Ayrton Senna vs. Michael Schumacher [Archive]

Dave B

2nd July 2008, 10:54

leopard

2nd July 2008, 11:15

Welcome to forum, Senna was probably your hero. You may obtain the proper opinions from contemporary members here.

DezinerPaul

2nd July 2008, 11:18

Just interesting to see other's thoughts. Who is the greatest F1 driver ever, Ayrton Senna or Michael Schumacher?

Feel free to use opinions to the extreme...
Steve

Senna does not make the top 3 he would be lucky to make the top 5!

jens

2nd July 2008, 12:24

-- Who is the greatest F1 driver ever, Ayrton Senna or Michael Schumacher?--

There are too few options in your proposed question. But we may specifically discuss about these two drivers in this thread.

Comparing drivers from different eras is extremely difficult and often impossible - to get any comparison between the two drivers, who are under spotlight, need to race at the same time at least for some time to get any comparison platform. While this presumption is fulfilled in AS's and MS's case, then it's still hard to get a viable comparison, because MS was at the start of his career and understandably hadn't reached his peak.

Which one of them can be rated higher? Generally it is dependable on which driver characteristics a person, who is comparing these two, regards as more important. The eras in which they were racing for most of their career, were different. In Schumacher's era the importance of pitstop strategy had clearly risen as well as the outcome of qualifying sessions. Also the race pace became more consistent with less chance of running out of fuel or blistering tyres.

Well, I'm not going to create headaches to myself in comparing those two fantastic drivers and call it a draw. :p :

ArrowsFA1

2nd July 2008, 12:32

By the numbers it's Schumacher. Otherwise they're hard to separate.

In a sense Schumacher refined Senna's approach to racing, both in terms of the negative and positive aspects. They were both capable of using unacceptable tactics to win, just as both possessed sublime skills in a racing car.

The negative aspects are the main reasons why neither tops many 'all time greats' lists.

SGWilko

2nd July 2008, 12:35

Impossible question, but no doubt someone will soon be along with statistics to "prove" it one way or the other.

Schumacher's achievements are clearly the benchmark and unlikely to be equalled for a generation at least. However there are question marks about "cheating" and "dirty tactics" that refuse to go away.

Senna was no angel either, of course, but had the remarkable ability to make the hairs on your neck stand on end - particularly in qualifying. We'll never know how his career would have panned out if it weren't for the events of May 1994. Some will claim he was past his best, others would argue that Williams were about to enter a period of dominance which could have seen him take more championships.

FWIW, my tuppence h'apenny on the Senna V Schumacher dirty tactics is as follows;

Senna, on two specific occasions - 89 and 90, deliberately 'took out' his opponent (Prost). However, and this is just MHO, he subsequently went on record justifying the exact reasons why he did it, and cited those he felt were the root cause of his actions.

Namely JMB deliberately moving the pole spot in 89, which incensed Senna, and he made reference to what would happen if it was not changed.

As this directly resulted in his losing the WDC that year, he did the same thing a year later to ensure he got the title, as just deserts for the previous year.

Turning to MS. Now - he has had two notable 'taking out' incidents. The '94 Hill incident was he had no excuse for. He claimed his car was damaged and caused him to swerve (I think).

'97 JV - well, that was blatant, but justice dealt its own blow and he (MS) went off the track and DNF'd.

I do think however that they both had talent in bucketloads - and then some. MS's talent was his mental dexterity and ability to think corners - even laps in advance, and his technical now how. Look at how he dealt with being stuck in 5th at Jerez - was it Jerez?

Senna had those 'out of car experiences' where he was controlling the car almost subconsiously.

Both masters of their craft - but were they flawed geniuses?

gravity

2nd July 2008, 13:52

gravity

2nd July 2008, 14:17

My favourite choice of all-time great F1 driver would have to be Fangio.

http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/hall_of_fame/268/

How could anyone compete with that?

MrJan

2nd July 2008, 15:45

Senna does not make the top 3 he would be lucky to make the top 5!

Out of a choice of two he would make the top five? Sorry to p*** on your bonfire but I think that's statistically impossible (if my B in GCSE statistics is right).

You can't say which was better really. Different drivers, different time, different cars. Both were very good, Schumacher was more about intelligent driving and using his head where Senna was more passionate.

We all would have loved to have seen the 2 race at their peak as it would certainly have been a show.

DezinerPaul

2nd July 2008, 16:19

My favourite choice of all-time great F1 driver would have to be Fangio.

http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/hall_of_fame/268/

How could anyone compete with that?

Simple, his nemesis Ascari!

DezinerPaul

2nd July 2008, 16:25

Out of a choice of two he would make the top five? Sorry to p*** on your bonfire but I think that's statistically impossible (if my B in GCSE statistics is right).

You can't say which was better really. Different drivers, different time, different cars. Both were very good, Schumacher was more about intelligent driving and using his head where Senna was more passionate.

We all would have loved to have seen the 2 race at their peak as it would certainly have been a show.

Top 3
Schumacher/Fangio/Prost 4-7...Clark/Ascari/Senna

MrJan

2nd July 2008, 16:39

Top 3
Schumacher/Fangio/Prost 4-7...Clark/Ascari/Senna

But the thread is about Schumacher and Senna, not Clark, not Fangio, not Justin Wilson or Eddie bloody Irvine.

Your answer need only have said

Schumacher

:)

DezinerPaul

2nd July 2008, 17:45

But the thread is about Schumacher and Senna, not Clark, not Fangio, not Justin Wilson or Eddie bloody Irvine.

Your answer need only have said

:)

Not so!!!!!! You asked the question, who is the best ever, between MS and AS.
My reply, Senna is not in the top three, so he is not in the hunt for the title of best ever.

SGWilko

2nd July 2008, 17:51

Not so!!!!!! You asked the question, who is the best ever, between MS and AS.
My reply, Senna is not in the top three, so he is not in the hunt for the title of best ever.

Is too! Your reply appears to have included a number of other drivers, which, prima facie, are unrelated to the original thread topic, whick asked about the comparison between two specific drivers - Senna and Schmacher.

Or is the title statistically incorrect, or are we all being subjective towards its meaning?

You're a real fungi to be with, i bet........ :p :

MrJan

2nd July 2008, 17:56

Not so!!!!!! You asked the question, who is the best ever, between MS and AS.
My reply, Senna is not in the top three, so he is not in the hunt for the title of best ever.

I didn't ask the question but it seemed to be a simple choice between 2 drivers. If I asked you which you prefer tea or coffee you wouldn't answer "coffee, soup, then hot chocolate, then lager, milk then tea".

SGWilko

2nd July 2008, 17:59

which you prefer tea or coffee.

Er, dare I say Espresso? :D :laugh: Sorry, could not resist. I am statistically an annoying b45tard sometimes. :p :

DezinerPaul

2nd July 2008, 17:59

I didn't ask the question but it seemed to be a simple choice between 2 drivers. If I asked you which you prefer tea or coffee you wouldn't answer "coffee, soup, then hot chocolate, then lager, milk then tea".

It is not a choice between two drivers, if you are asking who is the greatest

MrJan

2nd July 2008, 18:02

It is not a choice between two drivers, if you are asking who is the greatest

It is if you then qualify it with two choices.

Rollo

3rd July 2008, 00:59

This whole thread is the case of the lesser of two evils for me. In terms of driving skill and ability they were both masters of their craft, but in terms of character they're both utter filth.

Because I think that Senna was a better driver than Hill, and because the Williams was improving throughout '94, I think that Senna would have had a fairly decent tilt at '94, '95, '96 and '97 by which time his star would have slowly fallen.
That in-my-well-paid-opnion would have left Senna with 7 titles and Schumacher with 5.

Had they been in equal machinery, I'd reckon Senna would have won 8 times in 13.

wedge

3rd July 2008, 02:11

http://www.motorsportforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123404

Miatanut

3rd July 2008, 03:02

The Official Formula 1 website has a "hall of fame" section.
Link to Michael Schumacher's entry:
http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/hall_of_fame/7/
Link to Ayrton Senna's entry:
http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/hall_of_fame/45/

The events in Imola '94 robbed us of what would probably have been the biggest battle of the F1 giants in Formula 1 history.

ABSOLUTELY! While I was shocked a saddened that weekend, we were just getting into the Senna vs Schumacher battles, which I had been licking my chops for. They were going to be spectacular. That made it a double loss.

As for the original question. I really didn't like the young Senna. His approach was always 'you give way or we're both out'. It wasn't just the two Suzuka incidents. All the top F1 drivers would complain about him in the Autosport race reports. The last 1 to 1 1/2 years of his life, I felt he had settled down and I began to like him.

Between the two, I would go with Schumacher, but I think the question is too limited, because the greatest of all time was Fangio.

Miatanut

3rd July 2008, 03:11

Top 3
Schumacher/Fangio/Prost 4-7...Clark/Ascari/Senna

Prost! I always preferred The Professor, because he raced with this head. By comparison, Senna was a snot-nosed schoolboy with no respect for his elders. I hate to admit it, but Senna was better.

shazbot

3rd July 2008, 03:43

Rollo

3rd July 2008, 04:09

Schumacher also on two specific occasions - 94 and 97 deliberately 'took out' his opponent (Hill and Villeneuve).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQC_LQI1Aiw
Hill tried around the outside to go around Schmacher's stricken car and then up the inside. Schumacher deliberately turned in on Hill because, there is no possible other reason why he would have even turned back onto the racing line at such a corner.

Schumacher vs Senna is the question of which is better - a **** or a ****?

Miatanut

3rd July 2008, 04:36

Senna, on two specific occasions - 89 and 90, deliberately 'took out' his opponent (Prost).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8-QhXnuLgk&feature=related

The '89 incident was, in my view Prost taking out Senna. The overhead view is very telling. Look at Prost's trajectory - If Senna wasn't there he would have turned in way too early. 1990 is a different matter of course but I feel the 89 coming together is wrongly blamed on Ayrton.

I always thought Prost's conduct there was a little questionable, but I think it was within the rules. He was protecting the inside, so he turned in early. He didn't make a second move in response to the car behind. I don't remember Prost getting a hand slap after it. Senna's action the next year was pretty blatant.

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 05:29

It is if you then qualify it with two choices.

Not so as I do not agree with your two choices of who is the best. If on the other hand you are asking who is the better of the two, the answer is simple Prost.
Senna was beaten by Prost, over their careers. That does not mean that Senna never beat Prost, what it means that Prost had the much better of the two careers. The issue of Sennas passing does not come into it, as 1: he did not race so one cannot sat what he would have done, The chances of him beating Michael were at best slim. The ONLY reason anybody got close to Michael was the FIA penalties,the "Barge Board incident" and the pace car. Many believe that the FIA wanted Williams and Damon to take the title, because of Senna. Senna was not in the hunt in 94 and had crashed on all three of his starts, even after having the pole on each occaisons. When he died he was already 7 points behind Hill and Damon, proved how fast he was over the rest of the year. He was showing the signs of losing his great skills, remember he was always great for one lap, consistencey was his problem. With Senna, the myth is much larger than the man. How can he even be considered in the top three, when he fought a losing battle against Prost, who must be on the top three. There can be only one top three and you can put them in you own order of preferance, mine is Michael, Fangio, Prosts because at days end, it is all about the title.

Miatanut

3rd July 2008, 07:46

Not so as I do not agree with your two choices of who is the best. If on the other hand you are asking who is the better of the two, the answer is simple Prost.
Senna was beaten by Prost, over their careers. That does not mean that Senna never beat Prost, what it means that Prost had the much better of the two careers. The issue of Sennas passing does not come into it, as 1: he did not race so one cannot sat what he would have done, The chances of him beating Michael were at best slim. The ONLY reason anybody got close to Michael was the FIA penalties,the "Barge Board incident" and the pace car. Many believe that the FIA wanted Williams and Damon to take the title, because of Senna. Senna was not in the hunt in 94 and had crashed on all three of his starts, even after having the pole on each occaisons. When he died he was already 7 points behind Hill and Damon, proved how fast he was over the rest of the year. He was showing the signs of losing his great skills, remember he was always great for one lap, consistencey was his problem. With Senna, the myth is much larger than the man. How can he even be considered in the top three, when he fought a losing battle against Prost, who must be on the top three. There can be only one top three and you can put them in you own order of preferance, mine is Michael, Fangio, Prosts because at days end, it is all about the title.

Interesting!

Prost's winning percentage was .255
Senna's was a squinch lower at .253
The Schu's is .364
Fangio's, in an era where if you put a wheel wrong, you could end up dead, was .451 :eek:

Odd how much more people remember of Senna than Prost, when they were both pretty equal in winning races.

ShiftingGears

3rd July 2008, 08:27

Interesting!

Prost's winning percentage was .255
Senna's was a squinch lower at .253
The Schu's is .364
Fangio's, in an era where if you put a wheel wrong, you could end up dead, was .451 :eek:

Odd how much more people remember of Senna than Prost, when they were both pretty equal in winning races.

My take on it is, that if you had Senna in the modern era where the result is decided by 2-4 short sprints between tyre stops, he'd beat Prost pretty clearly. Because the strategy window in conserving the tyres is significantly smaller now than it was in the late 80's and early 90's. And Senna had more natural talent.

If if if!

ArrowsFA1

3rd July 2008, 08:56

As for the original question. I really didn't like the young Senna. His approach was always 'you give way or we're both out'. It wasn't just the two Suzuka incidents.
Indeed. There were incidents with the likes of Enrique Mansilla in FF1600 and Martin Brundle in F3 that fit that description.

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 09:46

Interesting!

Prost's winning percentage was .255
Senna's was a squinch lower at .253
The Schu's is .364
Fangio's, in an era where if you put a wheel wrong, you could end up dead, was .451 :eek:

Odd how much more people remember of Senna than Prost, when they were both pretty equal in winning races.

Seeing that Senna and Prost raced against each other 142 times, here is a comparison off them in the same race
Drive in same race
Alain Prost Ayrton Senna
142 Races 142
51 35% Best on grid 64% 91
75 52% Best at finish 47% 67
42 29% Victory 26% 37
23 16% Pole 42% 60
89 62% Podium 50% 72
33 23% FastesLaps 12% 18
103 72% FinInPoints 61% 87

GJD

3rd July 2008, 10:27

The thread starter's question "Who is the greatest F1 driver ever, Ayrton Senna or Michael Schumacher?" is something of a non-sequitur.

It makes the assumption that one of those two gentlemen is the greatest F1 driver ever.

That is an assertion with which many people will take issue, hence the rather lumpy start for this thread.

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 10:32

My take on it is, that if you had Senna in the modern era where the result is decided by 2-4 short sprints between tyre stops, he'd beat Prost pretty clearly. Because the strategy window in conserving the tyres is significantly smaller now than it was in the late 80's and early 90's. And Senna had more natural talent.

If if if!

:up: Yup. Prost was a bit rubbish at the end of his career too :D It all depends if you drive with your heart or your head. Mr DezinerPaul obviously prefers drives that take the (boring IMO) sensible, considered approach. Me, I much prefer a driver with passion which is why I preferred JPM over MS, Colin McRae over Tommi Makkinen and Petter Solberg ove Sebastian Loeb :)

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 10:34

ShiftingGears

3rd July 2008, 10:43

Seeing that Senna and Prost raced against each other 142 times, here is a comparison off them in the same race
Drive in same race
Alain Prost Ayrton Senna
142 Races 142
51 35% Best on grid 64% 91
75 52% Best at finish 47% 67
42 29% Victory 26% 37
23 16% Pole 42% 60
89 62% Podium 50% 72
33 23% FastesLaps 12% 18
103 72% FinInPoints 61% 87

Noone takes your arguments seriously if you unquestionably accept statistics at face value. Because there are so many uncontrollable variables that prevent us seeing the true performance of the drivers.

So that is why 1988 and 1989 are better at gauging the quality of these two drivers than any other season. And the fact that, in 1989, when both of the drivers finished, Prost beat Senna once, clearly suggests that Senna is the better driver.

ArrowsFA1

3rd July 2008, 10:55

So that is why 1988 and 1989 are better at gauging the quality of these two drivers than any other season.
Comparing drivers when they're racing for the same team at the same time is as close as we can get to making meaningful comparisons :up:

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 11:24

Noone takes your arguments seriously if you unquestionably accept statistics at face value. Because there are so many uncontrollable variables that prevent us seeing the true performance of the drivers.

So that is why 1988 and 1989 are better at gauging the quality of these two drivers than any other season. And the fact that, in 1989, when both of the drivers finished, Prost beat Senna once, clearly suggests that Senna is the better driver.

Not so, as that is only a very small part of their careers.

ShiftingGears

3rd July 2008, 11:43

Not so, as that is only a very small part of their careers.

So you are admitting that its wrong to judge Hamilton as not being able to ever win the WDC then, because its such a small part of his F1 career?

Because with that logic you either do that, or you concede that two whole seasons is a significant amount of time to judge the ability and talent of two drivers with at least three whole seasons of F1 experience each.

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 11:54

So you are admitting that its wrong to judge Hamilton as not being able to ever win the WDC then, because its such a small part of his F1 career?

Because with that logic you either do that, or you concede that two whole seasons is a significant amount of time to judge the ability and talent of two drivers with at least three whole seasons of F1 experience each..

I said that the only way he will win the title, if he is given a dominant car.
His emotional and mental makeup, is who he is an he demonstrates that all to often, both in and out of the car. Air head would be a fair description!

ShiftingGears

3rd July 2008, 12:03

.

I said that the only way he will win the title, if he is given a dominant car.
His emotional and mental makeup, is who he is an he demonstrates that all to often, both in and out of the car. Air head would be a fair description!

That is only an impression, and you are ruling out the possibility that *gasp* he may actually learn from his mistakes.

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 12:20

His emotional and mental makeup, is who he is an he demonstrates that all to often, both in and out of the car. Air head would be a fair description!

I agree with that :eek: Difference is that I think he will learn and change. Need I refer to the Twirling Brazilian Felipe Massa again. He must have cost Sauber a fortune in carbon fibre yet is now a very quick and reliable driver at Ferrari. Doesn't matter that he spent X number of years hitting everything that moved (a most things that didn't) because he is now a possible world champion.

Do you admit that IF Hamilton matures as Massa did then he is capable of winning a Championship? Remember this is hypothetical and relies on Hamilton changing his spots, although I am fully aware that you think he won't.

So, if Lewis Hamilton grows up/alters his personality do you think that he has the talent to win a WDC?

F1boat

3rd July 2008, 12:23

I believe that Michael is better. To me he seems to be an "upgraded" version of Senna.

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 12:44

I agree with that :eek: Difference is that I think he will learn and change. Need I refer to the Twirling Brazilian Felipe Massa again. He must have cost Sauber a fortune in carbon fibre yet is now a very quick and reliable driver at Ferrari. Doesn't matter that he spent X number of years hitting everything that moved (a most things that didn't) because he is now a possible world champion.

Do you admit that IF Hamilton matures as Massa did then he is capable of winning a Championship? Remember this is hypothetical and relies on Hamilton changing his spots, although I am fully aware that you think he won't.

So, if Lewis Hamilton grows up/alters his personality do you think that he has the talent to win a WDC?

Having followed Massa for his entire career, I can assure you that views of him are way off. FM is not only quick he is very smart, engineers love him and he is great at working on set ups and communicating with the engineers. Tell me the last time, he made one of those bonehead statements that Queen Airhead makes.

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 12:50

Having followed Massa for his entire career, I can assure you that views of him are way off. FM is not only quick he is very smart, engineers love him and he is great at working on set ups and communicating with the engineers. Tell me the last time, he made one of those bonehead statements that Queen Airhead makes.

I never said that he made comments, merely that he matured in his driving style. Surely you can't deny that he was prone to hitting things in his early F1 career.

Massa is not the issue here though, so if you'd kindly stop avoiding the question and answer it then we can all get back to discussing the OP.

I'll repeat it once more for you:

IFHamilton grows up/alters his personality do you think that he has the talent to win a WDC?

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 13:02

I never said that he made comments, merely that he matured in his driving style. Surely you can't deny that he was prone to hitting things in his early F1 career.

Massa is not the issue here though, so if you'd kindly stop avoiding the question and answer it then we can all get back to discussing the OP.

I'll repeat it once more for you:

IFHamilton grows up/alters his personality do you think that he has the talent to win a WDC?

Way toooooooooooooooooo many if's there!

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 13:11

Way toooooooooooooooooo many if's there!

No, it's one if, stop avoiding the question. Pretend it's like the kind of question "If you had £10 billion what would you buy?".

Once more:
If, in a purely hypothetical situation, Hamilton becomes more responsible, is he capable of winning the WDC?

It's a very simple question with a very simple answer.

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 13:12

No, it's one if, stop avoiding the question. Pretend it's like the kind of question "If you had £10 billion what would you buy?".

Once more:
If, in a purely hypothetical situation, Hamilton becomes more responsible, is he capable of winning the WDC?

It's a very simple question with a very simple answer.

Well, Mika won two titles, so there is hope for Queen Airhead.

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 13:19

Well, Mika won two titles, so there is hope for Queen Airhead.

I think that is the closest I'll get to a straight answer, thank you :up:

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 13:21

I think that is the closest I'll get to a straight answer, thank you :up:

My pleasure, of course it will happen a week after pigs start flying!

Dave B

3rd July 2008, 13:57

Way toooooooooooooooooo many if's there!

You're happy to start a thread called "Hamilton will never....", which would lead one to believe you are certain he will never take a championship - in spite of you clearly not being able to see into the future.

Yet challenged to ask if it's possible, under certain circumstances, for Hamilton to triumph, you refuse to commit yourself as there are too many variables.

Do you not understand why it's impossible to take you seriously?

SGWilko

3rd July 2008, 14:00

You're happy to start a thread called "Hamilton will never....", which would lead one to believe you are certain he will never take a championship - in spite of you clearly not being able to see into the future.

Yet challenged to ask if it's possible, under certain circumstances, for Hamilton to triumph, you refuse to commit yourself as there are too many variables.

Do you not understand why it's impossible to take you seriously?

Dave, you have used waaaaaayyyyyyyyy too many big words there mate. You may struggle for an answer......... ;)

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 14:24

You're happy to start a thread called "Hamilton will never....", which would lead one to believe you are certain he will never take a championship - in spite of you clearly not being able to see into the future.

Yet challenged to ask if it's possible, under certain circumstances, for Hamilton to triumph, you refuse to commit yourself as there are too many variables.

Do you not understand why it's impossible to take you seriously?

Making it as clear as I can. It is my belief, that the ONLY way that Hamilton wins the title, is if he is given a dominant car. Is that clear enough for you?

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 14:33

Making it as clear as I can. It is my belief, that the ONLY way that Hamilton wins the title, is if he is given a dominant car. Is that clear enough for you?

But you said that the reason for Hamilton not winning the championship was his arrogance and stupidity. If he changes then surely he will not win ONLY because of a quick car but because he is obviously a quick driver?

We are just going round in circles really and I'm amazed that the other thread stayed open for as long as it did (although glad that it did).

I had hoped that I'd be able to dig your head out of the sand for long enough to accept that Hamilton is a fast driver and could easily win the championship without a dominant car. Stupidly didn't realise how stupidly stubborn you are, or how little you appreciate fast drivers, that was a mistake on my part.

Enjoy your time watching F1 over the next few years, it's going to be a good battle between 5 or 6 drivers capable of winning the championship, and yes Lewis Hamilton is one of them (you know the bloke that came within touching distance of the title in his FIRST season).

Schumacher btw, doesn't stand a chance in this years WDC. Senna even less so ;)

maxu05

3rd July 2008, 14:34

I hate these arguments for the reason that nobody wins.

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 14:55

But you said that the reason for Hamilton not winning the championship was his arrogance and stupidity. If he changes then surely he will not win ONLY because of a quick car but because he is obviously a quick driver?

We are just going round in circles really and I'm amazed that the other thread stayed open for as long as it did (although glad that it did).

I had hoped that I'd be able to dig your head out of the sand for long enough to accept that Hamilton is a fast driver and could easily win the championship without a dominant car. Stupidly didn't realise how stupidly stubborn you are, or how little you appreciate fast drivers, that was a mistake on my part.

Enjoy your time watching F1 over the next few years, it's going to be a good battle between 5 or 6 drivers capable of winning the championship, and yes Lewis Hamilton is one of them (you know the bloke that came within touching distance of the title in his FIRST season).

Schumacher btw, doesn't stand a chance in this years WDC. Senna even less so ;)

You mean the one that he blew, or should I say, he gave away the title?

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 14:57

I hate these arguments for the reason that nobody wins.

Not sure about winning, I can say I never lose!

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 15:07

You mean the one that he blew, or should I say, he gave away the title?

No you can safely say he blew it. These things happen, people learn, adapt and come back stronger.

Stubborness to concede defeat does not mean that you have not lost. I'm not saying that I've won because you have a valid point about Hamilton being hotheaded but I don't think many agree with you that it is impossible for him to win a championship on merit.

I don't think it is ever possible to say that a driver won't win a WDC (apart from maybe Scott Speed ;) ). You can say that it is unlikely, or that you don't think it'll happen, but it is impossible to state as a fact that it WILL not happen.

@ Maxu05 - John, this is just a snippet of the argument :D There's a whole other thread where nobody wins :laugh:

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 15:15

No you can safely say he blew it. These things happen, people learn, adapt and come back stronger.

Stubborness to concede defeat does not mean that you have not lost. I'm not saying that I've won because you have a valid point about Hamilton being hotheaded but I don't think many agree with you that it is impossible for him to win a championship on merit.

I don't think it is ever possible to say that a driver won't win a WDC (apart from maybe Scott Speed ;) ). You can say that it is unlikely, or that you don't think it'll happen, but it is impossible to state as a fact that it WILL not happen.

@ Maxu05 - John, this is just a snippet of the argument :D There's a whole other thread where nobody wins :laugh:

Well you have made many statements, that you feel are correct. So is it fine for you to do so, while it's not good for others

MrJan

3rd July 2008, 15:22

I never said that my opinion was necessarily right, or stopped you from voicing your opinion. However unless you can see into the future I do not believe that your claim as sufficient grounding.

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that the Hamilton thread got hijacked by a discussion about Senna/Schumacher and the Senna/Schumacher thread was hijacked by Hamilton :D :laugh: (Although I fear I probably didn't help keep it on track)

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 15:25

For my part, I love the conflict of ideas.

Miatanut

3rd July 2008, 18:44

Seeing that Senna and Prost raced against each other 142 times, here is a comparison off them in the same race
Drive in same race
Alain Prost Ayrton Senna
142 Races 142
51 35% Best on grid 64% 91
75 52% Best at finish 47% 67
42 29% Victory 26% 37
23 16% Pole 42% 60
89 62% Podium 50% 72
33 23% FastesLaps 12% 18
103 72% FinInPoints 61% 87

That would indicate they are close but Senna is better, but you're missing a key statistic there. There were MANY times when Prost gave way to Senna because Prost was racing with his head and not interested in going out on the spot. I'm sure if you look at how many retirements each had due to crashes and how many retirements each had due to mechanical problems, you will find Senna (the very same one who did the miracle car-control pole laps) crashed out more often.

In other words, many of his wins came from passes made by bullying.

The Senna fans don't like to admit that one.

DezinerPaul

3rd July 2008, 20:04

That would indicate they are close but Senna is better, but you're missing a key statistic there. There were MANY times when Prost gave way to Senna because Prost was racing with his head and not interested in going out on the spot. I'm sure if you look at how many retirements each had due to crashes and how many retirements each had due to mechanical problems, you will find Senna (the very same one who did the miracle car-control pole laps) crashed out more often.

In other words, many of his wins came from passes made by bullying.

The Senna fans don't like to admit that one.

The myth is that Senna, had this fantastic focus. This is true, for a few laps, however over a race distance he made many mistakes, that is why he is not as good as Prost

jens

3rd July 2008, 20:04

A shame the "Hamilton will never" thread is closed - it was an interesting read. But at least a similar discussion carries on in another thread. :p :

gravity

3rd July 2008, 22:01

Rollo

4th July 2008, 00:43

In how many of those (142) races did Prost have better equipment? He was known for moving across to whichever team seemed best at the time, whereas Senna seemed to have the job of trying to wrestle an unstable car. There was only 1 season where both drivers had the same equipment and Senna came out on top in that battle.

And which year was that? It wasn't 1988 because Prost actually outscored Senna and lost the championship by virtue of the fact that Senna had a more inconsitent season, including a DQ.
Apart from non-finshes, Senna dropped a 6th and a 4th which amounted to 4 points whereas Prost dropped three second places for 18 points dropped. This as far as I'm concerned is a failure of the scoring system.

Senna was rewarded for being crappier.

Miatanut

4th July 2008, 04:09

The myth is that Senna, had this fantastic focus. This is true, for a few laps, however over a race distance he made many mistakes, that is why he is not as good as Prost

I had brain fade when I was typing. Those stats showed Prost better.

GJD

4th July 2008, 09:36

I think the intention was "Which was the greatest F1 driver; Senna or Schumi?". At least that's how I read it.

Quite possibly so. In which case the comparative adjective 'greater', rather than the superlative adjective 'greatest', might have helped the communication.

Steve

5th July 2008, 12:58

OK people of the world, who is better than, Michael Schumacher or Ayrton Senna?

BDunnell

5th July 2008, 13:02

And which year was that? It wasn't 1988 because Prost actually outscored Senna and lost the championship by virtue of the fact that Senna had a more inconsitent season, including a DQ.
Apart from non-finshes, Senna dropped a 6th and a 4th which amounted to 4 points whereas Prost dropped three second places for 18 points dropped. This as far as I'm concerned is a failure of the scoring system.

Senna was rewarded for being crappier.

Dropped scores should never be allowed to feature in the points system of any major motorsport series again. They are unnecessarily complex and also unfair.

ShiftingGears

5th July 2008, 13:04

It could be validly argued...

Jim Clark
Juan Manuel Fangio

I think those four are in the top five F1 World Championship drivers.

ST205GT4

7th July 2008, 05:09

These are always pointless discussions which no one enters completely objectively, myself included.

So I'll admit up front I'm a Senna fan and I've never liked Schumacher.

I'd really have liked to have seen the battle between Senna and Schumacher go longer than it did. They were really only just getting into it when Senna passed away in 94.

No one really knows whether one is better than the other. Both sides can bring arguments that "prove" one was better than the other, but really it's all subjective.

Schumacher fans will simply point to the stats as proof, whilst Senna fans will point to the 93 season where the two drivers ran cars with similar engines (although Senna's was a customer Ford whilst Schumacher had the factory engine) and point out how equal both drivers were or Donnington in 93 where he provided a masterclass in wet weather driving or dismiss the stats argument because Senna's career was cut short.

In the end I think most of those arguments aren't based on fact at all, but simply on how emotionally attached a person is to their favourite driver. For me, a teenager of the late 80s, the best driver will always be Senna.