Prost, Senna, Shumacher
Posted by chrislewis
I have watched the Senna documentary & I have read these forums over the years & I'm confused about the Shumacher hate.
I have the privilege of watching the Senna documentary in Blu Ray so the reproduction is greater than it was at the time. I'll admit to not watching Schumacher before 99 but I have a basic understanding of what went down so I'll appreciate any education on the topic.
1989- Prost knows he will win the championship if Senna doesn't finish.
Prost deliberately shunts Senna near the end of the race.
1994- Schumacher knows he will win the championship if Hill doesn't finish
Schumacher deliberately shunts Hill near the end of the race.
1990- Senna knows he will win the championship if Prost doesn't finish
Senna deliberately shunts Prost in the first corner
1997- Schumacher knows he will win the championship if Villeneueve doesn't finish
Schumacher tries a shunt & fails
If you consider these things what's with all the Schumacher hate?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2011 10:25PM by chrislewis.
I have the privilege of watching the Senna documentary in Blu Ray so the reproduction is greater than it was at the time. I'll admit to not watching Schumacher before 99 but I have a basic understanding of what went down so I'll appreciate any education on the topic.
1989- Prost knows he will win the championship if Senna doesn't finish.
Prost deliberately shunts Senna near the end of the race.
1994- Schumacher knows he will win the championship if Hill doesn't finish
Schumacher deliberately shunts Hill near the end of the race.
1990- Senna knows he will win the championship if Prost doesn't finish
Senna deliberately shunts Prost in the first corner
1997- Schumacher knows he will win the championship if Villeneueve doesn't finish
Schumacher tries a shunt & fails
If you consider these things what's with all the Schumacher hate?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2011 10:25PM by chrislewis.
I have always seen Adelaide 94 as being taken well out of proportion, Hill shouldn't even have been in that position anyway.
Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions
Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions
The way I see it, Schumacher was either banned or disqualified for four of those races in 1994.
Regardless of what happened in Adelaide, had he not lost out, he would have wrapped that title up four races sooner.
Hill was never going to win that year, and because he got so close (due to the nature of Schumacher's setbacks) I think the Adelaide incident was blown WAY out of proportion.
People treat it as the be all and end all that cost Hill that title. Yes, in some ways it did, it was his golden chance, but he was definitely not the man of the year at all. If Hill did win in 1994, people would blow the Schumacher bans out of proportion too.
Either way, the scales tip one way or the other.
Schumacher just played the game that everyone does.
If you play cards and get a sneaky peak of the other persons cards, do you tell? Probably not.
You roll the dice and it hits the floor, landing halfway between 2 and 6. You say it is six, right? Or it lands on 1, so you pick it up and roll again. It went on the floor so doesn't count!
Games are always exploited until firm rules are put in place.
It happened before Schumacher. It will happen after Schumacher.
The reason people are angry about it so much, is because point blank, Schumacher is a real genius at bending rules and exploiting loopholes and getting away with it.
Hats off to a skill there.
Competition is about pushing limits. Pushign things until they break. Athletes train as hard and fast as they can. To be better. To win more.
Athletes might sprain an ankle running too hard. Dislocate an arm stretching a bit too far. Work out how much you can do, and what the limit is before something doesn't work.
Schumacher pushed the boundary himself a little further. He got away with it in 1994. He tried a bit more in 1997, and didn't get away. That was his equivalent of an athletics injury. That's sport for you.
Find your limits. Push the limits. Strive for better.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2011 11:07AM by danm.
Regardless of what happened in Adelaide, had he not lost out, he would have wrapped that title up four races sooner.
Hill was never going to win that year, and because he got so close (due to the nature of Schumacher's setbacks) I think the Adelaide incident was blown WAY out of proportion.
People treat it as the be all and end all that cost Hill that title. Yes, in some ways it did, it was his golden chance, but he was definitely not the man of the year at all. If Hill did win in 1994, people would blow the Schumacher bans out of proportion too.
Either way, the scales tip one way or the other.
Schumacher just played the game that everyone does.
If you play cards and get a sneaky peak of the other persons cards, do you tell? Probably not.
You roll the dice and it hits the floor, landing halfway between 2 and 6. You say it is six, right? Or it lands on 1, so you pick it up and roll again. It went on the floor so doesn't count!
Games are always exploited until firm rules are put in place.
It happened before Schumacher. It will happen after Schumacher.
The reason people are angry about it so much, is because point blank, Schumacher is a real genius at bending rules and exploiting loopholes and getting away with it.
Hats off to a skill there.
Competition is about pushing limits. Pushign things until they break. Athletes train as hard and fast as they can. To be better. To win more.
Athletes might sprain an ankle running too hard. Dislocate an arm stretching a bit too far. Work out how much you can do, and what the limit is before something doesn't work.
Schumacher pushed the boundary himself a little further. He got away with it in 1994. He tried a bit more in 1997, and didn't get away. That was his equivalent of an athletics injury. That's sport for you.
Find your limits. Push the limits. Strive for better.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2011 11:07AM by danm.
Ferrari2007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always seen Adelaide 94 as being taken well
> out of proportion, Hill shouldn't even have been
> in that position anyway.
Indeed, if you look at it objectively then there was no way Hill could have overtaken Schumacher at that point, schumacher was anead he ha the racing lime, damaged car or not. That incident was as much as an error from Hill (because he wasn't far enough alongside Schumacher to claim the corner) as it was a transgression from Schumacher (and it was definitely very rude driving by Schumacher).
Hill himself has admitted that he was naive to go for the gap, but equally it's easy to use hindsight to say he should have waited.
I've long put it down to a slightly aggrivated racing incident, but the real reason it was blown out of all proportion because it was OMFG Germany v Britain - The war! Etc
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always seen Adelaide 94 as being taken well
> out of proportion, Hill shouldn't even have been
> in that position anyway.
Indeed, if you look at it objectively then there was no way Hill could have overtaken Schumacher at that point, schumacher was anead he ha the racing lime, damaged car or not. That incident was as much as an error from Hill (because he wasn't far enough alongside Schumacher to claim the corner) as it was a transgression from Schumacher (and it was definitely very rude driving by Schumacher).
Hill himself has admitted that he was naive to go for the gap, but equally it's easy to use hindsight to say he should have waited.
I've long put it down to a slightly aggrivated racing incident, but the real reason it was blown out of all proportion because it was OMFG Germany v Britain - The war! Etc
Don't mention the war!
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to.
[www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 CentralThanks for the insight guys.
I have to agree with you Gav about rise of discussion boards. I have seen some sportspeople entire records be rewritten on other forums.
I have to agree with you Gav about rise of discussion boards. I have seen some sportspeople entire records be rewritten on other forums.
Screw Fawlty Towers. It made me laugh when I was 12, but now it seems ridiculously dated and out of touch with reality.
The cheesy 70s comedy which I think has gone full circle and become funny again is Some Mothers Do Ave Em. Frank Spencer is an actual comedy legend IMO. The blend of outrageous campness, constant dropping of innuendos and ability to annoy other people is epic, before you even consider his main character trait as a walking disaster zone.
The cheesy 70s comedy which I think has gone full circle and become funny again is Some Mothers Do Ave Em. Frank Spencer is an actual comedy legend IMO. The blend of outrageous campness, constant dropping of innuendos and ability to annoy other people is epic, before you even consider his main character trait as a walking disaster zone.
gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think Senna was universally liked before
> his death.
Definitely not. I for one had a major problem with him to begin with(From when I started watching F1 in 1989 up till the end of '92) because of his rivalry with Mansell(My hero at the time) and his tendency to be involved in various incidents, which it always seemed he was the cause of. That and his annoying(for a non-fan) habit of winning a lot. While I was always aware he was a @#$%& good driver and there was something mystical and other-worldly about him, if you weren't a fan it only seemed to make him easier to hate.
My attitude towards him changed, too, in '93. With Mansell out of F1 and Prost(Who I'd disliked since 1990 because of the Ferrari politics that season) back, suddenly Senna no longer seemed dislikeable, and I couldn't help but see him in a different light. I wanted to see Prost beaten if at all possible, and obviously Senna was the driver to support in that case. (I also had an added massive problem with Prost because of the way he'd tried to guarantee himself the title by booking himself the Williams seat - even at the time I thought that was shocking.) It didn't hurt my new appreciation of Senna that his string of stunning drives in the opening races of that season took him into a clear Championship lead over Prost either. By the end of '93 I'd actually become a huge fan, big enough of a fan to have my heart ripped to shreds by Imola '94. I think Senna was the most polarising of all the drivers of that era, because of his arrogance, charisma and mystique. They helped you to love him or hate him, depending what you thought of him in the first place, and I think a lot of Brits(and maybe other Europeans) disliked him for most of his career at least.
One good example I've just remembered: The "Grand Prix 94" magazine that came out at the beginning of 1994(I still have a copy of it somewhere I think). The headline was "Senna: Man Or Monster?" - I think that's at least an indication of the public's opinion of him TBH.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2011 07:14AM by EC83.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think Senna was universally liked before
> his death.
Definitely not. I for one had a major problem with him to begin with(From when I started watching F1 in 1989 up till the end of '92) because of his rivalry with Mansell(My hero at the time) and his tendency to be involved in various incidents, which it always seemed he was the cause of. That and his annoying(for a non-fan) habit of winning a lot. While I was always aware he was a @#$%& good driver and there was something mystical and other-worldly about him, if you weren't a fan it only seemed to make him easier to hate.
My attitude towards him changed, too, in '93. With Mansell out of F1 and Prost(Who I'd disliked since 1990 because of the Ferrari politics that season) back, suddenly Senna no longer seemed dislikeable, and I couldn't help but see him in a different light. I wanted to see Prost beaten if at all possible, and obviously Senna was the driver to support in that case. (I also had an added massive problem with Prost because of the way he'd tried to guarantee himself the title by booking himself the Williams seat - even at the time I thought that was shocking.) It didn't hurt my new appreciation of Senna that his string of stunning drives in the opening races of that season took him into a clear Championship lead over Prost either. By the end of '93 I'd actually become a huge fan, big enough of a fan to have my heart ripped to shreds by Imola '94. I think Senna was the most polarising of all the drivers of that era, because of his arrogance, charisma and mystique. They helped you to love him or hate him, depending what you thought of him in the first place, and I think a lot of Brits(and maybe other Europeans) disliked him for most of his career at least.
One good example I've just remembered: The "Grand Prix 94" magazine that came out at the beginning of 1994(I still have a copy of it somewhere I think). The headline was "Senna: Man Or Monster?" - I think that's at least an indication of the public's opinion of him TBH.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2011 07:14AM by EC83.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.