FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Big Azza]

When I watched it for the first time, from a neutral perspective, although expecting to be blinded by hate for Schumacher. I was very surprised to find it a 50/50 accident from my point of view. I think Schumacher was still in front at the time when he made that plunge into the first corner? I don't think you would expect Schumacher to just pull over and let Hill by, would you? And then in 1997 he got everything he deserved. As a biography (Michael Schumacher - The Edge of Greatness by James Allen) read, Schumacher was good at pushing the boundaries whenever it came to rule interpretations. Whenever he crossed that line, he was punished fair and square.

I think 1994 is certainly a lot less severe compared to how the championship was decided in 1990.

See while we're going along the lines of undeserving champions: if Schumacher didn't deserve it in '94, then Senna is the undeserving 1990 World Champion. Imagine what life would be like if Senna only won 2 championships compared to Prost's 5? Would Senna be hailed as such a legend then? Perhaps I'm opening up a can of worms here....

[Nomad]

Jacques sure likes to talk... a lot. Someone should give him a commentator job or team spokesman position.

[myownalias]

When I watched it for the first time, from a neutral perspective, although expecting to be blinded by hate for Schumacher. I was very surprised to find it a 50/50 accident from my point of view. I think Schumacher was still in front at the time when he made that plunge into the first corner? I don't think you would expect Schumacher to just pull over and let Hill by, would you? And then in 1997 he got everything he deserved. As a biography (Michael Schumacher - The Edge of Greatness by James Allen) read, Schumacher was good at pushing the boundaries whenever it came to rule interpretations. Whenever he crossed that line, he was punished fair and square.

I think 1994 is certainly a lot less severe compared to how the championship was decided in 1990.

See while we're going along the lines of undeserving champions: if Schumacher didn't deserve it in '94, then Senna is the undeserving 1990 World Champion. Imagine what life would be like if Senna only won 2 championships compared to Prost's 5? Would Senna be hailed as such a legend then? Perhaps I'm opening up a can of worms here....

This is the whole issue; I believe that Schumacher cheated his way to the '94 championship but that's just my opinion, it could be argued that Senna cheated his way to the '90 championship, but does that make them unworthy champions? not really, they still won the title by scoring more points than anyone else regardless of what we think of them. I am biased as I was a fan of Damon Hill and have a healthy dislike for Michael Schumacher, I believe he got away with much more than he got punished for, the punishment in '97 was pointless, he had lost the championship anyway, losing his points is neither here nor there in my opinion, if he was stripped of that world championship if Villeneuve failed to finish, it would have been fitting!

Again, it's all opinion, the Schumi fans will defend him until the end of the world, which is only another 16 months ladies and gents!

[Hammer278]

I dont think grandpa Schumi has that long.

[LewEngBridewell]

Agree with myownalias. Schumacher buggered-up in Adelaide and purposely tried to take out Hill. How is that not clear for all to see? It's just as clear as his cheating tactics in Jerez 1997 and Monaco 2006.

So he cheated his way to a title in '94, and won his Ferrari titles with the best car by miles... that leaves just '95 as a "proper" championship in andrew's books.

(Me and andrew hardly ever agree, so this is a routine discussion )

[Ferrari man 009]

It's true that some are more deserving than others but there are some drivers who do not deserve to be a champion. To me, a true champion pays their dues and works their way up to the top. Back on the good old days the true champions were the ones who could take a dog of a car by the scruff of the neck and go a hell of a lost faster than they should in the equipment provided (ok, this hasn't happened for at least 10 years)

I think that is what we saw from Alonso last year, the Ferrari was never good enough to be fighting for the championship at Abu Dhabi. Same this season, there is no way IMO that the Ferrari of Alonso and McLaren of Hamilton should be pushing the Red Bulls for wins in most of the races. Hamilton and Alonso have acted like champions this season, both have driven all 4 wheels off the car imo.

[andrew]

Agree with myownalias. Schumacher buggered-up in Adelaide and purposely tried to take out Hill. How is that not clear for all to see? It's just as clear as his cheating tactics in Jerez 1997 and Monaco 2006.

It's funny that Hill doesn't share the same view. He was the one in the car but what does he know? By Hill's own admission he made a lunge that was optimistic. Regardless of who he was trying to overtake, it was always going to end in tears

As for Jerez 97, it was a bit of a mind-fart by Schumacher but it was nothing compared to Senna ramming Prost in Japan 1990 yet Senna is hailed as some kind of F1 God. From what Ive seen of Senna, it was a case of either let him past or he'll shove you off the track. I guess being dead helps with the legend part. Jerez was less clear cut than Adelaide 94. Villeneuve's seemed to go very deep into the corner in a straight line. Watch the on-board footage, listen to Brundle and watch the steering wheels. Villeneuve was going very deep into the corner and Schumacher tried to go round the corner. This incident is also nothing compared with Senna ramming Prost.

Monaco 2006 was just a case of going too fast into the corner. Just a simple case of a driver screwing up a corner. Had it been any other track where there is room to make a mistake then there would have been no problem.

So he cheated his way to a title in '94, and won his Ferrari titles with the best car by miles... that leaves just '95 as a "proper" championship in andrew's books.

So what do you call Hamilton's championship in a silver Ferrari in the best car but with fewer wins and Ferrari screw-ups? Or Buttons with the gift from Max?

[LewEngBridewell]

Agree with myownalias. Schumacher buggered-up in Adelaide and purposely tried to take out Hill. How is that not clear for all to see? It's just as clear as his cheating tactics in Jerez 1997 and Monaco 2006.

It's funny that Hill doesn't share the same view. He was the one in the car but what does he know? By Hill's own admission he made a lunge that was optimistic. Regardless of who he was trying to overtake, it was always going to end in tears

As for Jerez 97, it was a bit of a mind-fart by Schumacher but it was nothing compared to Senna ramming Prost in Japan 1990 yet Senna is hailed as some kind of F1 God. From what Ive seen of Senna, it was a case of either let him past or he'll shove you off the track. I guess being dead helps with the legend part. Jerez was less clear cut than Adelaide 94. Villeneuve's seemed to go very deep into the corner in a straight line. Watch the on-board footage, listen to Brundle and watch the steering wheels. Villeneuve was going very deep into the corner and Schumacher tried to go round the corner. This incident is also nothing compared with Senna ramming Prost.

Monaco 2006 was just a case of going too fast into the corner. Just a simple case of a driver screwing up a corner. Had it been any other track where there is room to make a mistake then there would have been no problem.

So he cheated his way to a title in '94, and won his Ferrari titles with the best car by miles... that leaves just '95 as a "proper" championship in andrew's books.

So what do you call Hamilton's championship in a silver Ferrari in the best car but with fewer wins and Ferrari screw-ups? Or Buttons with the gift from Max?

Well, Button made the most of having the best car (for half the season)... like most world champions. Hamilton came on top after fierce competition from Ferrari and a useless team-mate.

They're world champions... that statistic does all the talking.

[What's Burning?]

So what do you call Hamilton's championship in a silver Ferrari in the best car but with fewer wins and Ferrari screw-ups? Or Buttons with the gift from Max?

Making up for the previous year.

[andrew]

Agree with myownalias. Schumacher buggered-up in Adelaide and purposely tried to take out Hill. How is that not clear for all to see? It's just as clear as his cheating tactics in Jerez 1997 and Monaco 2006.

It's funny that Hill doesn't share the same view. He was the one in the car but what does he know? By Hill's own admission he made a lunge that was optimistic. Regardless of who he was trying to overtake, it was always going to end in tears

As for Jerez 97, it was a bit of a mind-fart by Schumacher but it was nothing compared to Senna ramming Prost in Japan 1990 yet Senna is hailed as some kind of F1 God. From what Ive seen of Senna, it was a case of either let him past or he'll shove you off the track. I guess being dead helps with the legend part. Jerez was less clear cut than Adelaide 94. Villeneuve's seemed to go very deep into the corner in a straight line. Watch the on-board footage, listen to Brundle and watch the steering wheels. Villeneuve was going very deep into the corner and Schumacher tried to go round the corner. This incident is also nothing compared with Senna ramming Prost.

Monaco 2006 was just a case of going too fast into the corner. Just a simple case of a driver screwing up a corner. Had it been any other track where there is room to make a mistake then there would have been no problem.

So he cheated his way to a title in '94, and won his Ferrari titles with the best car by miles... that leaves just '95 as a "proper" championship in andrew's books.

So what do you call Hamilton's championship in a silver Ferrari in the best car but with fewer wins and Ferrari screw-ups? Or Buttons with the gift from Max?

Well, Button made the most of having the best car (for half the season)... like most world champions. Hamilton came on top after fierce competition from Ferrari and a useless team-mate.

They're world champions... that statistic does all the talking.

Exactly, Button was all the car. In 2008 McLaren made less mistakes than Ferrari. Statistics only tell part of the story though.

[LewEngBridewell]

Agree with myownalias. Schumacher buggered-up in Adelaide and purposely tried to take out Hill. How is that not clear for all to see? It's just as clear as his cheating tactics in Jerez 1997 and Monaco 2006.

It's funny that Hill doesn't share the same view. He was the one in the car but what does he know? By Hill's own admission he made a lunge that was optimistic. Regardless of who he was trying to overtake, it was always going to end in tears

As for Jerez 97, it was a bit of a mind-fart by Schumacher but it was nothing compared to Senna ramming Prost in Japan 1990 yet Senna is hailed as some kind of F1 God. From what Ive seen of Senna, it was a case of either let him past or he'll shove you off the track. I guess being dead helps with the legend part. Jerez was less clear cut than Adelaide 94. Villeneuve's seemed to go very deep into the corner in a straight line. Watch the on-board footage, listen to Brundle and watch the steering wheels. Villeneuve was going very deep into the corner and Schumacher tried to go round the corner. This incident is also nothing compared with Senna ramming Prost.

Monaco 2006 was just a case of going too fast into the corner. Just a simple case of a driver screwing up a corner. Had it been any other track where there is room to make a mistake then there would have been no problem.

So he cheated his way to a title in '94, and won his Ferrari titles with the best car by miles... that leaves just '95 as a "proper" championship in andrew's books.

So what do you call Hamilton's championship in a silver Ferrari in the best car but with fewer wins and Ferrari screw-ups? Or Buttons with the gift from Max?

Well, Button made the most of having the best car (for half the season)... like most world champions. Hamilton came on top after fierce competition from Ferrari and a useless team-mate.

They're world champions... that statistic does all the talking.

Exactly, Button was all the car. In 2008 McLaren made less mistakes than Ferrari. Statistics only tell part of the story though.

The racer who is the worthy world champion is the one with the most points earned at the end of the season. Other drivers may have a bit of bad luck or make mistakes, but so will the competitor. F1 is a team sport, and the teams have just as much competition building faster and faster cars than their rivals. So the faster team fully deserves to take their drivers to the title. If that driver fails to win the title in the fastest car, then he's not good enough. This is all what motorsport is about.

[What's Burning?]

Agree with myownalias. Schumacher buggered-up in Adelaide and purposely tried to take out Hill. How is that not clear for all to see? It's just as clear as his cheating tactics in Jerez 1997 and Monaco 2006.

It's funny that Hill doesn't share the same view. He was the one in the car but what does he know? By Hill's own admission he made a lunge that was optimistic. Regardless of who he was trying to overtake, it was always going to end in tears

As for Jerez 97, it was a bit of a mind-fart by Schumacher but it was nothing compared to Senna ramming Prost in Japan 1990 yet Senna is hailed as some kind of F1 God. From what Ive seen of Senna, it was a case of either let him past or he'll shove you off the track. I guess being dead helps with the legend part. Jerez was less clear cut than Adelaide 94. Villeneuve's seemed to go very deep into the corner in a straight line. Watch the on-board footage, listen to Brundle and watch the steering wheels. Villeneuve was going very deep into the corner and Schumacher tried to go round the corner. This incident is also nothing compared with Senna ramming Prost.

Monaco 2006 was just a case of going too fast into the corner. Just a simple case of a driver screwing up a corner. Had it been any other track where there is room to make a mistake then there would have been no problem.

So he cheated his way to a title in '94, and won his Ferrari titles with the best car by miles... that leaves just '95 as a "proper" championship in andrew's books.

So what do you call Hamilton's championship in a silver Ferrari in the best car but with fewer wins and Ferrari screw-ups? Or Buttons with the gift from Max?

Well, Button made the most of having the best car (for half the season)... like most world champions. Hamilton came on top after fierce competition from Ferrari and a useless team-mate.

They're world champions... that statistic does all the talking.

Exactly, Button was all the car. In 2008 McLaren made less mistakes than Ferrari. Statistics only tell part of the story though.

Be careful with your arguments because you'd have to take the opposite view in defense of a certain Red Bull driver's achievements.

[andrew]

The racer who is the worthy world champion is the one with the most points earned at the end of the season.

That's not something I will ever agree with!

There is a difference between having the most points and driving the best season. A driver could drive an absolute blinder of a season but have more bad luck than a eventual cahmpionship winner. To me the driver who drove the blinder of a season is more impressive than the eventual winner.

Be careful with your arguments because you'd have to take the opposite view in defense of a certain Red Bull driver's achievements.

Do I? Sure the Red Bull is the best car for part of this year but it is not the best now.

[LewEngBridewell]

The racer who is the worthy world champion is the one with the most points earned at the end of the season.

That's not something I will ever agree with!

There is a difference between having the most points and driving the best season. A driver could drive an absolute blinder of a season but have more bad luck than a eventual cahmpionship winner. To me the driver who drove the blinder of a season is more impressive than the eventual winner.

Ah yes, but now you're mixing apples and pears. I said the driver with the most POINTS deserves to be champion. There is an art to consistently picking them up, you know.

However, that driver may not necessarily be the most "blinding" or visually impressive. I mean, look at Robert Kubica... he's mighty impressive, but never been in a position to win a title. He came closest in '08. But that year, I didn't come away saying that it should have been Kubica's, because it shouldn't.

He does however DESERVE a top car in the future to fight for a title.

[andrew]

However, that driver may not necessarily be the most "blinding" or visually impressive. I mean, look at Robert Kubica... he's mighty impressive, but never been in a position to win a title. He came closest in '08. But that year, I didn't come away saying that it should have been Kubica's, because it shouldn't.

Thanks for agreeing with me.