Ayrton Senna vs. Michael Schumacher

[Rollo]

This whole thread is the case of the lesser of two evils for me. In terms of driving skill and ability they were both masters of their craft, but in terms of character they're both utter filth.

Because I think that Senna was a better driver than Hill, and because the Williams was improving throughout '94, I think that Senna would have had a fairly decent tilt at '94, '95, '96 and '97 by which time his star would have slowly fallen.
That in-my-well-paid-opnion would have left Senna with 7 titles and Schumacher with 5.

Had they been in equal machinery, I'd reckon Senna would have won 8 times in 13.

[wedge]

http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...d.php?t=123404

[Miatanut]

The Official Formula 1 website has a "hall of fame" section.
Link to Michael Schumacher's entry:
http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_dr...all_of_fame/7/
Link to Ayrton Senna's entry:
http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_dr...ll_of_fame/45/

The events in Imola '94 robbed us of what would probably have been the biggest battle of the F1 giants in Formula 1 history.

ABSOLUTELY! While I was shocked a saddened that weekend, we were just getting into the Senna vs Schumacher battles, which I had been licking my chops for. They were going to be spectacular. That made it a double loss.

As for the original question. I really didn't like the young Senna. His approach was always 'you give way or we're both out'. It wasn't just the two Suzuka incidents. All the top F1 drivers would complain about him in the Autosport race reports. The last 1 to 1 1/2 years of his life, I felt he had settled down and I began to like him.

Between the two, I would go with Schumacher, but I think the question is too limited, because the greatest of all time was Fangio.

[Miatanut]

Top 3
Schumacher/Fangio/Prost 4-7...Clark/Ascari/Senna

Prost! I always preferred The Professor, because he raced with this head. By comparison, Senna was a snot-nosed schoolboy with no respect for his elders. I hate to admit it, but Senna was better.

[shazbot]

Senna, on two specific occasions - 89 and 90, deliberately 'took out' his opponent (Prost).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8-Qh...eature=related

The '89 incident was, in my view Prost taking out Senna. The overhead view is very telling. Look at Prost's trajectory - If Senna wasn't there he would have turned in way too early. 1990 is a different matter of course but I feel the 89 coming together is wrongly blamed on Ayrton.

[Rollo]

Schumacher also on two specific occasions - 94 and 97 deliberately 'took out' his opponent (Hill and Villeneuve).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQC_LQI1Aiw
Hill tried around the outside to go around Schmacher's stricken car and then up the inside. Schumacher deliberately turned in on Hill because, there is no possible other reason why he would have even turned back onto the racing line at such a corner.

Schumacher vs Senna is the question of which is better - a **** or a ****?

[Miatanut]

Senna, on two specific occasions - 89 and 90, deliberately 'took out' his opponent (Prost).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8-Qh...eature=related

The '89 incident was, in my view Prost taking out Senna. The overhead view is very telling. Look at Prost's trajectory - If Senna wasn't there he would have turned in way too early. 1990 is a different matter of course but I feel the 89 coming together is wrongly blamed on Ayrton.

I always thought Prost's conduct there was a little questionable, but I think it was within the rules. He was protecting the inside, so he turned in early. He didn't make a second move in response to the car behind. I don't remember Prost getting a hand slap after it. Senna's action the next year was pretty blatant.

[DezinerPaul]

It is if you then qualify it with two choices.

Not so as I do not agree with your two choices of who is the best. If on the other hand you are asking who is the better of the two, the answer is simple Prost.
Senna was beaten by Prost, over their careers. That does not mean that Senna never beat Prost, what it means that Prost had the much better of the two careers. The issue of Sennas passing does not come into it, as 1: he did not race so one cannot sat what he would have done, The chances of him beating Michael were at best slim. The ONLY reason anybody got close to Michael was the FIA penalties,the "Barge Board incident" and the pace car. Many believe that the FIA wanted Williams and Damon to take the title, because of Senna. Senna was not in the hunt in 94 and had crashed on all three of his starts, even after having the pole on each occaisons. When he died he was already 7 points behind Hill and Damon, proved how fast he was over the rest of the year. He was showing the signs of losing his great skills, remember he was always great for one lap, consistencey was his problem. With Senna, the myth is much larger than the man. How can he even be considered in the top three, when he fought a losing battle against Prost, who must be on the top three. There can be only one top three and you can put them in you own order of preferance, mine is Michael, Fangio, Prosts because at days end, it is all about the title.

[Miatanut]

Not so as I do not agree with your two choices of who is the best. If on the other hand you are asking who is the better of the two, the answer is simple Prost.
Senna was beaten by Prost, over their careers. That does not mean that Senna never beat Prost, what it means that Prost had the much better of the two careers. The issue of Sennas passing does not come into it, as 1: he did not race so one cannot sat what he would have done, The chances of him beating Michael were at best slim. The ONLY reason anybody got close to Michael was the FIA penalties,the "Barge Board incident" and the pace car. Many believe that the FIA wanted Williams and Damon to take the title, because of Senna. Senna was not in the hunt in 94 and had crashed on all three of his starts, even after having the pole on each occaisons. When he died he was already 7 points behind Hill and Damon, proved how fast he was over the rest of the year. He was showing the signs of losing his great skills, remember he was always great for one lap, consistencey was his problem. With Senna, the myth is much larger than the man. How can he even be considered in the top three, when he fought a losing battle against Prost, who must be on the top three. There can be only one top three and you can put them in you own order of preferance, mine is Michael, Fangio, Prosts because at days end, it is all about the title.

Interesting!

Prost's winning percentage was .255
Senna's was a squinch lower at .253
The Schu's is .364
Fangio's, in an era where if you put a wheel wrong, you could end up dead, was .451

Odd how much more people remember of Senna than Prost, when they were both pretty equal in winning races.

[ShiftingGears]

Interesting!

Prost's winning percentage was .255
Senna's was a squinch lower at .253
The Schu's is .364
Fangio's, in an era where if you put a wheel wrong, you could end up dead, was .451

Odd how much more people remember of Senna than Prost, when they were both pretty equal in winning races.

My take on it is, that if you had Senna in the modern era where the result is decided by 2-4 short sprints between tyre stops, he'd beat Prost pretty clearly. Because the strategy window in conserving the tyres is significantly smaller now than it was in the late 80's and early 90's. And Senna had more natural talent.

If if if!