Mick Schumacher recent miracle to form... / ilegal car?

[Sieper]

I have watched many a F2 race this year. Mick isn't totally untalented but he doesn't always have the speed and he is quite aggressive in his overtakes (but in a clumsy way) so quite often looses out on progress made earlier. The marketing force though. Let's see what he can do this year. F2 again depleted of even more talent.

[Manoah2u]

I don't think there's any doubt Mick has talent, and i think there's little doubt that being privilidged to come out of the environment of arguably still the most talented driver ever in F1 history, will grant you a lot of benefits most people and drivers won't be entitled to.
There are some questions to concider though.
First of all, just how talented is he really, and secondly, how much is he able to tap into that talent, and how far is he willing to go to reach his full potential?

Thing is, is he as talented as his father or less talented?
Though i personally believe he is lacking in the 'natural' talent his father had, he has more thrown into his lap to gain the 'needs' to become above-standard 'proficient'.

But there's a difference in being 'proficient' and being 'talented'.

Schumacher managed to achieve all of his 'crowns' by himself, offcourse with help from other talented people, but i think nobody doubts that Mick getting help from his father (untill the accident) is a benefit Michael never experienced.

What for me remains then is this: is Mick achieving so 'much' (if you will) because he's actually talented, or because he had so much 'guidance' and because of that, being a step ahead to the competition, but in the end, meeting a certain 'wall' which is that his talent simply isn't enough.

If you'd give it a number, let's say Mick, in 2017, had 30% talent, 40 % experience, 30% guidance.
let's then say that a random competitor in 2017, had 60% talent, 25 % experience, 15% guidance.

they are on the same level, and are close in the end for the title, despite the fact that Mick has 30% less talent in this comparison.

Now let's say, that compared to 2017, 2018 sees the following:

Mick has still 30% talent, has grown 5% experience, but has the same guidance as before, 30%. so he gains 5% over the year.
But the same random opponent, which has grown 5% in experience aswell, suddelny gets better guidance, and gets the same guidance as Schumacher, si increases 15% there, and 20% in total.

There is no way then that Schumacher is going to beat that same opponent in 2018.
And all of a sudden, people start believing Schumacher loses talent or start realizing he never was that talented.

I know this is just random calculations and math, but the point is, a driver coming from a privilidged environment always will take more attention and have more doors opened to him,
compared to a driver which might naturally be much more talented, but lacks the benefit of a famous family, financial wealth, and/or both.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no idea how much Mick has, and how long it'll take to find and unleash that potential and above all, how much 'rush' they have for that.
But to concider Schumacher was having benefits because of an illegal car, supposedly like his dad at some point, is a little low blow imho.

Could Mick have more talent even than his dad? Who knows. Sure it's possible.
I think it can be argued that Max has more talent than his dad Jos, i've seen both of them during their full F1 careers, and i've always had much interest in Jos' 'fury' like F1 skills.
Jos was absolutely talented. Max too. By achievement it's obvious Max has more talent. And i do really believe he has more than his dad.
That said though, Max grew up in a privilidged environment however you put it. Jos had all the connections and the leads and above all vast experience in the motorsport world,
and let's not forget his mother, Sophie Kumpen, also has vast experience (and talent) in the motorsport world, so in any case, Max has been given more and better guidance than
both his parents had at the start of their careers, no matter the intention.
And then for me, the question rises: would Jos have been a better / more successfull F1 driver if he had the same benefit his son Max has? And would that then mean that in reality,
Jos is as talented as Max?

In any case though, for now, we'll concider that Max is more talented than his father was.
Perhaps Mick is even more talented than his father.

But if that is the case, then how is he ever going to prove that? does he even want to prove that?
Do stats alone do enough? Schumacher is a 7-time WDC, with many other 'trophies' under his name.
Does Mick need to beat all of those stats to 'prove' he is on par or better than his dad?

Is a 2020+ F1 car even remotely comparable to 1990+ cars, which were absolutely dangerous in comparison?

At the very least, if Senna was the measurement or the driver to beat when Michael entered the stage,
then i do believe very much that if Mick enters F1 in 2021 (hopefully he will), then he needs to find himself a competitive seat to take on the challenge
to Hamilton. After all, Leclerc and Verstappen are absolutely talented, but Hamilton right now is the absolute 'giant' to slay right now.

It would be remarkable and interesting to see if Mick could find himself a race seat with for example Ferrari even in 2021,
and beat Hamilton and the rest in 2022 to be WDC with Ferrari.

I'd very much like to see that, but i honestly doubt that'll happen.
I got similarly disappointed before with Bruno Senna, of whom i had very high hopes.

[izzy]

lol it'd be way more than remarkable if Mick beat Lewis! Lol. Mick obviously isn't anything like as talented as either his dad or Lewis, or Max of Charles either. He didn't choose to be son-of-Schumi of course, but he's so privileged and has that trained plastic smile, i really hope some other talent gets the chance instead. And his F3 was SO like Lance's that everyone said was bought

And just on principle. i agree with those here who are a bit fed up with sons-of, who get fast-tracked at the expense of others. And Max is really the exception in actually having more talent instead of less, mostly it's less and a bit disappointing

[hollus]

Sons of? Carlos anyone?

[izzy]

Sons of? Carlos anyone?

yes and dad gave him the same name too, even worse so he gets called "Junior" or some other diminutive like Carlito!

He seems a nice guy, and he's not bad. Is he a superstar like Senior? I don't think so. So he's a son-of, who had it easy and isn't quite as good as his parent. If he'd come from some nothing background all on sponsorship it'd be more awesome wouldn't it? And awesome is the point of F1

edit and to the person who downvoted this: the idea of a forum is to discuss, debate, argue, not use it like a referendum when you can't think of anything to say

edit again: thanks for the compensating upvote, whoever you are, you star

[f1316]

I think Sainz is actually really good - we saw that vs. Max and if it were only about talent he would be in that 2nd RB seat right now. The problem is he’s not quite as good as Max (imho) and if the two don’t get on, the team were always going to choose Verstappen.

For Mick, he’s just not showing that his natural ability is one of the very best. He’s good for sure - and winning an F2 race in his rookie year means he’s probably in the top 1% in terms of sheer speed - but doesn’t seem in the top 0.1% that are the top F1 drivers.

We’ll see if he’s again able to adapt well to F2 after a bedding in period - and if he’s strong this year then I’m sure he’ll, deservedly, been on the F1 grid at some point - but I don’t think we’ll ever see him winning races in F1, let alone being anywhere near his father’s level.

[3jawchuck]

In order to succeed as a racing child, you have to have a dad who wasn't much good. Take Verstappen, and in the WRC Kalle Rovanperä.

[Just_a_fan]

At least Sainz is in a different type of motorsport from his father. Perhaps if Mick was in rallying or motorbikes etc. he'd be able to be his own man rather than the son of a legend.

As for Max, he's just better than his father ever was.

[alexx_88]

I don't really believe in talent, more in abilities trained and encouraged at a really young age. To that end, maybe Mick just started too late and didn't push as hard as the really successful drivers did. The F1 podcast brought a lot of insight into Michael's abilities and work ethic and everyone that talked about him said he was just an unbelievably hard worker. Really serious about his job and his role, up to the point where it was the only thing that mattered.

I blame movies for this concept of unbelievable natural ability that just exists in some people. Recent studies show that's not really the case at all

[izzy]

I don't really believe in talent, more in abilities trained and encouraged at a really young age. To that end, maybe Mick just started too late and didn't push as hard as the really successful drivers did. The F1 podcast brought a lot of insight into Michael's abilities and work ethic and everyone that talked about him said he was just an unbelievably hard worker. Really serious about his job and his role, up to the point where it was the only thing that mattered.

I blame movies for this concept of unbelievable natural ability that just exists in some people. Recent studies show that's not really the case at all

do you have a link to these studies please? Everything else varies among people so it's hard to believe physical driving skills like balance, proprioceptive muscle control, vision, coordination etc are all the same! Then masses of hard work and training as you say, but surely on top of inherited physical advantages. So if someone has scientifically proved otherwise it'd be interesting.

But for me i see some people can just pick up a ball and hit it, for example, and some people just can't. And it's a range so some people can be 'good' and a few get to play professional sport with it and one is the best of their era. And in general, there's a tendency for extremes to be diluted from one generation to the next, there's a kind of centralising trend, which is why Mick and Carlos are pretty normal sons-of-stars, like Alex Brundle, Giuliano Alesi and all the others. They get a head start, then eventually the more normal physical limitations kick in

[nzjrs]

I blame movies for this concept of unbelievable natural ability that just exists in some people. Recent studies show that's not really the case at all

Was not expecting blank slatism to pop up on F1T. Do you have a summary of the research you refer?

[Manoah2u]

I blame movies for this concept of unbelievable natural ability that just exists in some people. Recent studies show that's not really the case at all

if you only live through textbooks and equations then it's hard to believe yes.
but if you actually confront yourself with real life, it's a different story alltogether.

i'd like to invite you over to a bouldering / climbing hall, and have a seat looking at newcomers,
doing that stuff for the first time in their entire life.
and guess what, some actually go about surprisingly good compared to others and no, that actually doesn't have anything to do with their trained physique or fitness or whether they do any sport at all. i've seen it with my own eyes.

go bowling, with a bunch of first timers, and look how some are awkwardly bad and some shockingly good despite never having had a bowling ball in their hands.

have a swim in a swimming pool or a lake or the sea. go ice skating, etc.etc.
and above all, go and put a bunch of people together and let them paint a painting, preferably very young kids
and look at the difference.

there is zero doubt that there are people who have more natural born talent in certain areas than others.
yes, proper training, education and guidance will help people with less natural-born 'talent' to become more skilled and as such talented in a certain profession, perhaps even better than somebody who from the get-go was better but recieved no training or guidance.

I therefore am quite surprised about the wrong idea that 'unbelievable' natural ability doesn't exist in people.
You only need to look at the grid with newcomers to see its actually true.

Guys like Verstappen compared to guys like Stroll. Guys like LeClerc vs guys like Palmer.

And let's compare Michael Schumacher to Ralf Schumacher.
Honest review shows that Ralf Schumacher was very much a talented and worthy F1 driver.
But compared to his brother, Ralf really was miles behind.

Now we're offcourse not talking here like superhuman abilities like X-men or Avenger abilities. If you think that's being said then seriously, what? No. Not at all.

But 'extraordinary' 'natural' talent does exist, which is why recruiters are so much after kids that perform far above their classmates / other kids in any sport activity, like soccer, swimming, running.

Somehow, on Olympic level, the fastes and most athletic (marathon) runners are guys of African descent, specifically Kenyan, and not of 'caucasian' descent. There's a genetic influence there. That is, by all it's means, naturally born.

So to think that some people aren't naturally more able to perform better in motorsports, and it's all due to training and circumstances is rediculous to say the least.

In F1, guys like Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna and Lewis Hamilton are some of the biggest and recent names to prove just that. And then there's Prost, Lauda, (Gilles) Villeneuve, etc. etc.

[nevill3]

Totally agree about natural born talent, I remember many people I have encountered throughout my life and some are just naturally more gifted at certain things. Tennis and cricket shows natural ability is very important. I also remember watching Lewis drive normal car around the old Top Gear track in the wet and Clarkson was truly amazed at his car control and speed. Natural talent when enhanced from an early age with guidance and coaching will nearly always trump pure grit and determination to succeed especially when a certain amount of "feeling" is required to excell.

[El Scorchio]

If you didn’t want to call it ‘talent’ you could be more scientific and book it down to physiological (physical) and psychological (mental) differences between all of us as individuals. Some people just have an inherent combination of these facets that makes them better at things- driving a car fast, throwing a dart accurately, playing football to a high level, playing the guitar, painting a picture.

It’s possible through sheer time and hard work to get very good at most things- the 10,000 hours theory. But it’s just not the same. 99% of people on the planet could train just as hard but never be close to being as fast as Usain Bolt. The very best combine the 10,000 hours of hard work with their innate physiological and psychological advantages to rise to the very top while others who put the same effort or even more in will fall away. The cream rises to the top.

[El Scorchio]

And I should add that if Schumacher jr doesn’t have it, then he just doesn’t have it. He’s never going to get a ‘pity’ drive with Ferrari unless it’s as a clear #2 to Leclerc. He might get a season or two with Alfa or Haas, but he won’t get any advantages and if he doesn’t produce then he’s out, which my feeling is will be the case.