|
Post by Genghis on Jan 3, 2008 17:59:11 GMT
Schumi - stop being deliberately obtuse - it's not a fact, it's an opinion. It bloody well is a fact. Schumi, no matter how many times you post to the contrary, it remains an opinion, and an opinion is not a fact.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 3, 2008 18:03:06 GMT
It bloody well is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 3, 2008 18:11:33 GMT
It bloody well is a fact. Schumi - have you developed tourettes? ;D ;D P.S. And it is still an opinion. ;D
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 3, 2008 19:16:33 GMT
Can you tell I've been hanging around with Sube all day? (Week, month and year, too, I guess.) You can't argue with the facts - all you can do is interpret them differently. Or wrongly, in your case.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 3, 2008 20:52:12 GMT
Can you tell I've been hanging around with Sube all day? (Week, month and year, too, I guess.) You can't argue with the facts - all you can do is interpret them differently. Or wrongly, in your case. Schumi, OK, let's look at some facts: 1. No of races won against decent opposition: Senna 41, Schumacher 4. 2. No of championships won in an inferior car: Senna 2 (1990 & 1991), Schumacher 1 (1995). 3. Best ever drive by each driver. Senna - Donnington, 1993. Schumacher - Spain, 1996. Senna's best-ever drive is better than Schumacher's. 4. Just about every fan poll to determine the greatest-ever driver is won by Senna. 5. Senna had a higher percentage of pole positions than Schumacher. I would suggest that Senna therefore also led a greater percentage of races than Schumacher, although the relatively poor reliability of the turbo era and immediate post-turbo era meant Senna retired from far more many races than Schumacher. 6. Senna wasn't afraid of having a competitive team-mate, whereas Schumacher high-tailed it like a big girl the moment he found out his prospective 2007 Ferrari team-mate was going to be Kimi Raikonnen.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 3, 2008 21:17:12 GMT
They're not facts, they're opinions. The facts are all on the first page and are indisputable. Schumacher is statistically the best.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 4, 2008 12:59:24 GMT
They're not facts, they're opinions. They bloody well are facts. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 4, 2008 22:30:53 GMT
They bloody well aren't facts.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 5, 2008 12:27:02 GMT
They bloody well aren't facts. Schumi, on the contrary, that Senna took a higher percentage of pole positions than Schumacher is a fact. It's not my opinion, it's a statistical fact. As I said before, there are statistical facts, and it's then up to people as to which facts you take to form the opinion of who is statistically the best driver. Therefore your statement that "Schumacher is statistically the best driver" is not a fact, it's an opinion. Actually, I would form the opinion that the driver with the most impressive statistical record of all is Fangio. But what are statistics ultimately worth, except as an aid. For instance, statistics don't show Schumacher's luck in having Hill, JV, Montoya and Coulthard as his championship opponents, instead of Prost, Mansell and Piquet. And my gut instinct says that Ayrton Senna is the best driver I've ever seen by some distance, with Scumacher and Lauda as the next best, and Prost and Mansell then in the next group. As for Fangio and Clark, there were obsiously brilliant drivers, but I can't really comment as they were before my time. Except that Fangio's statistics are actually even better than Schumacher's. But then again there was only one leading team during most seasons of the 50s and Fangio was clever enough to swap around each season to make sure he was in whichever team was dominant that season.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 5, 2008 13:31:44 GMT
Schumi, on the contrary, that Senna took a higher percentage of pole positions than Schumacher is a fact. Here's a quote from me in my original post: You're arguing with something I agree with you on. Great - Senna was the best at qualifying. Schumacher's the best in every other department. The official F1 website says he's statistically the best. It's a bloody fact, I tell ya.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2008 14:49:38 GMT
Thats like trying to say Hans Nielsen is a better rider than Bruce Penhall as Statistically he has more FIM Gold medals than anyone else, when patently Penhall was easily the superior rider.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 5, 2008 22:29:58 GMT
Thats like trying to say Hans Nielsen is a better rider than Bruce Penhall as Statistically he has more FIM Gold medals than anyone else, when patently Penhall was easily the superior rider. You've pretty much picked my favourite two riders of all-time - so I don't really mind who's considered better. I would plump for Hans Nielsen, though. He was the complete package - and was a dominant force in every meeting, from World Finals to a challenge match. And his team-riding was magnificent. Of course, with a remarkable 22 World Championship Gold Medals, Hans Nielsen is - statistically - the most decorated speedway rider of all-time. But Penhall was awesome as well. Interesting to read Penhall's interview in the Speedway Star this week, where he reckons had he continued, he would have won the 1983 World Final, but beyond that he couldn't have stopped Hans Nielsen and Erik Gundersen, because they would have been much more hungry than he was.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 5, 2008 22:35:21 GMT
You're arguing with something I agree with you on. ;D ;D Great - Senna was the best at qualifying. Schumacher's the best in every other department. Hmmmm, I would say Senna was a much better racer - he was capable of passing people on the track, which Schumacher did once in a blue moon. Schumacher's percentage of race wins is only higher becuase of vastly better reliability and the lack of opposition. Schumacher got bested in championship battles by Jacques Villeneuve and Fernando Alonso - Senna would have never succumbed to such ordinary drivers. It's a bloody fact, I tell ya. No, it is, and will remain, an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Jan 5, 2008 23:23:37 GMT
Schumacher got bested in championship battles by Jacques Villeneuve and Fernando Alonso - Senna would have never succumbed to such ordinary drivers. Ordinary? They're both world champions, for goodness sake. What does one have to do to impress you? And you know I can't stand either of them.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Jan 6, 2008 11:33:20 GMT
Schumacher got bested in championship battles by Jacques Villeneuve and Fernando Alonso - Senna would have never succumbed to such ordinary drivers. Ordinary? They're both world champions, for goodness sake. What does one have to do to impress you? And you know I can't stand either of them. Sorry, I should have said ordinary world champions. There's some drivers who win the World Championship through workmanlike performances in a good car and there's others with special qualities which make them stand out from the crowd. Jacques Villeneuve, in particular, sits in the former category. There's no way Schumacher should have been beaten in a championship battle by Villeneuve - Schumacher even resorted to cheating but he still couldn't beat him. Ayrton Senna would have never been beaten in a championship battle by Villeneuve. Schumacher was.
|
|