Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

shields

Shummacher Myths To Be Destroyed One By One...

Recommended Posts

I would be more understanding of such a move if it was for a world title or even a GP victory but that was not the case here

If it were for a world title, MS would not have missed... :) 1994... 1997...

But people say that with elderly comes kindness, right? So maybe in the last instant he though "well it is only 10th place, I will payback Austria2002 and let Rubens pass"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my earlier statements, I said touched the brake.

It makes no difference, in the sense that he would have to wait another lap to try again... and again... and again...

I said this because a touch can decrease a lot of speed in an F1 car.

Exactly. That is why I said that tolerating any dirty trick that oblies that guy behind to press the brake (ok, I exaggerated with"hard pressing"), makes unfairly easier to defend an overtake than to attack.

And because Rubens intended to stick with his pass, he knew all he had to do was touch it if he didn't want to.

That would mean it is not even worth trying... So why bother trying to overtake if the guy in front have the right to close the door the way he wants and it is your responsibility to press/touch the brake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EISH expression,.... was nice to see it on here :)

Im glad you are familiar with it, also SA or a visitor to our shores?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes no difference, in the sense that he would have to wait another lap to try again... and again... and again...

Exactly. That is why I said that tolerating any dirty trick that oblies that guy behind to press the brake (ok, I exaggerated with"hard pressing"), makes unfairly easier to defend an overtake than to attack.

That would mean it is not even worth trying... So why bother trying to overtake if the guy in front have the right to close the door the way he wants and it is your responsibility to press/touch the brake

Said above I've nothing more to say on the matter.

Felt as if I was ridiculed like a child yesterday on this topic, for my view - which is right, however you dress it up there are no two ways about it -

Its easy to pass blame, never to accept responsibility.

Now, tell me I'm an idiot ****wit with brain leprosy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a serious note though, in order to gain credibility, one has to be objective when observing your favourite driver. I think it's pretty clear I like Michael, but as I have stated many times, it just makes me look more stupid than I already am if I defend something that I truly don't believe in. Or, more worryingly, wear rose tinted spectacles that do not enable me to see clearly.

This makes me question whether I am in fact a 'fan'. By definition, it implies fanaticism and devotion at all cost. In that way, no I am not a fan. I liked the way he drove and tenacity he showed. I'm not a fan of his comeback performance, yet.

Don't shy away from threads you think will make you annoyed, harness them with reason. Reply to the posts that are well thought through and ignore(or occasionally, as I like to, tread on with extreme prejudice) the ill-though out idiotic rantings of the dumb-witted, snot gobbling f*ckwits with brain lepresy.

Yeah, I know. I realise that sadly, his performances haven't been great this year, but maybe you'd be at risk of being called a "band-wagoner" if you stopped supporting him now.

I just get annoyed sometimes by people who make it sound like Michael is and always has been an awful driver, because clearly the stats and some of his drives prove otherwise.

Perhaps I'm just too passionate about what is at the end of the day, just a sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just get annoyed sometimes by people who make it sound like Michael is and always has been an awful driver, because clearly the stats and some of his drives prove otherwise.

I also get annoyed by people who pretend his past stats did include real challenges like having to really fight against a good teammate.

On the other side, no one is saying he is an awful driver, we only say his stats are not very representative, which should not be difficult to accept...

One thing I do concede is his greed for more and more records which is admirable, where others might already have called it a day... But that by no means proves he was better than Kimi, for instance, who said 2 WDC would be already enough to satisfy him... Well, actually he seemed bored after only his first one... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I do concede is his greed for more and more records which is admirable, where others might already have called it a day... But that by no means proves he was better than Kimi, for instance, who said 2 WDC would be already enough to satisfy him... Well, actually he seemed bored after only his first one... :)

actually, he just wanted to win 1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also get annoyed by people who pretend his past stats did include real challenges like having to really fight against a good teammate.

On the other side, no one is saying he is an awful driver, we only say his stats are not very representative, which should not be difficult to accept...

One thing I do concede is his greed for more and more records which is admirable, where others might already have called it a day... But that by no means proves he was better than Kimi, for instance, who said 2 WDC would be already enough to satisfy him... Well, actually he seemed bored after only his first one... :)

You know nothing about Michael the man. Do so homework. It may even make your other opinions more credible. Michael has no interest in statistics. He wants to win a title, but not because it eight or fifty eight or ten thousand. It's because of his basic desire and passion to go racing and win. Titles are just the consequence of winning.

Most people in this thread are looking at every angle. You pretend to, only to revert to your stance of Michael bashing. I find it disasteful and wholey transaprent. You have the air of a pompous twat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever... So be it... He was greed for winnings instead of WDC... So be it...

Anyway, if he really loved racing (and not records), he would be the first to ask Ferrari to give equal status to both drivers, and probably would even ask to bring someone better than Rubens. (Not saying Rubens is bad, just that there were certainly better ones out there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another myth destroyed: I heard fanboys saying he would easily be the WDC last year, and much earlier than Jenson Button...

Apparently, he would suffer, as for his statement below:

"This is the car that was put into our hands. It is a remnant of what was created last year. As a result there are many compromises that the driver has to deal with. The car is not at all in harmony with the tyres, or also with us as the drivers."

Again, I am not saying he is better or worst than JB, but it seems he would struggle if he had joined JB last year as a teammate... as the car were more favorable to Button... I would love to see his fanboys excuses if that happened...

Of course, I am not denying that having a car designed for someone else IS a good excuse. But we also have to examine the other side of the coin: HE DID GET THE CAR DESIGNED FOR HIM during ALL his career (perhaps the only exception being in his first year, when he could not beat a retiring Piquet, and this year when he cannot level with Rosberg)

So this general feeling he was THAT much better than Rubens, Irvine, etc... may not be truth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever... So be it... He was greed for winnings instead of WDC... So be it...

Anyway, if he really loved racing (and not records), he would be the first to ask Ferrari to give equal status to both drivers, and probably would even ask to bring someone better than Rubens. (Not saying Rubens is bad, just that there were certainly better ones out there)

Michael's objective was to win world titles. He won world titles. Does that mean he was obsessed with the number of world titles? The way you twist conversation topics to suit your own slaughter mission is novel, but easy to dismiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that a driver who attempts to overtake another, should have to choose between completing the pass or touching his brake to avoid being squeezed into a concrete wall is completely ridiculous and is not at all in the spirit of racing (are you there, puma?).

That has been the spirit of racing since racing began. Go back and look. Your viewpoint on this is far more contemporary.

A better defence would be to say that you thought Schumacher's defending was hard but fair, that is a reasonable viewpoint because everybody makes a different interpretation of a subjective event, rather than coming up with some strange idea that Rubens going for an overtake allows Schumacher to do whatever he likes (essentially shifting the focus from Michael, a nice diversionary tactic).

Unfortunately, Rubens knew at the time the overtake was happening (read his qoute, please) that he could have backed off or gone for it. He chose to go for it. I don't believe Mikey's actions need a defense, but if blame is being leveled, Rubens certainly shares in it.

Anyway, I blame such a strong and strange reaction of certain fans, on the over the top reaction of the media to the incident, it is just fire versus fire or in this case bs of the media vs bs of the fans. My guess is some people here are just reacting strongly to the perception of a witch hunt against Michael? So come up with a bunch of ill-thought out counter-arguments, a bit like Schumi does when he's in an awkward position too (both off track and on). Like idol, like (very few) fans.

Michael needs no defense if you know how to properly look at the overtake. To defend him is to acknowledge that he is to blame...which he isn't. Any racing driver pre-2000 will tell you that (indeed, Gerhard Berger recently came out and said as much).

I find it more than a bit hypocritical for some members here to view Mikey's actions as wrong, yet still admire drivers like Senna, Piquet Sr., Gurney, Zanardi (in CART), Gilles and any driver pre-2000...all of whom raced as strongly or stronger than Mikey did. I would tell these members to least be consistent and stop fabricating a racing pedigree you don't have or you don't believe in. If you don't like Mikey's move, than don't come to us touting Senna or Gilles or any of the other racing drivers that have gone before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I must disagree. Just because Rubens chose to go for the move does not excuse Michael's actions, which were too extreme. Please, lets be clear: I'm not interested in painting Michael as the bad guy, I just think the move was extreme and unnecessary. I don't think my view has anything to do with my "contemporary" view of racing, and to be honest that's exactly the kind of rebuttal I was trying to avoid when I didn't reveal my true age on this forum; in any event the fact that so many members here also thought the move was over aggressive, and the fact so many ex-drivers also came out against it suggest to me that age is not a factor in my view - rather it is simply a reasonable viewpoint, albeit inevitably subjective, of a subjective event.

Also, I think it's entirely possible to view a drivers actions as wrong but still revere them. I still remember the first time I watched footage of Ayrton Senna at Monaco and I was stunned - I knew the skill I was watching straight away. Later on, looking into Senna's career in more detail, I saw numerous examples of dangerous driving which I recognised were wrong. Thankfully as human beings we can differentiate between the bad people can do and the good, and accept that most people are usually capable of both, and indeed most racing drivers have examples of both for us to shake our heads at or stare at in awe (a point Andres raised in another thread). So yeah, even I admire Senna whilst knowing that if I'd seen some of his more darker actions on track I would have struggled to defend them, but the imperfections don't mean I can't admire the genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael's objective was to win world titles.

Just like everyone else in the grid. So what?

But hey, you said he did not care about WDC, only about racing, and WDC were just a natural consequence...

He won world titles. Does that mean he was obsessed with the number of world titles?

I dont care if he is obsessed or not. As I never criticized him for that. I said greed for titles is a good and admirable think in a F1 driver, and most of them call it a day after achieving one 2 or 3 WDC...

The way you twist conversation topics to suit your own slaughter mission is novel, but easy to dismiss.

If it is so easy to dismiss, why dont you directly counter argument each comment of mine (or at least a few) instead of generally saying "you twist conversation topics"?

For instance, you havent explained this one:

"if he really loved racing (and not records), he would be the first to ask Ferrari to give equal status to both drivers, and probably would even ask to bring someone better than Rubens."

Apparently you disguise the real topic by focusing the conversation on an irrelevant subject: who cares if MS cares or not about statistics? (which if I suggested he did, it was a compliment, not a criticism)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I must disagree. Just because Rubens chose to go for the move does not excuse Michael's actions, which were too extreme.

I maintain that neither driver deserves blame, but was pointing out that if some wish to apportion blame, both drivers must be hit with that brush.

Please, lets be clear: I'm not interested in painting Michael as the bad guy, I just think the move was extreme and unnecessary.

I don't care if Michael is painted as a good or bad guy. I'm not really a fan of Michael.

I don't think my view has anything to do with my "contemporary" view of racing, and to be honest that's exactly the kind of rebuttal I was trying to avoid when I didn't reveal my true age on this forum; in any event the fact that so many members here also thought the move was over aggressive, and the fact so many ex-drivers also came out against it suggest to me that age is not a factor in my view - rather it is simply a reasonable viewpoint, albeit inevitably subjective, of a subjective event.

In years gone by, Michael's move wouldn't be considered as something 'extreme or unnecessary' or something to blame. In that regard your view is contemporary. I'm not saying the move was a good decision by Mikey, just that it is a part of racing. Good and bad. Stroke and counterstroke. You need both for good racing.

Omitting your age gives readers a false impression of you and leads to misunderstandings. Knowing your age, we can now see where you are in a maturity sense and better communicate with you (and you, me). Knowing that you've not watched as much racing as some of us is an important point. You must admit that those who have been watching this sport for longer than you, have more perspective on some topics than you do (that isn't to say your opinions and thoughts are inferior). Funny thing about perspective is that you don't understand it until you've gotten it.

Also, I think it's entirely possible to view a drivers actions as wrong but still revere them. I still remember the first time I watched footage of Ayrton Senna at Monaco and I was stunned - I knew the skill I was watching straight away. Later on, looking into Senna's career in more detail, I saw numerous examples of dangerous driving which I recognised were wrong. Thankfully as human beings we can differentiate between the bad people can do and the good, and accept that most people are usually capable of both, and indeed most racing drivers have examples of both for us to shake our heads at or stare at in awe (a point Andres raised in another thread). So yeah, even I admire Senna whilst knowing that if I'd seen some of his more darker actions on track I would have struggled to defend them, but the imperfections don't mean I can't admire the genius.

Fair point. I suppose we just disagree with what actions should be allowed on track. Personally, I can't admire a driver that I feel is unsportsmanlike (which is why I choose Prost over Senna every time). While I think Mikey's move should be viewed as racing, I don't cheer the move. It lessens my estimation of his skill when he does a move like that. I cheer Rubens' counter, however, and feel that it gave us a good moment in racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, good discussion going on here! I found Berger's comments very interesting and, whilst I will forever be too young to remember it, I suspect it's true that more aggressive driving was the norm back in the day.

It's a tough one for me because I hate seeing driver skill, rather than technology, limited. And for me, F1 has always been about determination bordering on ruthlessness, in the drive for an edge. But that said, safety is hugely important.

On balance, I wish the stewards were more lenient in general and I'm not sure whether I'd rather they let Michael get away with this particular move or not. All I can say is that it was by far the most exciting moment of the race and, as usual, that was the bit that resulted in a penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tough one for me because I hate seeing driver skill, rather than technology, limited. And for me, F1 has always been about determination bordering on ruthlessness, in the drive for an edge. But that said, safety is hugely important.

Why is safety hugely important? Nobody forces the drivers to get into their cars and race. It's completely voluntary. In my opinion, it's a bit *too* safe. Drivers with less skill are attracted to a sport that used to weed out the faint of heart. Back when danger was more prevalent, only the truly courageous and/or balls-out drivers really raced. Make the cars safe, put ample course workers at every turn and call it a day. Let 'em race.

On balance, I wish the stewards were more lenient in general and I'm not sure whether I'd rather they let Michael get away with this particular move or not. All I can say is that it was by far the most exciting moment of the race and, as usual, that was the bit that resulted in a penalty.

Indeed. I'm of the opinion that Michael's move, which I personally don't like because it demonstrates a lack of skill, is nonetheless racing and should be allowed. Yes it's dangerous and reckless, but Rubens' counter is why we watch this sport. Or should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is safety hugely important? Nobody forces the drivers to get into their cars and race. It's completely voluntary. In my opinion, it's a bit *too* safe. Drivers with less skill are attracted to a sport that used to weed out the faint of heart. Back when danger was more prevalent, only the truly courageous and/or balls-out drivers really raced. Make the cars safe, put ample course workers at every turn and call it a day. Let 'em race.

So it was you who emptied those barrels of wine and beer!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is safety hugely important? Nobody forces the drivers to get into their cars and race. It's completely voluntary. In my opinion, it's a bit *too* safe. Drivers with less skill are attracted to a sport that used to weed out the faint of heart. Back when danger was more prevalent, only the truly courageous and/or balls-out drivers really raced. Make the cars safe, put ample course workers at every turn and call it a day. Let 'em race.

Safety became important because F1 is a business and drivers bring ratings=money, and the new generation of drivers from J. Y. Stewart onwards didn't consider death as an acceptable risk anymore.

Spectator safety is important because the politicians made it clear in the 70s that formula racecars and sport-prototypes will be banned if they get in the stands.

And you're wrong about the truly courageous, there were plenty of (rich) amateurs and semi-pros that have only one purpose (until the got tired of killed) - to make the likes of Fangio, Moss and Co. look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is safety hugely important? Nobody forces the drivers to get into their cars and race. It's completely voluntary. In my opinion, it's a bit *too* safe. Drivers with less skill are attracted to a sport that used to weed out the faint of heart. Back when danger was more prevalent, only the truly courageous and/or balls-out drivers really raced. Make the cars safe, put ample course workers at every turn and call it a day. Let 'em race.

Indeed. I'm of the opinion that Michael's move, which I personally don't like because it demonstrates a lack of skill, is nonetheless racing and should be allowed. Yes it's dangerous and reckless, but Rubens' counter is why we watch this sport. Or should be.

Yeah, I think on balance I agree with you about allowing Michael's move. Safety is important to me though because it's just part of the kind of sport I want to watch - people dying in a sport is too much imho. You're right that it's voluntary and drivers would no doubt accept higher risks but I'd rather they didn't! There's a difference between driver skill and driver bravery and I prefer the former. Rather than getting excited about, say, boxing, I just feel uncomfortable watching them give themselves brain damage. That's just my preference and I know many on here agree with you that the sport is too safe now that people like me and Max Mosley have messed it up. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safety became important because F1 is a business and drivers bring ratings=money, and the new generation of drivers from J. Y. Stewart onwards didn't consider death as an acceptable risk anymore.

Spectator safety is important because the politicians made it clear in the 70s that formula racecars and sport-prototypes will be banned if they get in the stands.

And you're wrong about the truly courageous, there were plenty of (rich) amateurs and semi-pros that have only one purpose (until the got tired of killed) - to make the likes of Fangio, Moss and Co. look good.

Not really. Its because Formula One is a business, correct; with it, pay drivers who are extremely average drivers are taking the places of the extremely skilled and apt. The quality of racing is not high, therefore the safety standards need to be raised.

I'm not suggesting the major players are perfect either. Webber for example. But they're there on merit. 4 world champions says that.

Its very difficult to know what the absolute needed bare minimum safety levels are.

I'm of the same mindset of Mike. Lets see real men really racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...