Schumacher vs Senna

[GingerLynn]

Schumacher built Benetton and later Ferrari... The testing that Berger and Alesi had done year prior was nothing!

Since when did Senna ever build a team that was as solid for so long as Schumacher.

MS perfected the political game way beyond what Senna could imagine. He also never screwed up as much.

Schumacher hands down...

Prost on the other hand would have been more of a challenge... Not the internal drive as Senna but a technical skill well beyond any driver of his or the current generation.

[Ranger]

Schumacher built Benetton and later Ferrari... The testing that Berger and Alesi had done year prior was nothing!

I would say Jean Todt was the most instrumental in building Ferrari. In 1991 and 1992 they won nothing. He joined in 1993 and they moved significantly up the standings. In Canada 1995 they were leading the standings. To say Schumacher built Ferrari is a little short-sighted, though he was a substantial piece of that puzzle.

Since when did Senna ever build a team that was as solid for so long as Schumacher.

See above. Considering Senna's career lasted less time than Schumacher's tenure at Ferrari then of course Schumacher is the logical answer. Senna did help construct the McHonda partnership though, which was dominant for 4 years as opposed to the 5 title years at Ferrari with Schu. (see below)

MS perfected the political game way beyond what Senna could imagine. He also never screwed up as much.

What political game? Senna was an integral part of securing the rather exclusive McLaren-Honda partnership which was pretty much the most dominant combination ever, considering it lasted 5 years with 8 titles before Honda left F1.
Schumacher on the other hand helped secure Bridgestones and preferential treatment by his team and by Bridgestone for his team, and several important tech figures.

If thats not what you mean by the political game then I'm stumped. And that's barely one-sided.

Schumacher hands down...

Yeah, probably Schumacher. But I'd say its much closer than what you infer.

[ioan]

Senna was better than Schumacher. MS had the advantage of ferrary. We know that Ferrary team had the technology in his car to win very far away over others teams. When a racer signs with Ferrary, the racer has the obligation to win the titles of F1. Remember Senna didn't run with Ferrary. In my opinion to be racer in the age of Senna needed one extraordinary talent, the cars didn't have the technology than teams today offer. MS must be very grateful for the titles gaves for Ferray.

What about his titles won with Benetton was it also due to Ferrari? (notice the way you should spell that right?!)

[ioan]

I would say Jean Todt was the most instrumental in building Ferrari. In 1991 and 1992 they won nothing. He joined in 1993 and they moved significantly up the standings. In Canada 1995 they were leading the standings. To say Schumacher built Ferrari is a little short-sighted, though he was a substantial piece of that puzzle.

I have to agree, the one that started the Ferrari revival is Jean Todt.

[Garry Walker]

Schumacher not once passed Senna on track, even when Senna had in theory worse machinery. That of itself says something. Senna was better than Schumacher.

Bull****. Spa 1992, Barcelona 1992 (or 1991, I dont remember anymore which year), Silverstone 1993, Kyalami 1993, Magny-cours 1993, spa 1993. Times when Schumacher made an on-track pass on Senna, that wasnt due to pitstop.
Now bring me examples of Senna passing Schumacher on track.

And before you ask me why I think you're wrong I'll give you the answer.

You say that Senna would have won the 94 title because hill managed to get within 1 point of Schumacher.
However you completely ignore that Hill got within 1 point of Schumacher because:

1. MS was blackflaged from the British GP because he overtook Hill for a moment during the warm-up lap.
2. MS was DQ-ed from the Hungarian GP (after winning it) because of too much wear of the skidblock (although it was aparently due to a spin over the kerbs).
3. Subsequently MS was banned for 2 more races!

Do the math and see for yourself how Hill was awarded more than 30 points by the FIA, and that was the only reason he got within 1 point of MS.

Considering that Senna had 0 points when he died I find it a bit far stretched to say that he would have closed the gap to MS if not for a similar help as Hill got from the sporting authorities.

Just my opinion.

It is fair to say that had Sennas car not failed at Imola, and had Schumacher still gotten those penalties, Senna would have taken the title as he was clearly much better than Hill. But without Schumachers penalties, Senna wouldnt have had a chance, in my view.

And what about punching a fellow competitor because he dared to unlap himslef?

Irvine behaved like a moron on that day, both off-track and on-track, and deserved that hit. Just like Schumacher should have hit DC in the face at Spa in 1998.

No way. He was racing, and being impeded by Senna.

Please wake up to reality.

Senna qualified in front of MS (and was pretty sure of winning) just to finish behind him (and out of the race too, even due to driver error) in both races before of that, what's there to support your belief that we would have been able to stay in front of Schumacher in Imola? The fact that he won races in 93?! Sorry but that is far from enough.

What I think about Imola, is that the tracks characteristics played into Williams` car advantages, their power advantage. Had Sennas car not failed, I reckon it would have been pretty hard for Schumacher to beat him, but there would have been a possibility. Both Interlagos and especially Aida suited Williams less than Imola did and Benetton more than Imola did.

What indeed? Prove otherwise... hmm?

The fact that he was a three times world champion and was leading the GP? Had set the fastest lap in qualifying and had pulled out nearly 7 seconds and was still pulling away? Sorry, if that race had gone to completion, Senna would have not only won the race but possibly lapped everyone up to 3rd. Only five cars were on the lead lap at the time of the accident.

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/rr551.html

I think my belief is not only well supported, but proven with fact.

What fanboy gaga is this what you are spreading?
Senna was less than 1 second ahead of Schumacher when his car failed, not 7.
The crash happened on the 7th lap, out of which 5 had been SC laps, so do make me laugh and tell me how was it possible that only 5 cars were on the lead lap (hint - what you said was a LIE).
Additionally, Senna had taken poles in the last 2 races before that too, but that didnt help him to win them, did it?
Proven with a fact? I think what you wrote was one of those posts which had nothing to do with reality and everything to do with fanboyism.

[ioan]

Irvine behaved like a moron on that day, both off-track and on-track, and deserved that hit. Just like Schumacher should have hit DC in the face at Spa in 1998.

I strongly disagree.
Irvine didn't cause any accident by unlapping himself.
Senna couldn't accept that he was passed on track by a fairly unknown (at that time) driver.

As for DC's Spa brain fade I can only say that I'm happy that MS didn't hit him even if what DC did ultimately cost MS the championship that season.

[arcanox]

MS won two tittle with out Ferrary and the others 5?

1994 Michael Schumacher Benetton B194/Ford Zetec
1995 Michael Schumacher Benetton B195/Renault
1996 Damon Hill Williams FW18/Renault
1997 Jacques Villeneuve Williams FW19/Renault
1998 Mika Häkkinen McLaren MP4/13/Mercedes
1999 Mika Häkkinen McLaren MP4/14/Mercedes
2000 Michael Schumacher Ferrari F2000

After 1995 MS had to hope five years to win the next tittle, this is when Ferrari could find a excellent car, remember that Ferrari hadn't won the racer tittles since 1979, however the team won the constructor champion in 1999 one year before MS got his third champion.

. I agree with:

Originally Posted by Malllen View Post
I would say Jean Todt was the most instrumental in building Ferrari. In 1991 and 1992 they won nothing. He joined in 1993 and they moved significantly up the standings. In Canada 1995 they were leading the standings. To say Schumacher built Ferrari is a little short-sighted, though he was a substantial piece of that puzzle.

But the thread is not about the mayor number of tittles if not about the talent, for my, Senna is the best, Senna drove with out electronic helps, traction control and the systems of security wasn't too good for these seasons.

[ioan]

MS won two tittle with out Ferrary and the others 5?

1994 Michael Schumacher Benetton B194/Ford Zetec
1995 Michael Schumacher Benetton B195/Renault
1996 Damon Hill Williams FW18/Renault
1997 Jacques Villeneuve Williams FW19/Renault
1998 Mika Häkkinen McLaren MP4/13/Mercedes
1999 Mika Häkkinen McLaren MP4/14/Mercedes
2000 Michael Schumacher Ferrari F2000

After 1995 MS had to hope five years to win the next tittle, this is when Ferrari could find a excellent car, remember that Ferrari hadn't won the racer tittles since 1979, however the team won the constructor champion in 1999 one year before MS got his third champion.

MS came within 1 point of winning it in 97, a few points in 98 and only a broken leg stopped him from winning it in 99.
So he was in contention 1 year after he switched to Ferrari!

[wedge]

Irvine behaved like a moron on that day, both off-track and on-track, and deserved that hit. Just like Schumacher should have hit DC in the face at Spa in 1998.

....Please wake up to reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL79Io4htbw

Irvine was racing with Hill for position.

If Irvine was supposedly in the wrong then so was Hill for holding up Senna.

[ShiftingGears]

Please wake up to reality.

Did you even watch the race?