It all started when George from Greece posted this comment on his
thoughts on the 2003 Japanese GP:
Yeah it was really impressive watching today's best, most experienced and
most successful driver hitting Sato and almost da Matta in the most important
race of the year. Having probably the smallest task possible, he managed to
drive as a bad rookie and make stupid mistakes. Still he has been lucky enough
this year as always. He really is great I recognise that but please records
don't always tell the truth so don't compare him with the real great ones such
as Senna, Clark or Fangio. They never did the mistakes he has, it's just that
he never faced the competition they did - George - Greece
And Mathew T from Australia replied:
What is George from Greece talking about!. He obviously hasn't been watching
formula 1 for very long because he conveniently forgets that when Senna was
killed Schumacher had just taken him to the cleaners in the first 2 races and
was about to do it in the third IMOLA 94. Tragically Senna was killed and we
never got to see probably the greatest rivalry in F1 history. He then
proceeded to go on and take care of Damon Hill, Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard,
every single team-mate he has ever had and anyone else you care to mention. He
has now broken every record there is to break except for pole positions and
Monaco victories and he will achieve both of them as well. He has taken on the
best and beaten them as the above shows. The only reason this year was close
is that the FIA have basically cheated and changed the rules to try and beat
him. He scored 6 wins to the next best which was 2 and 5 pole positions and he
would consider this to be a bad year personally for him. If George from Greece
had bothered to follow qualifying he would realise that the only reason that
Michael was in the midfield was because it rained during qualifying when he
went for his run and was dry for the majority of others. Michael is the
greatest driver motor sport has seen in the modern era and the reason I say
that is because he has been able to combine the best abilities of Ayrton Senna
and Alain Prost all in the 1 package. He has the speed, the ability in the
wet, the qualifying record, the ability to get the best out of less than ideal
handling cars which were the hallmarks of Senna's greatness and he has the
race tactical nouse and the ability to make very few mistakes and play the
percentages that were the hallmarks of Prost's greatness. This package makes
him the ultimate formula 1 driver and if George wants to talk about mistakes
how many has Michael made in the last 13 years of driving, you could probably
count them on 1 hand and unbelievably he has achieved his current record
without the number 1 car with the exception of 2001 and 2002.
(This post was edited)
George from Greece replies:
Ok I really feel obliged to answer to Mathew from Australia.
1.About 94, first 3 races Senna on pole and M.S poor second. Senna retired in
Brasil while second due to Williams great pit stops and Hakkinen took him out
while braking for turn one in Aida. And I'm pretty sure you hardly know if M.S
was able to take A.S to the cleaners that day. he didn't have to anyway,
Williams took care of him.
2.On the other hand Ayrton actually humiliated M.S and Prost whenever it
rained in 93. I'm pretty sure you ignore maybe even deliberately Donnington,
from which M.S has definitely learnt a lot. 3.About M.S's rivals only Hakkinen
is worth mentioning who actually beat him in 98. But you see that's what I'm
talking about that is what you don't see probably because you don't know.
Apart from Hakkinen, during 98 and 00, M.S didn't actually have a worthy
opponent, someone like Prost or Mansell. Senna even when he had the best car
(in 88,89) he had Prost as a team-mate. When it's down to drivers like Senna
or Schumacher it's about having a car capable of winning not necessarily the
best. Senna had that for four years(88,89,90,91) clinched three titles, M.S
for eight (94,95,97,98,00,01,02,03) clinched six, same ratio different
competition. Even so there are two (01,02) competition free champs. Senna
never had that.
4. About Suzuka, I was referring to M.S hitting Sato and almost da Matta, not
being at the back of the grid due to rain. However it was rain that helped him
at Indy since he had the best rain tires and there was no other way for him to
get passed Raikkonen unless it rained.
5. About mistakes it's not just me saying that, ask Jackie Stewart and
Sterling Moss about that, that is if you heard them before. Also try to
remember how Schuey lost in 97,98 and almost lost in your country in 94, thank
god for Damon or did Schuey actually do that on purpose. Maybe Villeneuve
knows. Anyway Ferrari deserved the champ, Montoya lost it due to his mistakes
and of course Williams inability, same about Kimi and Mclaren. He made
mistakes but was also very unlucky (Nurburgring and Hockenheim). McLaren had
two great fiascos, they managed to spend a lot of money and time on a car that
never raced and they actually keep Coulthard for 04,what does he do, pay
them?
As for Michael, great driving, also mistakes and of course luck. now hear this
out. 13 years in f1, 5 WC, the best the most experienced on the last and the
most important race, only needs one point, only needs eighth and what does he
do? He hits Sato, loses the front wing, that is the way of the champ the way
of the greatest!!!!!!! Well at least he didn't hit a wall and then hill like
94 or Villeneuve like 97 but then again were those mistakes? No just the wall
part.
You'll have to excuse my spelling (or English). (This post was edited)
And Matthew T from Australia replies:
George get a grip!. Firstly in 1994,95,96,97 Williams had the No 1 car in
98,99,2000 McLaren had the number 1 car and in 2003 for the most part Williams
had the No 1 car again. this has been well documented by just about every
commentator in F1. Secondly Senna may have out qualified MS in the first 3
races in 94, however in Brazil he was 8 seconds behind MS when he went off the
circuit trying to keep up. I can assure you this is correct because I have it
on tape, then at AIDA he was already behind MS when he was hit by Hakkinen and
we know what happened at Imola. Also at the start of the 94 season Schumacher
had driven in about 40 races at that point to Senna's 158. Senna was in his
prime, Schumacher was a rookie. If you think I'm ignoring Donnington in 93,
maybe you are ignoring SPA in 92 in terrible conditions in about his 20th F1
race when he blew away a field containing Senna, Mansell, Piquet, Berger,
Alesi etc. He also sore off Piquet as his teammate.
Senna had the best car in 88,89,90,91 and won 3 titles which is a great
effort. Schumacher had the best car in 2001,2002 and has won 6 titles which is
unbelievable.
At Indy he simply made no mistakes compared to most the other drivers as Prost
used to do and that is why he won. Stirling Moss like many British people
don't like Schumacher because he pulverised Damon hill into submission in 94
and 95. Incidently the only reason the championship was even close in 94 was
because once again the FIA cheated and took 3 races, 1 victory and 1 second
place off Schuey to even up the championship. He would've won it by about 40
points had this not happened. Same as was the case in 95.
In 97 he did the same thing to Villeneuve that Prost did to Senna in 89 to
clinch the title. In 98 he had mechanical failure on the grid and in 99 he
broke his leg or else he would have 7 world titles.
Come on George actually watch the races and analyse what is in front of you.
Some people don't like Schuey because he doesn't conform to the pathetic
little stereotypes that some people demand of sportsmen.
70 VICTORIES, 6 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS, 55 POLES, THE MOST POINTS EVER SCORED,
THE MOST FASTEST LAPS, THE BEST WINNING RATIO, RACES TO VICTORIES, THE BEST
RECORD VERSUS TEAMMATES..... WITH MUCH MORE TO COME .... YOU DO THE MATHS
GEORGE. (This post was edited)
To that George from Greece replies:
Here we go again. Firstly it's well known to every commentator that in 94
Williams produced the very promising but also very difficult to handle and not
so fast ,during a race distance, FW16. At least for the first half of the
season until it was developed and properly tuned.
B194 on the other hand was very good straight out of the box (a
"bomb" as Schuey said) with less power but also less consumption.
Those 8 seconds were due to longer pit stops and Senna had started chewing
about a second a lap when he actually spun off.
Schuey indeed made a better start in Aida and he kept on doing his best ever
starts for the whole season. Up to today there is still a lot of scepticism
from people inside F1 about how legal B194's electronics were. Especially if
you think that MS is indeed a poor starter, a known fact even seen today. And
of course after 40 GPs, almost 3 seasons you are NOT A ROOKIE.
The Spa 92 race was quite interesting, it did not rain for the whole race, a
lot of rain showers. Every team strategy was ruined, it all came down to
pitting for slicks in the right time and almost everybody had an exit.
Reportedly MS had a small exit at the latest part of the race and noticed,
while on the grass, that his tyres were blistered, and decided to pit. That
was the right time to do that and it was down to luck. Because, if it wasn't ,
I really can't understand why he did not do that again in Brasil and
Donnington 93, having a higher spec Ford engine than Senna and for the most
part of the season a better chassis (during 93, as Patrick Head reportedly
said).
By the way, by that time, Piquet was really very slow, stayed out there a lot
more than he should. Another known fact is that Ferrari for the biggest part
of the 90 season had a better car. Also Williams during the second half of 91
season had a better car. During the first half of 91 he had the best car
(Senna) and won almost everything. During 88,89 when he also had the best car
he had Prost as a teammate. DID AT ANY TIME OF HIS CAREER, MS HAVE A TEAMMATE
AS HALF AS GOOD AS PROST WAS? I really don't think so. I reckon Barrichello
is the best teammate he ever had and he actually had to give over first place
last year in Austria. MS said he didn't want that but of course he was the one
who requested special terms in Irvine's contract some time before that.
So during 01,02 MS DID HAVE THE BEST CAR AROUND AND THE ONLY GUY WITH EQUAL
MACHINERY WAS ACTUALLY NOT ALLOWED TO WIN. On the other hand Senna lost a
championship by Prost who actually had to take Senna out to win it and of
course J.M.Ballestre's support. It's also not quite clear McLaren had a better
car in 00.Ferrari had been faster in a lot of tracks and a lot more reliable
and anyway whatever was better it was too close to tell.
As for 98, you don't lose a title in a race you lose it throughout the year. I
do also remember him going off in Austria and that was just one of that years
mistakes.
You can't really be serious on that remark about all English not liking Schuey!!!!!!
Does that include Martin Brundle, former teammate of MS, Hakkinen, and Senna
rival from 1983 British F3 championship? (entered F1 in 84 with Senna). This
guy has been as close to these 3 drivers as no one else and rated in F1RACING
article:
1.In terms of talent 1.SENNA 2.HAKKINEN 3.SCHUMACHER
2.Best driver overall 1.SENNA 2.SCHUMACHER 3.HAKKINEN
I bet you think you know a lot more than this guy does, or is it maybe that he
doesn't like MS because he was stealing his socks!!!! Sorry I forgot he's
English too!!!
How can you really tell me about watching and analysing the races when even MS
himself admitted that Indy was down to Bridgestone superior tyres. Kimi drove
just as perfectly in the wet making no mistakes. Bridgestone were at least a
second faster.
By the way ,what MS did by accident in Spa 92 ,Senna did it on his own in
Estoril 85 (just as inexperienced as MS was and having as fierce competitors
as he did) and almost did it in Monaco 84 (his sixth gp!!!!!!!) when the race
was stopped because he was going to pass Prost and win. (J.M.Ballestre
again)
MS was punished in 94 because he overtook Hill during the formation lap (he is
that smart) and because the bottom of B194 WAS WORE OUT BEYOND THE ACCEPTABLE
MARGIN.
The truth is MS is really the best guy around , has been since May 94 and
probably will be until he retires 'cause I really can't see anyone better. But
don't compare different eras with different drivers facing different
competition and don't say what would have happened if MS had not broken his
leg because I can tell you that if it hadn't been for that broken steering column
those numbers you flash out, would have been the other way around.
Now that we got the facts right could you please answer me one question? How
come MS, having 3 more years in F1 than Senna with less competition and better
cars for a longer period of time, still has 55pp instead of Senna's 65pp? I
KNOW, THE ENGLISH KEPT STEALING HIS MOJO BEFORE THE QUALIFYING SESSIONS. OH
BAD ENGLISH ,BEHAVE!!!!!!!!!
P.S. Williams was better for the most part of 03 but ,as I said they made many
mistakes in car set up and race strategy. (This post was edited)
Matthew T from Australia replies:
My first response to your first email was in response to your statement
"please do not compare Schumacher to the real great ones like Senna,
Clark, Fangio". This is a comment made by a man who can't stand the fact
that someone he hates is now the best and most successful driver of all time.
There is absolutely no logic in it and you know it. You are driven by the fact
that you hate Michael Schumacher and hate the fact that people could rate him
as good or better than your obvious hero Senna. I'll let you in on a secret
George, no one was a bigger fan of Senna than myself when he was racing and no
one was more delusioned when he was killed than me. I have pictures of Senna
up on my wall and also several books, so the fact remains that my comments
aren't biased because I loved Senna. Yours are driven by your hatred towards
MS. A lot of people who were Senna fans hated MS when he burst onto the scene
because he threatened Senna's dominance and claim to the number 1 driver. He
also did this in a ruthless, unemotional and outwardly disrespectful, in other
words arrogant manner. Of course this is incorrect, it was just the nature of
his approach and determination, unfortunately a lot of people don't understand
this and have held it against him to this day. Senna was a much more emotional
and charismatic individual outwardly which endeared him to the public. Other
than for Ferrari and Benetton fans, Schumacher will not be loved by any F1
fans ever. I for years had refused to believe that anyone could possibly be as
good or better than Senna.
The speculation about the B194 was just that speculation nothing was ever
proven and these cars go through a rigorous test after race. Please do not try
and tell me that experts in their field could not have found anything about
launch control, traction control or whatever.
Spa 92, Spain 96, Monaco 97 where he beat Fisichella by nearly a minute,
Nurburgring 2000 where he blew Hakkinen away in wet and changeable conditions,
Suzuka 2000 where he did the same do you want me to go on. 90 and 91
Schumacher was not even their for the most part so I'm not even interested in
talking about it but I'm happy to talk about 88 and 89 because it illustrates
my point. In 88 Senna had 8 wins and 3 seconds which then gave him a gross
point score of 90 points for which he was able to count all 11 finishes. Prost
had 7 wins and 7 seconds which gave him gross points of 105. Under today's
rules Senna would have lost this Championship. Prost was only allowed to count
87 points, 11 best finishes. Senna was unlucky with retirements in 89 which
was what really in the end cost him the Championship. Other than in qualifying
and wet races he was actually matched or even bettered by Prost because Prost
always made sure he finished unless he had mechanical failure. Senna did not
as brazil 94 showed. He chose to push the car too hard and give up 6 points.
Prost would not have done this and neither would have Schumacher. Incidentally
retirements I believe are not always due to bad luck. Did you ever notice that
Prost like Schumacher had very few retirements and yet guys like Senna, Alesi,
Mansell always seem to have bad luck with reliability? This is partly due to
the fact that they only drive one way, flat out or bust. This is not a talent
flaw but a tactical and also personality flaw. Like Senna bumping into
Schlesser at Monza 88. This flaw is fine when you're driving against guys
you're much better than but is fatal against guys that are as good or nearly
as good as yourself. It costs races and championships and Senna found this out
when driving with Prost.
In sheer talent Senna was as good as anyone I've seen but over a whole season
against someone like Michael in the same car and the same amount of
retirements he would struggle because Michael is quicker than Prost, better in
the wet, better in qualifying (56 poles to Prost's 33) but would conserve the
car and make just as few errors as Prost. This is what makes Michael so
formidable.
In F1 magazine in (I think) 2001 their was an article from one of the writers
about how Senna concentrated on being the fastest and Prost just concentrated
solely on winning the race. It then went on to say that Michael has managed to
do both which I believe makes him the best F1 driver of my time. The flaw that
I'm talking about is not something that a driver can just get rid of as Senna
said it's in your blood.
I'm not even going to comment on Fangio and Clark because I was not even born
when they were racing. Being the best F1 driver of all time is not about just
being the most talented, it's about the whole package and that is why in my
opinion MS is the best I've seen. That is why when in 2001 and 2002 he had 20
victories to Barrichello 3 and beat his team-mate by about 70-80 points each
year because Michael maximises everything which Senna did not always do. Do
you think that Senna would've beaten Barrichello by more than this ? I don't
think so.
In relation to 2000 with McLaren whether a car is 5% better 10% better or 90%
better, it's still better and Schuey won that championship by 18 points and
against Hakkinen and had 2 collisions mid year in a row where he got 0
points.
The article with Brundle was done just when MS clinched title 3. Do you think
that he would still have the order the same?
Undoubtedly if Senna was not killed he would have more victories and
Schumacher less but that is not my point. It's the whole package that counts
not just stats. (This post was edited)
George from Greece replies,
OK, this is getting really irritating. first you say that MS is the best ever
then you finally admit that you actually have no idea about Clark or Fangio.
WHICH ONE IS IT? HOW CAN YOU REALLY TELL, DO YOUR PRECIOUS NUMBERS SAY THAT?
Did you know that many people who have actually SEEN THEM ALL rate Clark
first? Is this YOUR LOGIC?
No dear Mathew I don't hate MS, I was actually quite happy when he finally
made it in 00. I just don't over rate him. The thing is that he really is one
of the greats, after those three that is. But no, no posters in the room, no
books about MS, and no need to lie about anything. I know all about all his
great races but I didn't close my eyes in the worst , same about Senna. But I
wasn't looking desperately for a new idol when he was gone, cause I would be
deeply disappointed.
Well the truth is that nothing was proven with solid evidence about B194's
electronics. But then again FIA actually admitted several years ago that even
though they knew that a top team was cheating (incidentally the speculation
was about MS's car AGAIN) they could not prove it. That is why these EXPERTS
allowed traction control (back) in.
About 88, a great driver is also about adapting to circumstances and that is
not just about feeling the car and driving accordingly. It's about changing
even your driving style when you have to. The rules did not change during or
at the end of 88, they had been there for years. So I reckon that the smart
and the right thing to do in order to win the title is to win your opponent
and be ahead of him as many times as you can, NOT COLLECT POINTS!! That is
what he should have but could not do. Don't blame that on the points system.
And please stop with the IFS. I remember some years before that, that the
first in qualifying got also one point. Yes that's right POLE POSITION. Need I
say more? And I suppose you don't think that Prost should have been punished
after pulling that stunt in Suzuka!!!! Yeah right, now blame it on mechanical
failures.
One thing is for sure, this is something that both MS and Prost share. If he's
going to pass you TAKE HIM OUT.
Don't bother to mention Suzuka 90 unless you don't know what happened in the
backstage AFTER the qualifying session. For a man who owns books about Senna
you don't seem to know much about his great mechanical feeling, that most of
the engineers he had have talked about. Nor his smoothness to the car and
about how he took care of it even driving as fast as he always did. Do these
books actually have words inside them and if they do, have you read
them?
I also remember MS's great tactical race in Spa 98 when being a distant first,
he was going flat out, when he should have been a lot more careful. ESPECIALLY
WITH BACKMARKERS. Coulthard made a mistake and MS made himself vulnerable by
exceeding as he did. And you also forget MS crashing on Barrichello in the
first corner in Argentina 97. Incidentally if YOU actually looked better into
races you'd see that MS did all these great (wet) races with a car set up for
wet, which was not the case for everybody. Especially since nobody else could
wait until the last minute to decide, having two cars with different set ups.
I don't remember him doing that well in Brasil with rain a couple of years
ago.
By the way who is really making all these great decisions about the strategy
of the race, isn't Brawn making them (most of them) NOT MS?
Senna was out to win, that is how he won more times than Prost not only
because he was faster. Of course you forget again that during the turbo era
especially but also later and before the refuelling era, fuel consumption was
critical and I can assure you, you don't win if you only drive one way. Again
JYS in 90: Senna is not only the fastest in the world, he is actually the
best, has matured...
No I 'm not going to say what WOULD have happened not going to make imaginary
team mates, championships and so on. In every e-mail I've ever sent I present
facts and opinions by people who definitely know better, people who have been
there, not just every wannabe journalist article writer whose actual job is to
create myths to make a living. And please try reading them more carefully, I
know I can't speak English so good but I don't think I m that bad. I was referring
to 90,91 because of the remark you made about Senna having the best car, NOT
MS. Again I'll say, drivers like Senna or MS don't have to have the best car
to win, they just need a car CAPABLE of winning like 90,91 McLaren and
94,95,97,98,00,03 Ferrari.
No Brundle hasn't changed his mind, yes Senna ALWAYS maximised everything and
please give me a serious argument not speculations and wrong assumptions.
Don't flash out numbers without knowing what they mean, can you actually
compare Prost's PP (Senna team mate and opponent for 10 years) with MS's!!!
Senna's flaw was in his blood? Nice connection!!! Has there ever been a car as
reliable as Ferrari has been for the last (few) years?? Never said it's only
about talent. Maybe you should try and get that Brundle article, and then talk
about the whole package.
P.S. H,M.FANGIO:starts 51 ,wins 24 ,aprox one out of two M.S. starts 194 ,wins
70 ,aprox one out of three THAT'S ME DOING THE MATH'S THAT YOU LOVE SO MUCH
ABOUT RACES TO VICTORIES RATIO. Correction by George: Made a mistake, turns out my English is a
lot worst than I thought. You never said MS is the best ever so I was wrong in
the beginning.
Reader's
Comments
I visit this page for first time but I feel that I
must leave a message. First of all to make it clear. Ayrton Senna never had all
the electronics and the technology that Michael Schumacher has. Also Ayrton
Senna had the best car for three years (1988,1989, 1990) Michael Schumacher has
the best car for five years (2000,2001,2002,2003,2004) Even when Senna had the
best car, there were many great drivers to battle him. Now Schumacher is in a
very comfortable situation. No other driver can fight for the 1st place and the
worst is that teams with great history are not competitive (Williams,
McLaren) In 1991 the best car was the Williams FW14. Nigel Roebuck said
that it wasn't Williams that lost the title that year, it was Senna who won it
with a car which should not be winning races. In 1992 the best car was
the Williams FW14B. The second best was Michael Schumacher's Benetton Ford.
Senna's car had a strong engine but the chassis was very bad. But as you know
Senna made 3 victories while Schumacher made 1. In 1993 Senna's car was
even worse while Williams and Benetton were improved. McLaren used Ford engine
of 1992, the new version was given only to Benetton. But even after this Senna
made 5 victories and Schumacher made 1. In 1994 the Williams FW16 was a
new car and the only good on it was the history of the successful
Williams-Renault the past 2 years. Several modifications were done in order to
make it capable of finishing in grand prix. Frank Williams said that Senna after
a practice session wrote four pages of suggestions to improve the car. I've
heard Ross Brawn saying that Benetton was better than Williams that year. Many
people insist that Benetton's car was illegal. In the Brazilian Grand prix Senna
took the pole position easily. In the race he was doing well until a rare
mistake caused him to lose the control. In Aida Senna took the pole position
easily again. But in the race he was forced to retire because of a crash with
Hakkinen in the start. After Senna left the track he watched the rest of the
race from the pits where he shouted that Michael Schumacher's car is reacting
differently from the other Benetton, later he mentioned that Benetton's cars are
suspicious. In Imola Senna takes pole position easily again. In the race, after
the safety car left the track, Senna was leading and Schumacher was behind.
Senna crashed so Schumacher took the lead. BUT in lap 6 Senna made 1.24s time
with a car full of petrol. This was the fastest lap of the race and the 3rd
fastest of the whole weekend (including the restart). Schumacher bettered this
time only at the end of the race when his car was almost empty of petrol. I
will not try to change people's minds. If you like Michael Schumacher, it is
your choice. Other people like Alain Prost, others Nigel Mansel. But
know something. By 1 May 1994 F1 lost its crowd. You, who say that you like
Michael Schumacher, are what remains from the fans that F1 had 10-12 years ago.
Most of my friends are fanatics of formula 1. All the joy Senna brought to them
is now lost because there is a driver named Schumacher who is believed to be the
best driver only because he won 7 championships and the truth is that he has
nothing else to present than the best car among the others. And before I finish
I would like to make a wish. I wish that Schumacher will not retire soon. Just
win another championship with Ferrari and then sign at Sauber (or at Toyota).
Then we'll see who's the best driver - Haris - Greece
Mathew be very carefully disrespecting Ayrton
Senna by saying Shui took him to the (CLEARNERS) in 94. I'm also from Australia
my mate. I have 2 many comments to say about this issue, so I will keep it as
simple as I can. Professional Driver Senna was a naturally gifted professional
racing car driver that was the only person in this world that could lap within
5cm difference of the cars width in between laps over & over.
1/ Monaco is the hardest grandprix prix to win................ Mr Monaco
2/ Racing in the Wet is the hardest to do..................... 93 Donington
Rock Star/Driver Shue is a business/professional racing driver with his own gifted
talents. Irvine or Rubens can u let me pass you or can u slow down or block
every won else so i can win again please, I'll make sure Ferrari pays you well -
Kamron - Australia
F1 racing June 2004 issue has an article, 100
greatest drivers of all time. They regarded SENNA as the no. 1 driver, I think
this should this settle this debate - Alvin - Canada
As a fan of MS and Senna they to me are the best
drivers that have ever existed. You are not able to compare these both great
drivers because they are both different ways. So back off and let F1 be - Sarah
- Australia
First of all, I must admit that I DO admire Ayrton
Senna and that I DO NOT admire Michael Schumacher. The reason for such an
attitude is quite simple: overtaking; while Senna has mastered it, in every
possible situation, Schumacher has specialized in pit-stop overtaking and that's
neither funny nor a proof of skill (to Schumacher fans: please notice that I'm
not requiring him to make 3 overtakes in a single lap, as Senna did in
Donnington 93).
But Schumacher fans attitude is outrageous to me: they simply don't accept the fact
that there are a number of people as great as China's population that think
differently. And more: so what if I don't like him? I'm entitled, I have the
right to do it. Let's face it: Schumacher fans arguments are based on
statistics; after all he holds both wins and titles records. Again, so what?
Fangio has 24 wins in 51 starts (47%), that's a DEFINITIVE RECORD! And yet
Fangio has considered Senna his legitimate successor.
To Matthew T.: your analysis on best F1 seasons' cars is very poor and contradicted
by the facts while your pretension to make predictions about the Senna X Schumacher
rivalry results if Senna hasn't died is simply ridiculous - Marcus C - Brazil
To compare this rivalry you have to take a lot of
things into account.
1) The obvious strong traits I will start with both drivers.
2) The not so strong traits will be shown to analyze.
3) The negatives of both and then I know who is better and you will too.
1.
SENNA no doubt tremendous qualifier destroying Prost. Very frequently easily
faster than Berger in Qualifying. He was somewhere around 6-7 tenths quicker
than Hill. He would've been easily quicker than Hakkinen with times similar to
Berger. Hakkinen was good in Portugal, and Suzuka especially in his career.
Looking at Senna's times he was randomly and easily over a second faster than
Berger, Prost, Hill. He was faster than Schumacher three in a row in 94 with
yes different machines and the machines have different characteristics on each
track. Okay. Thats important. Schumacher takes the benefit of that because
looking at Imola, Aida in 94 Hill was only 3-4 tenths slower than Schumacher
thats a bit close b/w the two. So Williams was slightly faster in
qualifying.
SCHUMACHER in qualifying has been phenomenal with not the same records. why?
looking at the early cars in 92-94, they were lighter, more downforce,
quicker, less aids, so drivers could use more of their daring abilities and
skill. Schumacher only at 22, first year was faster than Piquet, next year was
on average 7 tenths quicker than veteran Brundle. Schumacher was rookie.
Killed Patrese, Verstappen, Lehto, Herbert, and Irvine in the era of slicks.
Barrichello is very close right now but he has been very quick every year. yes
he doesn't have the best track record for domination but looking at his rookie
year and even with Irvine, and that he is with the best team now for 4 years
getting technical and emotional support he has come closer to Schumacher. And
Schumacher is more moody in his drive. His skills are more suitable for light,
quick, slick tyre and no aids type of F1 cars of the past. Barrichello depends
on neutral cars that like to go in one line with full throttle that cant jump
and slide and cut corners like F1 cars with slicks. So the times have changed
in F1, the qualifying times are closer because the drivers have less influence
in the cars, and that teams are more sophisticated and spend more time and
years with drivers and so Barrichello has finally gotten better and better.
Schumacher was always superquick but now his skills somehow cant be used
probably.
RACE speed Senna and Schumacher are very close. In the rain its debatable.
Again different cars have different characteristics even in the rain. But I
have to go with Senna just a little quicker with that. Schumacher has great
low fuel, high fuel speed so did Senna. But I think somehow Schumacher is
systematically quicker than Senna in the races if they had slicks on.
Schumacher had championship cars realistically and frequently in the years of
94, 2000, 2001, 2002, and half of 2003 races. The rest of his career like 95,
98, 99, he has had cars second to others. Its simple to look at this. Look at
qualifying times. Even in 2000 Mclaren maybe had better race car I think.
Barrichello couldn't stay with Coulthard, Hakkinen but he is as quick if not
quicker than Coulthard.
If they were teammates qualifying would go 9-7 Schumacher or vice versa. Race
wins Schumacher 7 and Senna 5. But Senna is more special I think, his
potential was unequal. Schumacher's skill and nice touch is unequal. Senna had
more tenacity while Schumacher more ruthless in a way.
Todays F1 cars are deceiving when comparing drivers, the times have shrunk
between teammates. I have to go with Schuey. If I had some times overall both
in qualifying and the races this is how it would go. - Nick - USA
Impossible to compare. I remember watching Senna
when I was a kid and the guy was something else. But then Schumacher is too.
The truth is that the greats can never be truly compared. Both had strengths
where others had weaknesses.
One thing I am certain of is that Schumacher would have beaten Senna had Senna
lived. It was the change over time that will come to Schumacher, maybe even in
2004. Like it was never true to compare Senna and Prost - because Prost peaked
while Senna was still young. Senna took Prost's mantel as the man to beat
because Prost peaked and Senna was still on his way up. Both Senna and
Schumacher were awesome in so many ways. But both made mistakes, no question.
Schumacher made a pigs ear of the last round in Suzuka, that true, but I
remember Senna throwing away a fair few races too. Remember him spinning out
of the lead at Silverstone through the old circuit that is now Beckets?
Both were willing to run people of the road to win titles. We saw it with
Senna in 1990, Schumacher in 1997 (Still not sure about 94, I think it was not
as clear cut as people made out, or as clear cut as 97), and even Prost ran
Senna off the road in 1989. Watch the video again if you think that was
Senna's fault - no way.
Both were able to squeeze an extra few % out of a qualifying lap. And I don't
buy that Senna's stats make him the better qualifier. Prost was a canny racer,
and Mansell a very gritty racer, but neither was a great qualifier. The likes
of Hill and Alesi by contrast could pull out some stunningly fast one off
laps, but lacked the ability to turn their speed into results. For me the
crucial thing if there is a difference is this. Schumacher has never lost top
spot in his career. He got to the top at Benetton, gave it away to join
Ferrari, won it back in 2000 and has kept it since. Senna did lose top spot
though. He dominated in 90 and 91, yet he and McLaren let Williams get on top
for 92 onwards. I'm not sure whether Schumacher will or not - he came close to
giving it away last year, and I fear this year might be the one where the
young guns finally get him.
For me there is no way to top one against the other. Both were genius, both
were controversial, and make no mistake both have messed up at times. Even the
best make mistakes! - Oli - England
've
read carefully the comments made by everyone in this debate. I must say that
things are rarely black and white, but in this case it seems they are. I have
a huge bibliography about Ayrton Senna and I have followed his career and life
as closely as possible from 1983. I can tell you one thing: I have never seen
an athlete in any sport having such an impact on the world (media, press,
fans, simple people etc.). ESPECIALLY SO LONG AFTER THEY HAVE PASSED AWAY OR
RETIRED!!!
I have come to think that Ayrton was a little bit more than human. He had
reached another level of existence. Such men are brought to this world rather
rarely, with one purpose alone: TO SHOW MANKIND THAT NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE!
THAT HUMAN WILLPOWER AND COMMITMENT CAN ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING! TO SHOW THAT
HUMAN POTENTIAL HAS NO LIMITS!!!! AND FINALLY THAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT
WHAT MATTERS IS TO BE THE B E S T IN WHATEVER IT IS YOU DECIDE TO DO.
Now, my thought is that if you've reached this level of consciousness and
awareness, figures and statistics SIMPLY DO NOT MATTER WHAT SO EVER.... Ayrton
knew, and those that ARE AWARE know too... (Monaco '84,'89,'92 - Estoril '85 -
Spain '86,'92 - Brazil '91,'93 - Donington Park '93.....)....
When ANY other driver repeats/matches such performances, I will BOW to their genius....BUT
UNTIL THEN LET US PAY OUR RESPECTS TO "THE BEST" AND NOT TRY TO
DIMINISH THEIR BRILLIANCE BY WORSHIPING "NUMBERS"..... Vagelis K
- Greece
I
am 26 and I've seen them both in action. I generally do not worship athletes,
I am just a fan of racing. It may seem strange but after AS death I liked MS
because he was the following (in MY order of priority): a) the fastest guy
left, b) fairly risky and fun to watch (much more than he is now....), c) fair
player (THEN...), d) young.
I HATED him when he made clear that he wanted to win at all cost, even by
risking other drivers’ integrity: crashing into Villeneuve in order to get
the championship, crashing like a rookie into David who was 1 lap behind (What
was he trying to prove? wait for the blue flag, man!!!!!). Not only that, he
falsely accused him of being irresponsible, like a schoolboy who doesn’t
admit his fault.
Remember what he did to Mika one lap before he overtook him in Belgium (in a
brave I have to admit way): changed direction the last moment at way over
300kph. IS HE NUTS? Had they crashed, there wouldn't have been much left of
them to talk about. So much for his sportsmanship...
AS (Senna) NEVER put anyone’s life in danger, despite driving over the limit
(which was far beyond MS limit - admit it guys: he was the best in terms of
feeling the car and controlling it at very high speed and in treacherous
tracks where one has to be brave and dedicated to win like, Monaco - ).
I honestly DO NOT GIVE A SHIT who gets the most titles or the most money!!! As
a spectator, I want to see SPEED, FAIR PLAY, and RISK. That's why I like
drivers like AS, Montoya, Kimi, Nigel Mansell (in F1) ,and Ari Vatanen, Colin
McRae, Tommi Makinen, Petter Solberg (from WRC).
MS is very fast, used to be even faster several years ago but he lacks the
rest of the qualities. He is clever, great businessman, hard working,
effective, ALWAYS LUCKY (GIORGARE: AHDIASTIKA KOLOFARDOS GAMW THN POYTANA!!!!!!!)
the driver I would hire if I owned an F1 team. But I DON’T!!!! I want to see
the things I mentioned above. Moreover MS has always had small calibre
teammates (not of Prost’s anyway) who as characters always obeyed and caused
no serious trouble. MS has been driving the best car the last 4 seasons
(Matthew, the best car is NOT essentially the fastest; it is the car THAT
SCORES THE MOST POINTS = THE MOST RELIABLE AND QUICK ENOUGH). Remember, even
when Mika won his 2nd title, Ferrari won the constructors’ despite driving
with Irvine and Mika Salo for most of the season (the season during which
David run into Mika in Austria and McLarens frequently got DNFs due to
mechanical failures). Had Irvine crashed into MS, he would have been fired the
following day... He is so lucky that the few times something goes wrong with
the car, it’s ALWAYS Rubens’ car!!!! (MS, go to Las Vegas, boy!!!!!!).
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR OTHER DRIVERS IN SCHUMMI’S TEAMS (he brought Ross Brown
and Rory Byrne with him from Benetton when he joined Ferrari, people who knew
him and adjusted the team to his needs).
AS won 5 times in 93 despite his car being well off Prost’s Williams pace.
He was also much faster in qualifying (the session that shows how much courage
one has) than ANY other driver. In 88 he was almost 2sec faster than Prost.
Check this out: "Monte Carlo, ’88, the last qualifying session. I was
already on pole and I was going faster and faster. One lap after the other,
quicker, and quicker, and quicker. I was at one stage just on pole, then by
half a second, and then one second…and I kept going. Suddenly, I was nearly
two seconds faster than anybody else, including my teammate with the same car.
And I suddenly realized that I was no longer driving the car
consciously."
"I was kind of driving it by instinct, only I was in a different
dimension. It was like I was in a tunnel, not only the tunnel under the hotel,
but the whole circuit for me was a tunnel. I was just going, going – more,
and more, and more, and more. I was way over the limit, but still able to find
even more. Then, suddenly, something just kicked me. I kind of woke up and I
realized that I was in a different atmosphere than you normally are.
Immediately my reaction was to back off, slow down. I drove slowly to the pits
and I didn’t want to go out any more that day."
"It frightened me because I realized I was well beyond my conscious
understanding. It happens rarely, but I keep these experiences very much alive
in me because it is something that is important for self-preservation."
Ayrton Senna
CAN ANYONE DO THIS- Prost, Mansell, Schummi?? 2 sec in pole and still going
for it ??? The man was INSPIRING for everyone. Even if one was not in the mood
to sacrifice his Sunday noon nap to watch a GP, he would do it just to watch
Ayrton fight with himself and the time. That’s the essence of motorsport:
SPEEEEEEED and STYLE.
MS you are good but not THAT fast or inspiring. Prost you are good but have
friends in high places and sometimes didn’t play like an honest man. Nigel,
well done.
Kimi, Juan, Alonso keep up the good work and be – if possible - like AS
because we are getting bored... AYRTON bye - nice watching you. U R THE BEST I
CAN REMEMBER - Tolis - Greece
Ayrton Senna had
the passion and wore his heart on his sleave. That's why millions around the
world still mourn his death and people respect but do not love
Schumacher.
Senna seemed to have a depth of emotion that Schumacher does not have. And
lest we forget, when he raced and drove for pole he was scintillating. For me
there is no other than Senna - John W - England
It
is a fierce debate by Mr George and Mr Matthew T. The debate can go on and on
without getting a definite answer. We would never EVER get an answer for who
is the greatest EVER. Ever since the beginning of motor-racing, things have
changed dramatically throughout the decades. NO ONE ever could imagine that
the THRUST-SSC(Modern) could overwhelm a World War I Warplane in straight line
speed.
DIFFERENT ERAS produce GREAT DRIVERS of that particular ERA. Rules and
regulations have been changing since the beginning of motor-racing even until
today. New innovations and technologies have been created throughout the
years. Rules and regulations are meant to keep these innovations and
technologies in a margin whereby safety is observed and drivers' skills are
being tested.
I am sure that many motorsport fans have realised how many technologies have
been outlawed since Grand Prix Racing began. (Ground Effects, Turbo Engines,
Active Suspensions, Wide Body Chassis, Bigger Front and Rear Wings,
Non-Grooved Big Slick Tyres...etc)
I am really amazed by the efforts of Mr George and Mr Matthew's in keeping
track of statistics and great races of both Ayrton Senna Da Sliva and Michael
Schumacher.
To me, I can only accept that Ayrton Senna Da Silva and Michael Schumacher are
the best drivers of THEIR ERA. There is NO ONE as the greatest driver of all
time - CJ Chen - China
George, you are so right. Schumacher is half the driver that
Senna was...Which is still one hell of a driver! That's part of why Schumacher
is doing so well - Level8Drummer - USA
