A.J. wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:35 pm
Invade wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
A.J. wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:01 am
I think it is a very interesting take from myattitude actually - certainly not fantasy in any way. Schumacher revolutionized many aspects of the sport, the likes of which very few others have been able to achieve. Senna before him started with the importance of fitness, and Schumacher took it to another level. There was also a fascinating anecdote from early on in his career, where he wanted a tachometer to be added to the Benetton dashboard, so he could use real-time data to optimize and maximize his corner speed - this is but one example of how Schumacher simply changed the game. Something his detractors seem to completely ignore or minimize.
I feel the next revolution might come from the current or next generation of drivers who might take sim-racing as a platform to refine their driving - although who knows really. if it were obvious to everyone they would already be doing it.
When one starts going beyond what athletes achieved in their own time, we're getting fanciful. Transposing entire career blocks, however, is really taking a leap. I really have no idea what Hamilton would have achieved in Schumacher's block. He might not have even become Champion. There's no guarantee that Schumacher would have found equal opportunity in Hamilton's block or that he ends up with the most dominant team. We assume they were talented enough to thrive in most eras, but there are levels to success and all we have is the one instance of either achieving what they did. Run their careers again even in their own time and they might win a lot less than what we know (or indeed more).
We've spoken before on where the next revolution may come from and I agree it probably has something to do with the integration of what can be learned from simulation, especially as sims continue to advance. But there's a time and a place for such revolutions and not every period in the history of a sport or a science or an art actually lends a platform for such a breakthrough. Timing is important and the less fanciful notion of suggesting that people are a product of their era feels more secure here.
Schumacher's pioneering is kinda obvious — get fitter, increase options for data and feedback. Not obvious in the sense that it wasn't impressive, otherwise why wouldn't everyone push on with that sort of vision and ambition? But obvious in the sense that it's a gap which was likely to present itself intuitively, hence the parallel global evolution of professionalism along the same lines across pretty much all major sports through the 1990s and 2000s. That's all taken care of and has come on leaps and bounds in the general sense up till now. Sports in general undergoes a parallelism of evolution, and across the board professionalism is far higher now than it was even a couple of decades ago. So now we're sat in 2021, and in the current time and era one wonders: where can another revolution come from? Because I don't see any obvious, intuitive 'gap' in the model to exploit, with the only thing I can see being skill integration spanning multiple disciplines.
Right now I just don't have the vision or foresight to see a space for the next Michael Jackson, the next Albert Einstein or the next Michael Schumacher. The music market is too saturated and fragmented; the obvious areas of improvement are fairly maximised as far as we can tell across many sports; and the more profound models for understanding the workings of the world seem to be quite well accounted for in the realm of science.
There are a couple of things here that stand out for me - while we have no way of knowing how they would perform in a different era, the core personality of Schumacher makes a difference here for me. Schumacher's success is built on his work ethic, determination, hard work, and team skills - the only areas where I feel Hamilton matches him here is in determination, possibly hard work - for the other 2 there is daylight between them, even today (just read the comments from the Merc crew about Hamilton being like a mercenary when he joined the Merc (ha!) team - and this was in his 7th year in the sport). This leads me to a reasonable conclusion that Schumacher would be successful in any era - he pushed the boundaries in everything, which sometimes was also his undoing as has been previously discussed. Hamilton's raw talent would most likely also ensure he's successful, but I feel he's less in charge of his own fate as compared to Schumacher. In other words, luck and timing play a bigger role in Hamilton's success as compared to Schumacher's - and that is a critical point of differentiation for me.
Schumacher's pioneering is kinda obvious — get fitter, increase options for data and feedback.
Well it is obvious in hindsight - but as I said, if it were obvious at the time then everyone would be doing it. Everyone wasn't - Schumacher set the template for it, created the benchmark for others to follow.
As for the rest of your thoughts - I agree that in everything at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in, so the advancements might not always be as dramatic as they can be earlier in the exercise. However, I don't subscribe to the thought that we have reached or are close to reaching a saturation point when it comes to "models for understanding the workings of the world in the realm of science" - to me this sounds like a fancier way of saying "everything that can be invented already has been". I think there are going to be multiple advancements coming (not always at a constant rate) which will push the boundaries further than we can imagine today. Without making it sound like sci-fi, could you imagine groundbreaking use of technology to create a better driver? Think of something as simple as Tiger Woods' eye surgery to improve his vision beyond normal human capability - what if the driver of the future is able to use scientific advancements in bionics to improve reaction times/spatial awareness/strength/other important metrics? It might even happen in our lifetimes.
I can agree generally with all you've said here.
About scientific advancements, there's an awful lot to come which could be revolutionary if we were to get into the topic of the technological singularity which is being predicted and the seemingly inevitable synthesis of technology and man, rather than the mere symbiosis which generally exists today. For sure, I don't know what, but have to imagine there are dizzying advances to come. An example of a recent potential revolution is that of chess understanding being revealed by AlphaZero and the advancements in neural networking in the learning strategies of A.I. The chess the program plays undermines long-held chess principles, but the insight it provides can't be so readily incorporated by players who are already developed and in their prime - it's more for the following generations who might be able to incorporate somewhat of a paradigm shift in the whole approach to the game.
So I guess what I meant here was more things like quantum mechanics and the standard model, relativity and such — models which aren't complete but fundamentally as a possible gap in the whole workings of things are already accounted for. So, general theories and mechanics of physics rather than maximising their potential. We are not remotely close to maximising, for example, quantum computing.
Now I appreciate I'm still wrong in what I said, because there is nothing which suggests another equivalent discovery won't be found, something which might render string theory virtually obsolete, say. And perhaps the singularity might escalate the ability to further account for the world and actually make it easier to revolutionise knowledge. Quantum theory upended physics when leading scientists mostly thought they'd solved the world. It can happen again.
In terms of the actual products we can produce from the basic principles of what we know, I have to imagine we're just scratching the surface. We might just be at the beginning of a profound explosion of life-altering technologies, as we continue to build upon principles of science we already know and have worked on for many decades.
Sport doesn't have to wait for this more lofty possibility though to find revolution. I think a good recent example is Stephen Curry in the NBA and the explosion of the 3-point shot. Actually, analytics had shown for a long time that teams should be shooting more 3-pointers, but Curry was the right guy at the right time to explode the paradigm and turn it into a critical staple of any coach's gameplan. The current, flow, of 3-point shooting as the leading strategy was already in motion and Stephen Curry was its spear some years down the road.
Naturally, each sport is its own beast and has its own gaps and areas of possible development which are unique to its construction and ruleset. I suppose that with F1, there is such general volatility in formulae that there should be reasonable opportunity even in the near future for someone to split the game open in some way.