Senna Movie

[The Black Knight]

As a film, it was great, but it was not at all an accurate recollection of his 'war' with Prost. I think it kind of took the gloss off it - hence why I said it was a a great movie, rather than a great documentary. I think the best quote I've read in here is "You seem to have discovered the curious habit that dead drivers have of getting even faster and even better once they pass away."

Prost was, without a doubt, a better driver than Senna. Was he quicker? No, but in a similar way to Alonso today (against Hamilton and Vettel), he was a better driver. It is interesting when watching the highlights of previous races on the BBC site in the build up to a race weekend, Senna seems to collide or cause an accident in half of his races. He may very well have been a perfection, but rarely did his attempt for perfection result in that.

Straw-men alert.

Senna was better than Prost and he was quicker. This is why Ballestre had to go sifting through a regulation in Japan 89 to try and win Prost the title. It's why Senna won the title in 88. Senna should have won the championship in 89. He got his revenge the next year. So discounting both those years where they both cheated to attain the title, the one year that they did it fairly Senna beat Prost. Not alone that but I believe he became a far better driver after his third title. He was the best in the wet, he was the best in the dry.

Regars the quote, "You seem to have discovered the curious habit that dead drivers have of getting even faster and even better once they pass away." I don't remember anyone mentioning how fast Ratzenberger was in this thread. He was in the Senna movie too... Quote busted.

[Daniel]

Regars the quote, "You seem to have discovered the curious habit that dead drivers have of getting even faster and even better once they pass away." I don't remember anyone mentioning how fast Ratzenberger was in this thread. He was in the Senna movie too... Quote busted.

If you say so.

[The Black Knight]

Sorry I fail to see how you call someone a strawman and then start your post in the same fashion. People are entitled to opposing opinions my friend.

Oops. It's the without a doubt part I was referring to. Very absolute. My post was simply showing why it was such a straw-man though I didn't make that clear I admit. I kinda got lost along the way and failed to make the point.

[The Black Knight]

If you say so.

Ok, I'll help you out. Ratzenberger was on Senna's level.

Happy?

[Robinho]

Thats not a bad thing. Imola 1994 was one of the most surreal things I had ever seen at the time. I was 12 years old, already keen on the sport, and bewildered by the fact the biggest name in the sport was dying on the television. I was obviously too young to appreciate how great Senna was at the time, but in the years that followed I began to understand the void he left behind.

it was a very surreal weekend, i missed the saturday for some reason and remember looking on ceefax (remember that, page 360, motorsport) to see that Ratzenburger was in hospital in a coma (i think they had offically announced his death by then but it hadn't filtered through the weekend media) On the sunday i saw in the morning that he'd died, and we were then out all day. We recorded the race (on VHS). Then when we got back for some reason my dad put the ceefax on rather than just watching the race. We saw the news that Senna had been killed. Bizarrely we then still sat down and watched the race, knowing what was coming. still very vivid. as i said before in the thread i was only just developing an appreciation for Senna (as a kid I supported Mansell and Senna was the biggest rival)

[raphael_2]

Straw-men alert.

Senna was better than Prost and he was quicker. This is why Ballestre had to go sifting through a regulation in Japan 89 to try and win Prost the title. It's why Senna won the title in 88. Senna should have won the championship in 89. He got his revenge the next year. So discounting both those years where they both cheated to attain the title, the one year that they did it fairly Senna beat Prost. Not alone that but I believe he became a far better driver after his third title. He was the best in the wet, he was the best in the dry.

Regars the quote, "You seem to have discovered the curious habit that dead drivers have of getting even faster and even better once they pass away." I don't remember anyone mentioning how fast Ratzenberger was in this thread. He was in the Senna movie too... Quote busted.

Talk about being taken in by the film. Senna broke the rules - hence his disqualification. I agree though the reasoning behind his disqualification was odd, because it was not a rule that had been enforced throughout that season. Lets not forget though, had Senna won the race, it doesn't mean he would have won the title, it would have simply prolonged his title challenge.

Also, in 1988, which is the season you are judging them by (a bit silly I would argue, as we should judge them on their whole career, not one season) - Prost actually beat Senna, scoring 105 points to Senna's 94.

Was Senna better? That depends if quicker = better. I don't think it does. Senna was quick, but he was only so quick because he took so many risks, hence why he was always crashing. I believe Prost paced himself, and drove to the position he needed to - if he only needed 2nd place, he would not race at his full potential in order to get 1st. That was a big difference between Prost and Senna.

Your final point is quite true, being dead doesn't necessarily mean people will remember you as better than you are, but you can not deny that Senna's death has resulted in him being reviewed favourably. Naturally, you focus on the positives, rather than the negatives.

[ArrowsFA1]

I just think that a bit of balance would have improved it.

Had it been intended to be a documentary about a period in F1 history I would have agreed with you, but it wasn't. This was told from the perspective of one of the protagonists.

Perhaps someone will make a film based on Malcolm Folley's book "Senna Versus Prost" which should provide the balance you're seeking, although apparently that book is biased in favour of Prost :

[ArrowsFA1]

it was a very surreal weekend...

That's one of the things the film brought back so vividly. It's the kind of weekend I hope F1 never sees again.

[The Black Knight]

Talk about being taken in by the film. Senna broke the rules - hence his disqualification. I agree though the reasoning behind his disqualification was odd, because it was not a rule that had been enforced throughout that season. Lets not forget though, had Senna won the race, it doesn't mean he would have won the title, it would have simply prolonged his title challenge.

Also, in 1988, which is the season you are judging them by (a bit silly I would argue, as we should judge them on their whole career, not one season) - Prost actually beat Senna, scoring 105 points to Senna's 94.

Was Senna better? That depends if quicker = better. I don't think it does. Senna was quick, but he was only so quick because he took so many risks, hence why he was always crashing. I believe Prost paced himself, and drove to the position he needed to - if he only needed 2nd place, he would not race at his full potential in order to get 1st. That was a big difference between Prost and Senna.

Your final point is quite true, being dead doesn't necessarily mean people will remember you as better than you are, but you can not deny that Senna's death has resulted in him being reviewed favourably. Naturally, you focus on the positives, rather than the negatives.

Not taken by the film. There is nothing I said above that I didn't know before the movie. It was the best 11 results rule that accounted towards the championship in 1988. Senna had the best 11 results Just because it's not comparable with todays system doesn't mean it's any less of an achievement. Senna did what he had to in order to win the championship and won 8 races and three second places to Prosts 7 wins and 4 second places.

I agree, quicker does not necessarily equal better. No doubt about that. For me, after Senna became champion for the third time he became a far more complete driver much less prone to errors then his earlier days. I doubt Prost could have touched him then. Was he better than Prost at that stage comparing to Prost at his peak? Most definitely, imo. But I agree regarding 1988-90 seasons, it was far closer than most people realise.

Also, I do agree that being dead a lot of people have put a halo over his head and revered him as some sort of God in motorsport realms. A lot of people see him as the best ever, I don't see him as that. When you start talking about the best ever it's an argument that can never be really answered. Schumacher holds all the stats, so does that make him the best? Even comparing Senna's first 161 GP's to Schumacher first 161 GP's, Schumacher pretty much holds all the stats too compared to Senna. Would Schuey in his prime have beaten Senna in his prime? It would be too close to call wouldn't it? You could argue for either driver in this circumstance, as one could argue the same for Prost and Fangio and Clark etc

I'd really put my top 5 on equal pegging with each other. If I had a gun to my head and forced to pick the better driver, I'd probably pick Schumacher because of his consistency, patience and ability to extract the most from every situation both on and off the track but not because of his all out qualifying speed. If I wanted the driver that was quickest in qualifying I'd choose Senna though I would also say there would be plenty of races that he would have beaten Schumacher, and likewise there would have been many races where Prost would have beaten both of them. The same goes for Fangio and Clark. One can never actually answer conclusively who was the best. In truth, at their prime, they were probably all fairly equal.

[raphael_2]

Not taken by the film. There is nothing I said above that I didn't know before the movie. It was the best 11 results rule that accounted towards the championship in 1988. Senna had the best 11 results Just because it's not comparable with todays system doesn't mean it's any less of an achievement. Senna did what he had to in order to win the championship and won 8 races and three second places to Prosts 7 wins and 4 second places.

I agree, quicker does not necessarily equal better. No doubt about that. For me, after Senna became champion for the third time he became a far more complete driver much less prone to errors then his earlier days. I doubt Prost could have touched him then. Was he better than Prost at that stage comparing to Prost at his peak? Most definitely, imo. But I agree regarding 1988-90 seasons, it was far closer than most people realise.

Also, I do agree that being dead a lot of people have put a halo over his head and revered him as some sort of God in motorsport realms. A lot of people see him as the best ever, I don't see him as that. When you start talking about the best ever it's an argument that can never be really answered. Schumacher holds all the stats, so does that make him the best? Even comparing Senna's first 161 GP's to Schumacher first 161 GP's, Schumacher pretty much holds all the stats too compared to Senna. Would Schuey in his prime have beaten Senna in his prime? It would be too close to call wouldn't it? You could argue for either driver in this circumstance, as one could argue the same for Prost and Fangio and Clark etc

I'd really put my top 5 on equal pegging with each other. If I had a gun to my head and forced to pick the better driver, I'd probably pick Schumacher because of his consistency, patience and ability to extract the most from every situation both on and off the track but not because of his all out qualifying speed. If I wanted the driver that was quickest in qualifying I'd choose Senna though I would also say there would be plenty of races that he would have beaten Schumacher, and likewise there would have been many races where Prost would have beaten both of them. The same goes for Fangio and Clark. One can never actually answer conclusively who was the best. In truth, at their prime, they were probably all fairly equal.

I agree with your last paragraph, where you say they would probably all be fairly equal - though you should note that is different to what you say earlier in the same post, where you say Senna was without a doubt a better driver than Prost after he won his third title. I don't think even you know how you feel about who was better - if your last paragraph is genuine.

From what I have seen, though Senna was undoubtedly a better driver after winning his titles, which is natural as he was more experienced, he still made too many mistakes to be considered better than Prost. In 1992 alone he retired from 7 races, whilst some of this was due to reliability issues, it was also due to the fact he kept on colliding and crashing out. You could argue he was trying to extract more than what he could from the car to try and compete with the Williams, similar to Lewis Hamilton this year - however to be regarded as better Prost, an all time great, he shouldn't be making those mistakes.

Also, other than you saying Senna was undoubtedly better, you haven't been very forthcoming with evidence to suggest otherwise.

I would put Senna in the Top 5 of all time, however by the time Alonso and Hamilton have finished their business in the sport, I would expect to see them pass him. I think Alonso has already.