Ayrton Senna: A True F1 Legend

[Starter]

Hard to define a legend, often drivers are called legends who simply aren't, so here is my valueless opinion.

Fangio - 5 world titles
Brabham - 3 titles, one in his own car
Clark - simply the best driver of his or most other generations.
Stewart - 3 titles and had the maiden win for 3 different teams, also his safety work saved countless lives
Lauda - rose from the dead and defeated Ferrari politics
Prost - 4 titles
Senna - flawed genius
Schumacher - 91 wins and 7 titles
Prof Sid Watkins - saved the lives of countless drivers.

I didn't include
Ascari, because apart from 2 seasons in the only competitive car (52 - 53) he didn't really do much
Moss - great driver, but always second best
Villeneuve - passed on too soon
Piquet - again great driver but not a legend
Vettel - to soon to tell
Hamilton - ditto

I like your list, but more importantly I like the reasons.

[steveaki13]

Hard to define a legend, often drivers are called legends who simply aren't, so here is my valueless opinion.

Fangio - 5 world titles
Brabham - 3 titles, one in his own car
Clark - simply the best driver of his or most other generations.
Stewart - 3 titles and had the maiden win for 3 different teams, also his safety work saved countless lives
Lauda - rose from the dead and defeated Ferrari politics
Prost - 4 titles
Senna - flawed genius
Schumacher - 91 wins and 7 titles
Prof Sid Watkins - saved the lives of countless drivers.

I didn't include
Ascari, because apart from 2 seasons in the only competitive car (52 - 53) he didn't really do much
Moss - great driver, but always second best
Villeneuve - passed on too soon
Piquet - again great driver but not a legend
Vettel - to soon to tell
Hamilton - ditto

I think this is largely spot on actually.

[AAReagles]

Hard to define a legend, often drivers are called legends who simply aren't...


Senna - flawed genius
Schumacher - 91 wins and 7 titles

Since Senna falls under flawed legend - of which I certainly would not argue - could it be that Schumacher as well, be reguarded as flawed?

Reason I asked is that he did have the distinction of being the only driver to have been DQ'ed for an entire (1997) season as a result of his driving to be considered inappropriate.

[anfield5]

Since Senna falls under flawed legend - of which I certainly would not argue - could it be that Schumacher as well, be reguarded as flawed?

Reason I asked is that he did have the distinction of being the only driver to have been DQ'ed for an entire (1997) season as a result of his driving to be considered inappropriate.

Absolutely Schumi was flawed. In many ways he and Senna are/were peas in a pod, they were both brilliant, but both so driven they would cross the boundaries to win

[AAReagles]

Yes, perhaps a bit too much.

[Rollo]

Since Senna falls under flawed legend - of which I certainly would not argue - could it be that Schumacher as well, be reguarded as flawed?

Reason I asked is that he did have the distinction of being the only driver to have been DQ'ed for an entire (1997) season as a result of his driving to be considered inappropriate.

Senna was rewarded with a World Championship because of inappropriate driving.

Senna also won another World Championship by being crappier than the guy who finished second. That requires genius of a sort.

[AAReagles]

Senna was rewarded with a World Championship because of inappropriate driving.

Senna also won another World Championship by being crappier than the guy who finished second. That requires genius of a sort.

Indeed. And yet Schumacher's actions appear to speak for themselves too. Don't you think?

I should make it clear that I am no fan of Senna; because of his severe lack of judgement in Japan. Believe it or not, this first (obvious) instance of unsportsmanship display of his was unexpected and very disappointing for me and countless other fans around the globe.

I just happened to find it peculiar that a notation of criticism was placed on one driver and not, shall we say, balanced on both.

[anfield5]

I agree if you are comparing Senna and Schumi. I often have or hear/read arguments claiming Schumacher will never be as great as Senna and the cite two reasons.
1. Schumacher was at times underhanded and dodgy with his tactics. i.e. deliberately taking Villeneuve off, ditto with Hill (not Schumachers fault anyway) etc. They fail to say that Senna did exactly the same thing to Prost, twice in two years.
2. Schumacher chose team mates who would not be a threat. Again Ayrton did this way before Schumi came along. At Lotus when Nakajima moved on Derek Warwick was meant to be the new driver, but Senna vetoed this because he didn't want a team mate with the talent to put any pressure on him, hence Johnny Dumfries.

[AAReagles]

I agree if you are comparing Senna and Schumi. I often have or hear/read arguments claiming Schumacher will never be as great as Senna and the cite two reasons.
1. Schumacher was at times underhanded and dodgy with his tactics... They fail to say that Senna did exactly the same thing...
2. Schumacher chose team mates who would not be a threat. Again Ayrton did this way before Schumi...

Not to sound redundant, but I agree as well. This sort of politics I found to be detrimental for the sport. Along with the dastardly team orders bit that I became aware of since I first followed gp racing in 78' (Andretti). The Senna fans vs Schumi fans firestorm is irrelevant with me. As far as I'm concerned, both drivers earned their reputations. For better or worse.

[Rollo]

I just happened to find it peculiar that a notation of criticism was placed on one driver and not, shall we say, balanced on both.

This thread is about Senna.
Truth is, I would've revoked both their superlicences forever. Culpable driving shouldn't have been tolerated by the FIA.