Schumacher vs Senna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

---

Please pick the difference between Senna and Freddie, if Senna had been the teamate instead of Freddie, during the pitstop qualifying fiasco, what Senna would have done different if anything:
1) smiled and said, "please I will happily be your number 2 and follow you, Mr. Hamilton-please forgive me"
2) Pointed to his laptop and said, "oh please Mr. Dennis, if you do not make him stop being so mean to me, I am going to hit myself in the head with my laptop until I am blind or dead"
3) invited Hamster to his hotel room to play computer games
4) sent Hamster flying off the track in such fashion that would have made the Prost bumps look unnoteworthy
5) bitchslapped him down long before so it would have never happenned
6) bitchslapped RD five grid places
7) not visited Hamster in the hospital after the surgery to remove the computer game mysteriously found buried deep inside the body of Hamster

:vader:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE_LIBERATOR

No-one except persons present is really sure what went on,...

---

Than why do you believe that:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE_LIBERATOR

If anyone deserved a slap it was Irvine.

---

:?:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE_LIBERATOR

...there is a tape of the incident apparently, love to hear it.

---

There was a transcript of that tape on the net. I read it a few years ago, and believe me you don't want to read it cause you will realize what kind of man Senna really was (ie the Bibendum is nothing compared to Senna's inflated ego ;) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE_LIBERATOR

If anyone deserved a slap it was Irvine.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

---

If Senna had finished the race where he was, he would have scored 10 points for the win and would have been chasing down a gap of 16 over the remainder of the season. Was Senna capable of doing that? My word yes.
Bear in mind that there would have been two Williams and not one, so the number of wins that Schumacher would have scored in the first place would have been less - apart from Schumacher and Hill, only one other driver actually won in 1994. Also bear in mind that Senna scored 5 wins in 1993 in a **** of a car against both Prost and Hill in superior machinery.

And yes, we need to make assumptions for history that doesn't exist. I note that you've put forward not alternative suggestions yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If Senna had finished the race where he was, he would have scored 10 points for the win and would have been chasing down a gap of 16 over the remainder of the season. Was Senna capable of doing that? My word yes.
Bear in mind that there would have been two Williams and not one, so the number of wins that Schumacher would have scored in the first place would have been less - apart from Schumacher and Hill, only one other driver actually won in 1994. Also bear in mind that Senna scored 5 wins in 1993 in a **** of a car against both Prost and Hill in superior machinery.

And yes, we need to make assumptions for history that doesn't exist. I note that you've put forward not alternative suggestions yet.

---

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.

Senna was a top driver. Schumacher beat him in Brazil and Hakkinen spun him at Tanaka International Circuit. It is a fair assumption that Senna could've won Imola - he was a brilliant driver!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

---

He did qualify first in the first 2 races too! Did he win? No.
Your points are mute, but you still go as far as saying he would have lapped everyone up to 3rd!
If you ask me that is far from reasonable, it's just wishful thinking from a fanatic. :rolleyes:

Almost forgot, what exactly is that fact that proves that he would have won not only won but also lapped the field up to 3rd???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

---

How can there have been so few cars on the lead lap, considering they had only just come out of a SC period?

If I had an F1 team and could sign either MS or Senna in their prime, it would probably be Senna.

Good thread..

If the term "greatest driver" encompasses not only analytical and tactical brilliance but allows the flaws of zero sportsmanship, doing whatever it takes within and outwith the rules to win.. and building a team around himself to achieve what he did statistically, then it has to be Schumacher.

If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap then I think it has to be Ayrton.

As someone else said... Apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabf1

If I had an F1 team and could sign either MS or Senna in their prime, it would probably be Senna.

---

Hey if all i had was Nick Heidfeldt, I would be thrilled to sign Freddie A.!!!!!!!!

besides Senna was a bit more mercenary than MS and MS was probably much nicer and more pleasant to his "bosses".... :D so you might want to think about that if you were the boss ........ but sign either one and you got a winner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zico

Good thread..

If the term "greatest driver" encompasses not only analytical and tactical brilliance but allows the flaws of zero sportsmanship, doing whatever it takes within and outwith the rules to win.. and building a team around himself to achieve what he did statistically, then it has to be Schumacher.

If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap then I think it has to be Ayrton.

As someone else said... Apples and oranges.

---

You might say: "If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap with the same or far worse flaws in sportsmanship, then I think it has to be Ayrton", I would agree!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

If you ask me that is far from reasonable, it's just wishful thinking from a fanatic. :rolleyes:

---

Me a fanatic of Senna? :rotflmao: 'tis to laugh. I thought the man was scum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

In 1990 Senna deliberately drove into him (Prost) thus endangering his life and stealing the World Championship by criminal and unfair means.

---

http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...light=criminal

And to answer a previous post from you no less:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And no one talks aout how Senna and Prost unfairly won WDC titles!So in the end will be only the statistics, and guess who is at the top of the list?! :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

...on both occasions I would have shredded their licences and given them a two year driving ban for culpable driving with intent to menace. Schumacher and Senna are both cut of the same cloth - win at all costs including underhandedness and ignobleness.

Having said this, Schumacher's skill was probably the fourth greatest of all time and the only driver to have had a full F1 career played out to determine this.

---

http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...ighlight=Senna

Fanatic, moi? No way. Both Senna and Schumacher were dastardly drivers, surrendering nothing but both supremely quick. My opinion of both of their characters as displayed on track is poor. If you choose the lesser of two evils, you still end up picking an evil.

OK, maybe I exaggerated, I'll reduce that to fan. ;)
Still it was wishful thinking. :p :

Senna was one of the best drivers in terms of getting a team behind him. He managed to push Prost out and then keep him from coming back to the sport in 1994 with Williams. By 1991 it was clear that you could not compete with Senna if you were his teammate.

However in 1994 the rules changed. Schumacher was just as good at getting a team behind him but even better at that by including his teammate - not alienating them and causing rifts in the team itself. Collectively this provided for quite the effort at Benetton which was clear in Brazil 94...

So what's the difference between Prost and Schumacher? Schumacher is not on Senna's team. There was physically no way for Senna to play the mental games he did with Prost - same games which precluded Prost from upping with Williams for 94.

Nope - this time it was driver against driver. The politicing had nothing to do with it and for all reasons Williams had an incredible edge! In fact Autosport, F1 and Racer all declared Senna/Williams the Champions even before the season started.

Clearly the engineering staff @ Benetton won the battle. But that's not the topic. IMO Schumacher one as well.

For Senna there was always this sort of "You owe it too me" attitude. We saw it in Japan 1990 and many - many times on the track. He'd be out by laps with everyone out of it and just crash someone he thought should simply get out of the way because he was Senna. Remember Monza 1988?

WOW :eek:

There were also Brazil 1990 and a host of other instances where he threw it away. Varsha mentioned (along with Hobbs) in 1991 when discussing World Driving Champions, that "You don't often here of Senna's name being mentioned amonsgt the greats" specifically because of this inability to win when he had it in the bag on so many occasions.

Maybe it was Schumacher's Germanic coldness which reserved him but he did keep his cool with exception to 94 and 96 when he punted Hill and later Villeneuve from the track. I guess in that case both drivers were brats... But how many really are not?

IMO Senna's legend lived on more so after his death and was augmented greatly by the gaping hole he left behind - which was Gerhard Berger who amassed only 8 wins... Looking back against 4 titles from Prost, 1 from Mansell, 3 from Piquet and 3 from Senna - effectively all running at relatively the same period in time.

That gap - IMO, helped to bolster Senna's legend because not like before - when all those champions were racing, Senna defined F1. He was the driver who would pass the tourch on to the next generation - Schumacher. When that was all removed it shocked everyone and blew Senna's legend to even greater levels of popularity.

My 2 cents :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

If Senna had finished the race where he was, he would have scored 10 points for the win and would have been chasing down a gap of 16 over the remainder of the season. Was Senna capable of doing that? My word yes.
Bear in mind that there would have been two Williams and not one, so the number of wins that Schumacher would have scored in the first place would have been less - apart from Schumacher and Hill, only one other driver actually won in 1994. Also bear in mind that Senna scored 5 wins in 1993 in a **** of a car against both Prost and Hill in superior machinery.

And yes, we need to make assumptions for history that doesn't exist. I note that you've put forward not alternative suggestions yet.

---

To say "if Senna had finished at Imola" is no different than saying "if he would have finished all three races". Fact is that at Imola he lost the race when his car - be it car failure or driver mistake - went out of the track. The fatality was that he got killed in the process. But he was already out of the race, and no one but himself or his car caused it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GingerLynn

Senna was one of the best drivers in terms of getting a team behind him. He managed to push Prost out and then keep him from coming back to the sport in 1994 with Williams. By 1991 it was clear that you could not compete with Senna if you were his teammate.

However in 1994 the rules changed. Schumacher was just as good at getting a team behind him but even better at that by including his teammate - not alienating them and causing rifts in the team itself. Collectively this provided for quite the effort at Benetton which was clear in Brazil 94...

So what's the difference between Prost and Schumacher? Schumacher is not on Senna's team. There was physically no way for Senna to play the mental games he did with Prost - same games which precluded Prost from upping with Williams for 94.

Nope - this time it was driver against driver. The politicing had nothing to do with it and for all reasons Williams had an incredible edge! In fact Autosport, F1 and Racer all declared Senna/Williams the Champions even before the season started.

Clearly the engineering staff @ Benetton won the battle. But that's not the topic. IMO Schumacher one as well.

For Senna there was always this sort of "You owe it too me" attitude. We saw it in Japan 1990 and many - many times on the track. He'd be out by laps with everyone out of it and just crash someone he thought should simply get out of the way because he was Senna. Remember Monza 1988?

WOW :eek:

There were also Brazil 1990 and a host of other instances where he threw it away. Varsha mentioned (along with Hobbs) in 1991 when discussing World Driving Champions, that "You don't often here of Senna's name being mentioned amonsgt the greats" specifically because of this inability to win when he had it in the bag on so many occasions.

Maybe it was Schumacher's Germanic coldness which reserved him but he did keep his cool with exception to 94 and 96 when he punted Hill and later Villeneuve from the track. I guess in that case both drivers were brats... But how many really are not?

IMO Senna's legend lived on more so after his death and was augmented greatly by the gaping hole he left behind - which was Gerhard Berger who amassed only 8 wins... Looking back against 4 titles from Prost, 1 from Mansell, 3 from Piquet and 3 from Senna - effectively all running at relatively the same period in time.

That gap - IMO, helped to bolster Senna's legend because not like before - when all those champions were racing, Senna defined F1. He was the driver who would pass the tourch on to the next generation - Schumacher. When that was all removed it shocked everyone and blew Senna's legend to even greater levels of popularity.

My 2 cents :D

---

For post number 14 or not post number 14 (based on your signature), still worth far more than 2 cents :D

Of course in eyes of many around here, you have sinned my not whispering the name Senna...... :rolleyes: ......., besides I always figured that MS learned his punting from Senna, but was just never managed to do it quite as spectacular

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

You might say: "If we are talking about out and out raw talent over a lap with the same or far worse flaws in sportsmanship, then I think it has to be Ayrton", I would agree!!!

---

Yep, you are correct.. I think I'd forgotten how volatile a character he actually was. :)

There are more similarities between Ayrton and Michael than there are differences.

They were both devastatingly confident in the wet. (Ayrton at Donnington in 93 and Schumi at Spain in 96)

They both made unforced errors. (Ayrton Monaco erm, 87,88 or 89 - can't remember, and Schumi Adelaide 94)

They were supremely confident, to the point of being arrogant (on the track certainly, no idea about in person).

They wanted one thing, and one thing only, to win.

To be honest, I don't think you can really seperate them.

One thing I will say in Ayrton's favour, is his philosophy on team mates. In 'The Life of Senna' there is a section on Lotus. Ayrton vetoed Derek Warwick being his teammate. Not because he was afraid of him, but because he knew Lotus could not competetively field two good drivers. I guess that is a back handed compliment to Derek.

As to Michael, since Herbet was his teammate, it appears (careful use of that word) he has not wanted a competetive teammate. Now, that is not dissimilar to the Ayrton at Lotus scenario, but for who's gain was it?

I'm not bashing, just provoking the debate.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

There are more similarities between Ayrton and Michael than there are differences.

They were both devastatingly confident in the wet. (Ayrton at Donnington in 93 and Schumi at Spain in 96)

They both made unforced errors. (Ayrton Monaco erm, 87,88 or 89 - can't remember, and Schumi Adelaide 94)

They were supremely confident, to the point of being arrogant (on the track certainly, no idea about in person).

They wanted one thing, and one thing only, to win.

To be honest, I don't think you can really seperate them.

One thing I will say in Ayrton's favour, is his philosophy on team mates. In 'The Life of Senna' there is a section on Lotus. Ayrton vetoed Derek Warwick being his teammate. Not because he was afraid of him, but because he knew Lotus could not competetively field two good drivers. I guess that is a back handed compliment to Derek.

As to Michael, since Herbet was his teammate, it appears (careful use of that word) he has not wanted a competetive teammate. Now, that is not dissimilar to the Ayrton at Lotus scenario, but for who's gain was it?

I'm not bashing, just provoking the debate.......

---

There is another difference between your scenario however. When Senna was at his prime the main objective of a team was to get the two best drivers in the market and field them. This of course worked well at Williams with Patrese and Mansell/Hill and Prost and of course at Ferrari with Berger/Mansell, Berger/Alesi - and surprisingly well at McLaren with Berger/Senna. In fact there were only 2 occasions were we saw problems and that was at McLaren with Senna/Prost and a very minor rift at Ferrari with Mansell/Prost which eventually precluded Prost from running at Williams in the 1992 season.

Benetton (along with Schumacher) usered in the new philosophy however. Put all your eggs in one basket and get a patsy driver to support that basket (Schumacher)... This of course followed through right into Ferrari and has now permeated into many other teams.

Was not the case years prior however.

Hmmm, what about the team-mates at McLaren in '87 (Prost), Lotus in '85-'89 (Senna/Piquet), Williams in '91/92(Mansell), McLaren in '91-93 (Senna) etc..

Never mind the smaller teams such as Jordan, Leyton House, Minardi, Fondmetal, etc who only had the money to run one good/promising driver and a renta-driver..

To suggest Williams ever thought of going for the championship with Patrese, McLaren with Berger or Ferrari with Capelli is laughable (good backup though they undoubtedly were). They were just there as support acts. And to suggest that Lehto and Barrichello were picked up as patsys is pretty disingenuous to their talents and the way they were viewed at the time as promising talents. Lehto and Hakkinen were both picked up by top teams at around the same time and were thought of as pretty equal until that point.

Senna vetoed anyone he thought was quick (Derek Warwick) and Lotus signed Nakajima later to pay the bills... Schumacher was paired with Martin Brundle (World Sportscar champion and near equal of Senna in F3, that wasn't just so he could play lapdog, nor did he...!) Flavio realised however that to launch a championship challenge their (relatively) small (read:lower-budget) team had to concentrate around their best asset - Schumacher. Hardly a dissimilar case to McLaren in 1992/93 when Senna drove for them...

So really when Senna was in his 'prime', top teams were signing Stefan Johansson, a tired-out Rosberg (who had to be forced to drive for McLaren until the end of the season in '86!), Berger (who was a newcomer in '86/'87!), Thierry Boutsen, Satoru Nakajima, Emmanuele Pirro, Ivan Capelli, and Roberto Moreno! So in reality, things were just the same back then in many ways too...

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know ;) Round here it's good posts which count ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

Hmmm, what about the team-mates at McLaren in '87 (Prost), Lotus in '85-'89 (Senna/Piquet), Williams in '91/92(Mansell), McLaren in '91-93 (Senna) etc..

Never mind the smaller teams such as Jordan, Leyton House, Minardi, Fondmetal, etc who only had the money to run one good/promising driver and a renta-driver..

To suggest Williams ever thought of going for the championship with Patrese, McLaren with Berger or Ferrari with Capelli is laughable (good backup though they undoubtedly were). They were just there as support acts. And to suggest that Lehto and Barrichello were picked up as patsys is pretty disingenuous to their talents and the way they were viewed at the time as promising talents. Lehto and Hakkinen were both picked up by top teams at around the same time and were thought of as pretty equal until that point.

Senna vetoed anyone he thought was quick (Derek Warwick) and Lotus signed Nakajima later to pay the bills... Schumacher was paired with Martin Brundle (World Sportscar champion and near equal of Senna in F3, that wasn't just so he could play lapdog, nor did he...!) Flavio realised however that to launch a championship challenge their (relatively) small (read:lower-budget) team had to concentrate around their best asset - Schumacher. Hardly a dissimilar case to McLaren in 1992/93 when Senna drove for them...

So really when Senna was in his 'prime', top teams were signing Stefan Johansson, a tired-out Rosberg (who had to be forced to drive for McLaren until the end of the season in '86!), Berger (who was a newcomer in '86/'87!), Thierry Boutsen, Satoru Nakajima, Emmanuele Pirro, Ivan Capelli, and Roberto Moreno! So in reality, things were just the same back then in many ways too...

---

Agreed however teams generally shot for the best drivers they could get. Rarely was a Prost, Mansell, Senna, Piquet available for 1 team. The next best drivers were the Bergers Alesi and Patrese.

They were far better skilled and a closer match to their teamates then Barichello, Salo, Irvine, Massa and so on. Clearly the last 10 years have been an obvious attempt for many top teams to get a driver to simply support their #1.

BTW - Great handle!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know ;) Round here it's good posts which count ;)

---

You bet - exactly who I am catering to :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osella

P.S. Intelligence is generally only measured by your post count in the Champ Car forum, as you may well know

---

Excuse me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Excuse me?

---

Excused!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcanox

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.

---

This board needs drug tests :up:

I agree. Arcanox.. they were both decent enough drivers in their day but Ferray was far better than both of them, Ill never forget the 1-2 he helped give Honda at Montoya.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GingerLynn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GingerLynn

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GingerLynn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GingerLynn

Schumacher hands down...

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcanox

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?!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malllen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theugsquirrel

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

---

Please wake up to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

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. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Please wake up to reality.

---

Did you even watch the race?