with Alesi & Berger.
TGF is the only WdC of the past 10 years to have had only winning cars in all his career.

Alain Prost (WDC of 1993, less than 8 years ago) had a winning car througout his carreer (according to your definition). Even the Mc Laren Ford he drove in 1980 (when he was outscored by John Watson) won 2 races in 1981.

[Don K]

Originally posted by Run Free
1) He always had winning cars (where a winning car is obviously a car capable of winning races). BTW, Ferrari in 1994/95 collected 2 wins, 4 poles and 22 podiums with Alesi & Berger.
TGF is the only WdC of the past 10 years to have had only winning cars in all his career.

Let me see.
So you are talking about Senna, Mansell, Prost, M.Schumacher, D.Hill, J.Villeneuve and Häkkinen.

I think Damon Hill is the only one of them who actually managed to perform very well in non-winning cars.
(I haven't had time to look at Senna and Mansell yet).

Häkkinen did have a Lotus in his first 2 years, but he did not manage a podium finish with it.
Villeneuve does have a Bar at the moment, but we don't yet know wether he will get any good results in it.
(I covered Prost in my previous post.)

[Don K]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Quote Runfree: "for sure Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Hill should have done the same if not better"

For sure , the three (to you at least) should do the same, if not better...but would they? did they?

I hate to agree with Run Free, but I think Damon Hill has done it.

[Gt_R]

no no...i do not mean that Damon Hill dint do good....

In 97, he actually managed to bring his Arrows to positions it is not supposed to be in...Thankfully, Damon did not win the race in 97, because if he had done so, according to RunFree, it would put the Arrows as a race winning car along with the Williams which would overshadow Damon's effort...

[economy_waffle]

Originally posted by Run Free


There was a rookie that put his car on first position with a new team with a new car, ahead of world champions: he was Jacques Villeneuve.
Jacques is for sure better than Schumacher (both of them).

erm, no. my point was (well wot i meant by new team, new car) that jordan had just joined the f1 scene. it was their first car. the FW18 was clearly the class of the field. the jordan however wasn't. it was schumacher's first f1 race, and to be honest that sort of talent speaks clearly. schumacher, (however much i dislike him!!!) is one of the greats. he was the best driver of the 90's and will probably be the best driver of the noughtie's. im sorry, but villeneuve is a great driver, but not one of the greats.

[Select]

Jersound I laughed out loud when I read

"What in heavens name are you talking about?"

....under GTR's incredibly lucid post

[Wrex]

Originally posted by Run Free
There was a rookie that put his car on first position with a new team with a new car, ahead of world champions: he was Jacques Villeneuve.
Jacques is for sure better than Schumacher (both of them).

You are so right, Jacques would never insist on No. 1 status in a team, ask Zonta

[Run Free]

Originally posted by Gt_R
And Jacques...it must be sooo hard for him to driver a Williams in 97 en route to the championship...especially when the Renault-Newey combination is clearly not as good as the slower Ferrari and less reliable Mclaren.

Newey? A. Newey left Williams at the end of 1996.

THEN HOW ON EARTH DOES HE PROVE HIMSELF???!!!!

Uff...I'll repeat: driving an inferior car, confronting with a team mate, having not a number one status. TGF never did none of this.

"3) Half or more of his results (including a title) are due to cheating and/or team work, not to his skill: crashing out other drivers, using illegal devices, having races gifted from the FIA or even from the supposed-to-be rival teams, first of all Williams."
Try naming a race won by any drivers that do not include teamwork! And as much as i would LOVE to believe you...name at least 24 races he won which are proven or strongly indicating that he cheated...

OK. Today's race is one: one of the tipical gifted by the FIA wins.
Adelaide 94, Japan 97, Canada 97, Belgium 97, Australia 97, Canada 98, france 98....I promise a complete list

[b]JV had by far the best car at his disposal when he won the WDC in 97. Mika's Mclaren is by far the best no doubt in 98 when he won his WDC. Did Michael have the best car when he won in 94? in 2000? Even if he had the best...is the margin of the greatness of his equipment to others as great as that enjoyed by 97 Williams and 98 Mclaren?

ROTFL!!!!!!!!
Oh yeah, obviously poor Michael has ever had minor equipement, and this will be true even with this year's car, isn't it? The blindness of such comments make me laugh!
Apart from the fact that Williams in 1997 raced for Ferrari, not for Villeneuve, the cars were on a par. In 1994 TGF had the best car because benetton was the only car with no problems at all in traction, to the point that most of the observators believed they were still using TC. Regarding the 2000 Ferrari, remember that Irvine near won the title himself the year before, and after having played second and losing lots of points to TGF for half a season!




[/QUOTE]