Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 7 votes

Top 20 Greatest F1 Drivers of all time - BBC list [split]


  • Please log in to reply
1662 replies to this topic

#1251 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:36

I don't think anything Senna ever did affected anything Schumacher did in his career.


Just imagine it is 1990 again and Senna crashes into Prost, as a result Senna gets disqualified from the WDC and Prost wins the title. You would think 1994 or 1997 would have been the same? And if the FIA would have decided differently in 1989 1990 might also have gone differently.

Prost was no saint either, but the important point is that until 1997 the FIA had no problems when the WDC winner decided the WDC by crashing into the runner-up. Yet the BBC uses the action of Schumacher against him, even those before and including 1997.

Advertisement

#1252 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:59

They are doing so by placing him much higher than Schumacher though.


That's courtesy of the comeback, I reckon. IMO MS should be judged on his first career, but then again I guess it's impossible to eradicate the 2nd completely form the mind. Not quite fair, but understandable.

I suspect Alan Jones would be placed higher in such lists too, if not for his comeback attempts. His first retirement was from the very top, very much like MS'.

#1253 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:19

Just imagine it is 1990 again and Senna crashes into Prost, as a result Senna gets disqualified from the WDC and Prost wins the title. You would think 1994 or 1997 would have been the same? And if the FIA would have decided differently in 1989 1990 might also have gone differently.

Prost was no saint either, but the important point is that until 1997 the FIA had no problems when the WDC winner decided the WDC by crashing into the runner-up. Yet the BBC uses the action of Schumacher against him, even those before and including 1997.


btw.
This is, where i see the clearest double standards regarding "racing ethics" in that list - not so much between Senna and MSC.

Recently i already pointed out the portrayals of the 89/94 indcidents in the respective articles.
Prost is way too often described as a completely clean driver in these occasions. Not long ago JYS left MSC&AS out of his personal Top 5 - but not Prost - with the usual arguments about their on-track-behaviour. It´s not like i would hold a grudge against Prost, but i just the prefer, that everbody is judged in the same way.
...and it was neither Senna nor Schuamcher, who began this series of collisions in several title-deciders of "modern" F1.

#1254 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:30

That's courtesy of the comeback, I reckon. IMO MS should be judged on his first career, but then again I guess it's impossible to eradicate the 2nd completely form the mind. Not quite fair, but understandable.


Will be interesting too see, how much MSC´s comeback damaged his reputation in the long term.
For sure his critics will always raise this issue, but i can image just as well that in some years from now many people won´t really care about that anymore. E.g. It´s not like many really care much about Ali´s last - quite embarrasing - fights or Maradona´s last few years as a footballer...
(To be clear: I´m not comparing the meaning of these three guys for their sport, just used the similarity, that they didn´t quit on the top of their game)

Edited by LiJu914, 15 November 2012 - 11:31.


#1255 Gag Bueno

Gag Bueno
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:00

btw.
This is, where i see the clearest double standards regarding "racing ethics" in that list - not so much between Senna and MSC.

Recently i already pointed out the portrayals of the 89/94 indcidents in the respective articles.
Prost is way too often described as a completely clean driver in these occasions. Not long ago JYS left MSC&AS out of his personal Top 5 - but not Prost - with the usual arguments about their on-track-behaviour. It´s not like i would hold a grudge against Prost, but i just the prefer, that everbody is judged in the same way.
...and it was neither Senna nor Schuamcher, who began this series of collisions in several title-deciders of "modern" F1.


I don't know if Prost can be described as a completely clean driver, but comparing his clumsy and somewhat half-arsed defense to a 'very optimistic' ( not to say bullyish, remember how Naninni had to slam the brakes to let AS through as it happened again in the same race... ) overtaking attempt to the moves by AS/MS in 1990 or 1997 is very exaggerated IMO.

In this context, it irritates me very much that AS always spoke about the 'stolen' championship in 1989, actually what was at stake in Suzuka was his chance to continue in the WDC fight, or not?


#1256 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:13

I don't know if Prost can be described as a completely clean driver, but comparing his clumsy and somewhat half-arsed defense to a 'very optimistic' ( not to say bullyish, remember how Naninni had to slam the brakes to let AS through as it happened again in the same race... ) overtaking attempt to the moves by AS/MS in 1990 or 1997 is very exaggerated IMO.


Prost saw Senna coming and turned in early...and of course AP knew, what would happen next.
I don´t see the difference between that and 1997. Didn´t JV also make a "very optimistic" overtaking attempt? Perhaps he wouldn´t even made the corner...but MSC saw him coming and turned in nonetheless - for me it´s the same behaviour as Prost´s in 89.

In this context, it irritates me very much that AS always spoke about the 'stolen' championship in 1989, actually what was at stake in Suzuka was his chance to continue in the WDC fight, or not?


Correct.

Edited by LiJu914, 15 November 2012 - 12:15.


#1257 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:17

Its not fans who wrote that list you know. The BBC has done it, or I'd dare say, their tabloid journalists have.

When it comes to Schumacher, they have used sporting ethics as the #1 reason why he shouldnt be considered the greatest of all time. Fair enough. But by the very same yardstick, Ayrton Senna also does not qualify for this title of the greatest of all time. Obviously in his case, its not all that important.


This is my big issue with it. Note that the very same person who wrote this suffers from this systematic bias in other areas as well.



#1258 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:19

I don't know if Prost can be described as a completely clean driver, but comparing his clumsy and somewhat half-arsed defense to a 'very optimistic' ( not to say bullyish, remember how Naninni had to slam the brakes to let AS through as it happened again in the same race... ) overtaking attempt to the moves by AS/MS in 1990 or 1997 is very exaggerated IMO.


It was the same thing, clumsyness level shouldn't enter the equation IMO. And Nannini was just trying to brake as late as possible to defend. Not exactly uncommon.

In this context, it irritates me very much that AS always spoke about the 'stolen' championship in 1989, actually what was at stake in Suzuka was his chance to continue in the WDC fight, or not?


I only know of Senna talking about a stolen race (in the 1991 Suzuka PC), but maybe you have other quotes?

#1259 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:48

Prost saw Senna coming and turned in early...and of course AP knew, what would happen next.
I don´t see the difference between that and 1997. Didn´t JV also make a "very optimistic" overtaking attempt? Perhaps he wouldn´t even made the corner...but MSC saw him coming and turned in nonetheless - for me it´s the same behaviour as Prost´s in 89.


Identical for me as well. Identical in what happened and identical in mindset. Not something to character assassinate either driver for, given the context of what happened. For me it amounted to head shaking and highly entertaining lapses of judgement based on a fiercely competitive spirits under immense pressure. They both deserve punishment and then one moves on. We got to see great drivers lose it in the heat of battle. Very human indeed. It's so boring when everyone toes the line, fair and square every time. All this shows is that fierce competition is NOT underway. That's not real life behaviour in an atmosphere when there can be only ONE. If we don't see it then it's hidden under the surface of the competition that's underway. We all know this.

Edited by ali_M, 15 November 2012 - 12:51.


Advertisement

#1260 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 493 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:56

.

When it comes to Schumacher, they have used sporting ethics as the #1 reason why he shouldnt be considered the greatest of all time..


Where have the BBC said that?

#1261 sportingcp

sportingcp
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 13:08

Greetings everyone.

So my first post here, big F1 fan (started seeing at 99/2000 season) I´ve been following the forum, would like to give my 2 cents about the discussion of the best driver ever.

OK, so I think it´s almost impossible to say who is the best driver of all time. The sport changed through the years, the cars of course also have a very important role and so it´s a bit pointless to say that driver "X" is the best without a doubt. Still if we divide all the 62 of F1 history in a half we can say for instance that in the first half Fangio and Clark were probably the best and in the second "era" Schumacher, Senna and Prost are the best. Those are also the 5 best drivers in this list. How can we say between this 5 who his the best? Well it depends for each person the driver they like the most from the personality they have, style of conduction, etc.

My opinion: The only driver of those I saw racing was Michael Schumacher and for me from what I saw him doing, and because of the statistics he is the best. I think it´s curious if we analyse the Senna vs Prost "battle", two different drivers both excellent drivers. In one side we have Senna (proud that he shares the same surname as me lol), the guy that, like has been said here, is probably the best was almost unstoppable in 1 lap qualifying, and difficult track conditions like heavy rain. He is like the most "pure" driver the most emotional not so consistent but capable of amazing things that even Prost couldn´t maybe. At the other side Prost, the brain, probably not a coincidence that he was called "the professor" right? I think this guy was the best in the technical part, amazing pace consistently, and the best strategist. With this i´m not saying Prost was not good in qualifying or Senna didn´t also was very good in some of Prost´s best traits, just they are two different drivers that were probably the best of all in the things I mention. I didn´t saw those 2 racing but from the stats, videos and what people say this is my assumption and what I think about them. For me, I think Prost was the most complete driver and so judging who is the best by that and the stats, Prost was slighty better. Both were very good in his one way, for example I think it´s interesting that nowadays we have drivers that in some way by their style of conduction and personality resemble this two. Alonso represents a bit Prost in my opinion, even Button a little bit. Hamilton is more a Senna type of driver even Vettel in some way (but he is more similar to Schumacher).

Then we have Schumacher. I think that he has a bit of Senna and a bit of Prost, and that´s what made him so successfull. He´s probably not a better qualifier than Senna was but almost as good. He doesn´t have Prost´s brain but almost.

About Fangio and Clark it´s very difficult to compare to the others. Fangio records are really good, winning so many titles with different teams, but we will never have the possibility to compare his perfomances in a similar car and situation with the more recent drivers so it´s a bit unknown how good he was.

Conclusion: For me Schumacher is the "best", but being the "best" depends a lot of what the word means to each one of us. It´s understandable that other people think it´s Senna, others Prost, Fangio or Clark, Lauda even Alonso, Vettel, Raikkonen or Coulthard. All of them are/were awesome and contributed for how good the F1 is today, and to the history of the sport.

Edited by sportingcp, 15 November 2012 - 13:15.


#1262 Gag Bueno

Gag Bueno
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 November 2012 - 13:39

It was the same thing, clumsyness level shouldn't enter the equation IMO. And Nannini was just trying to brake as late as possible to defend. Not exactly uncommon.


So, having to lock all four wheels and wait to make the turn now is a common form of defense... And I beg your pardon to continue doubting that it was 'the same thing', MS's move in 1997 didn't look as an 'early turn-in' IMO.


I only know of Senna talking about a stolen race (in the 1991 Suzuka PC), but maybe you have other quotes?


What about the press conference before the 1991 Australian GP, with mentions to the 1989 title, 'stolen' by 'the system'...? And since AS was the first driver to hang out with 'his' journos or 'image caretakers' and deliberately having influence about what they did publish, they are a lot of indirect quotes too... If it's not enough, google it in Portuguese, maybe it will be a surprise...

#1263 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 13:39

Prost saw Senna coming and turned in early...and of course AP knew, what would happen next.
I don´t see the difference between that and 1997. Didn´t JV also make a "very optimistic" overtaking attempt? Perhaps he wouldn´t even made the corner...but MSC saw him coming and turned in nonetheless - for me it´s the same behaviour as Prost´s in 89.

QFT


What people shouldn't do is not taking in account the context that the things happened.

All started in 89 with Senna starting on pole (pole was in the dirtier side of the track) but having a very poor start and then when Senna managed to climb back the grid, Prost tried to take him out, didn't managed that very well, Senna still won and then they DSQ him with all the controversy involved.
Then come 90. The drivers had agreed with the stewards that the pole would start in the clean side of the track, then after the qualifying which Senna took pole and Prost was second, they decided to change back the pole to the dirtier side. After this Senna told he wouldn't be hampered once again, so if Prost had a better start for been in the cleaner side he would take him out, Prost did have a better start and so Senna took him out.
Obviously this do not justify taking Prost out, but it's understandably why he did it.

#1264 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 13:56

I think it is pointless to discuss the drivers, the question is why the author decided to bring ehtics into consideration for one driver only. One can hardly blame Schumacher that his period extended into a period in which the FIA was less obviously medling with the results, than in the early 80ies and such actions were no longer tolerated. F1 changed and one can say that all top 5 drivers went the the limits of the rules of their time and sometimes they crossed those limits as well.

#1265 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:00

Where have the BBC said that?

Just about every where in the article about him in this series.

#1266 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,738 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:05

QFT


What people shouldn't do is not taking in account the context that the things happened.

All started in 89 with Senna starting on pole (pole was in the dirtier side of the track) but having a very poor start and then when Senna managed to climb back the grid, Prost tried to take him out, didn't managed that very well, Senna still won and then they DSQ him with all the controversy involved.
Then come 90. The drivers had agreed with the stewards that the pole would start in the clean side of the track, then after the qualifying which Senna took pole and Prost was second, they decided to change back the pole to the dirtier side. After this Senna told he wouldn't be hampered once again, so if Prost had a better start for been in the cleaner side he would take him out, Prost did have a better start and so Senna took him out.
Obviously this do not justify taking Prost out, but it's understandably why he did it.


But this can't be an excuse. We also know the reason for Schumacher hitting Villeneuve in 1997. It was tolerated the years before, Senna and Prost did once, and he thought he can get away with it. So knowing the circumstances doesn't make the Senna action justifiable or more understandable than Schumacher's action. I see no difference in Senna's ethics here, but every time it was said he did exactly same as Schumacher, so blame him like Schumacher, somebody comes around and wants to talk about the unfair situation, bad prost, bastard balestre and the "understandable reasons" why Senna took Prost out

Edited by 1Devil1, 15 November 2012 - 14:07.


#1267 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 493 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:06

Just about every where in the article about him in this series.


I've read it several times and can't see where it claims his ethics cost him a higher position.

Perhaps you can highlight it for us?

#1268 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:08

But this can't be excuse. We also know the reason for Schumacher hitting Villeneuve in 1997. It was tolerated the years before, Senna and Prost did once, and he thought he can get away with it. So knowing the circumstances doesn't make the Senna action justifiable or more understandable than Schumacher's action. I see no difference in Senna's ethics here, but every time it was said he did exactly same as Schumacher, so blame him like Schumacher, somebody comes around and wants to talk about the unfair situation, bad prost, bastard balestre and the "understandable reasons" why Senna took Prost out

Yep. Senna fanboys justifying Suzuka is just delusional. Its as good (or as bad) as saying Schumacher's actions at Adelaide 94 are revenge for all the penalties he received that year.

#1269 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:11

I've read it several times and can't see where it claims his ethics cost him a higher position.

Perhaps you can highlight it for us?

You clearly need to read the article again. And maybe again. The article concentrates on all the alleged ethical lapses and unfair advantages that Schumacher had in his career, and his achievements and driving skills occupy maybe 3 sentences in the entire article. Do you only believe an article only if the obvious has been highlighted in bold and underlined for you ?



#1270 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,738 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:14

I've read it several times and can't see where it claims his ethics cost him a higher position.

Perhaps you can highlight it for us?


"Schumacher won it but only after he deliberately drove into Hill, who was trying to pass him after seeing the Benetton go off the track at the previous corner"

Perhaps you should check if can understand a context between the lines. You will find no sentence "We put Schumacher on 4th because he had customized tires, drove into other drivers, used traction control". Even as non native this article is an open book, sorry.!

Edited by 1Devil1, 15 November 2012 - 14:16.


#1271 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:19

But this can't be an excuse. We also know the reason for Schumacher hitting Villeneuve in 1997. It was tolerated the years before, Senna and Prost did once, and he thought he can get away with it. So knowing the circumstances doesn't make the Senna action justifiable or more understandable than Schumacher's action. I see no difference in Senna's ethics here, but every time it was said he did exactly same as Schumacher, so blame him like Schumacher, somebody comes around and wants to talk about the unfair situation, bad prost, bastard balestre and the "understandable reasons" why Senna took Prost out

Well, we have different point of views.

If someone hit me first i hit him back even knowing i shouldn't, but I never hit someone because I would finish second otherwise.

In my point of view Senna hit back, while Prost in 89 or MSC in 97 hit to not finish second.

edit: And didn't say Senna actions was justifiable. He should had been disqualified just like Prost should had in 89, and MSC in 94.

Edited by Kyo, 15 November 2012 - 14:30.


#1272 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 493 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:30

You clearly need to read the article again. And maybe again. The article concentrates on all the alleged ethical lapses and unfair advantages that Schumacher had in his career, and his achievements and driving skills occupy maybe 3 sentences in the entire article. Do you only believe an article only if the obvious has been highlighted in bold and underlined for you ?


What you claim is completely untrue.

Secondly, all the articles are 'driver profiles' accompanying the rankings made by committee. Not made by Benson. They are not justifications for positions.

In not one of them have they used a qualifying statement like: - that's why we place him in nth position.

Moreover, it does not state as you claim that his ethics prevented him from being picked as the greatest. It just doesn't.

#1273 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:34

In my point of view Senna hit back, while Prost in 89 or MSC in 97 hit to not finish second.


That almost reads as if Senna didn´t collide with Prost to become WDC...


#1274 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:40

That almost reads as if Senna didn´t collide with Prost to become WDC...

well you can read the way you want, but thats not what I tried to say.

#1275 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:42

well you can read the way you want, but thats not what I tried to say.


To put it in other words: Do you think Senna would´ve also rammed Prost, if there wouldn´t have been a WDC at stake for him?

If not, then Senna clearly did it, because he didn´t want to finish second as well.

Edited by LiJu914, 15 November 2012 - 14:44.


#1276 Fallout

Fallout
  • Member

  • 430 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:44

Greetings everyone.

So my first post here, big F1 fan (started seeing at 99/2000 season) I´ve been following the forum, would like to give my 2 cents about the discussion of the best driver ever.

OK, so I think it´s almost impossible to say who is the best driver of all time. The sport changed through the years, the cars of course also have a very important role and so it´s a bit pointless to say that driver "X" is the best without a doubt. Still if we divide all the 62 of F1 history in a half we can say for instance that in the first half Fangio and Clark were probably the best and in the second "era" Schumacher, Senna and Prost are the best. Those are also the 5 best drivers in this list. How can we say between this 5 who his the best? Well it depends for each person the driver they like the most from the personality they have, style of conduction, etc.

My opinion: The only driver of those I saw racing was Michael Schumacher and for me from what I saw him doing, and because of the statistics he is the best. I think it´s curious if we analyse the Senna vs Prost "battle", two different drivers both excellent drivers. In one side we have Senna (proud that he shares the same surname as me lol), the guy that, like has been said here, is probably the best was almost unstoppable in 1 lap qualifying, and difficult track conditions like heavy rain. He is like the most "pure" driver the most emotional not so consistent but capable of amazing things that even Prost couldn´t maybe. At the other side Prost, the brain, probably not a coincidence that he was called "the professor" right? I think this guy was the best in the technical part, amazing pace consistently, and the best strategist. With this i´m not saying Prost was not good in qualifying or Senna didn´t also was very good in some of Prost´s best traits, just they are two different drivers that were probably the best of all in the things I mention. I didn´t saw those 2 racing but from the stats, videos and what people say this is my assumption and what I think about them. For me, I think Prost was the most complete driver and so judging who is the best by that and the stats, Prost was slighty better. Both were very good in his one way, for example I think it´s interesting that nowadays we have drivers that in some way by their style of conduction and personality resemble this two. Alonso represents a bit Prost in my opinion, even Button a little bit. Hamilton is more a Senna type of driver even Vettel in some way (but he is more similar to Schumacher).

Then we have Schumacher. I think that he has a bit of Senna and a bit of Prost, and that´s what made him so successfull. He´s probably not a better qualifier than Senna was but almost as good. He doesn´t have Prost´s brain but almost.

About Fangio and Clark it´s very difficult to compare to the others. Fangio records are really good, winning so many titles with different teams, but we will never have the possibility to compare his perfomances in a similar car and situation with the more recent drivers so it´s a bit unknown how good he was.

Conclusion: For me Schumacher is the "best", but being the "best" depends a lot of what the word means to each one of us. It´s understandable that other people think it´s Senna, others Prost, Fangio or Clark, Lauda even Alonso, Vettel, Raikkonen or Coulthard. All of them are/were awesome and contributed for how good the F1 is today, and to the history of the sport.


I liked your post, agreed on most part, but then saw the bolded part and wondered: Is there something I have missed the past couple of years? Anyone who isn't a WDC could never be considered the very best driver. That would put shame on the very purpose of the title.


#1277 Gag Bueno

Gag Bueno
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:52

QFT
What people shouldn't do is not taking in account the context that the things happened.

"All started in 89 with Senna starting on pole (pole was in the dirtier side of the track) but having a very poor start and then when Senna managed to climb back the grid, Prost tried to take him out, didn't managed that very well, Senna still won and then they DSQ him with all the controversy involved.
Then come 90. The drivers had agreed with the stewards that the pole would start in the clean side of the track, then after the qualifying which Senna took pole and Prost was second, they decided to change back the pole to the dirtier side. After this Senna told he wouldn't be hampered once again, so if Prost had a better start for been in the cleaner side he would take him out, Prost did have a better start and so Senna took him out.


Sorry, but the 'context' you're quoting is rather dubious. AS always tended to 'make agreements with himself'... IIRC, the accurate version of the pole controversy in Suzuka 1990 is as reported here:

"Before qualifying for the 1990 race had even begun, Senna lobbied track officials for pole position to be moved to the left and onto the racing line. He believed he’d got their consent – but after claiming pole position he was told he would start from the right-hand side of the track once again."


Of course various Senna biographers and worshipers insist on his version... But knowing his primadonna behavior in driver briefings or talking to officials, I tend to believe the wanted change of the pole side wasn't set in stone...

Obviously this do not justify taking Prost out, but it's understandably why he did it.


For instance all this 'facts' did not justify Senna's action and how people even try to 'understand' it seems completely bizarre to me...

Edited by Gag Bueno, 15 November 2012 - 14:54.


#1278 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 14:54

To put it in other words: Do you think Senna would´ve also rammed Prost, if there wouldn´t have been a WDC at stake for him?

If not, then Senna clearly did it, because he didn´t want to finish second as well.

Obviously Senna only did it because the WDC was at stake, but what I said (or at least was my intention) was that he only did because Prost did the same the year before and so he taught he was in his right to do the same, while Prost and MSC did without anyone taking this approach against then, and like I said they all should have been DSQ (they all did the same thing in the end), but ethically speaking they are different things.

#1279 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 15:17

Sorry, but the 'context' you're quoting is rather dubious. AS always tended to 'make agreements with himself'... IIRC, the accurate version of the pole controversy in Suzuka 1990 is as reported here:

"Before qualifying for the 1990 race had even begun, Senna lobbied track officials for pole position to be moved to the left and onto the racing line. He believed he’d got their consent – but after claiming pole position he was told he would start from the right-hand side of the track once again."


Of course various Senna biographers and worshipers insist on his version... But knowing his primadonna behavior in driver briefings or talking to officials, I tend to believe the wanted change of the pole side wasn't set in stone...

:rolleyes:

so theres no prove if was or not set in stone, it may or may not, and even if it wasn't i don't change the fact that the pole should be where gives the fastest driver in qualifying an advantage, not a hindrance

For instance all this 'facts' did not justify Senna's action and how people even try to 'understand' it seems completely bizarre to me...

What is bizarre is believing that the same actions will be seen equally independent of the circumstances that the actions took place.

Advertisement

#1280 sportingcp

sportingcp
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 15:26

I liked your post, agreed on most part, but then saw the bolded part and wondered: Is there something I have missed the past couple of years? Anyone who isn't a WDC could never be considered the very best driver. That would put shame on the very purpose of the title.


:lol: I put Coulthard´s name there on purpose, just kidding lol :p . Of course Coulthard is no Alex Yoong or Yuji Ide he was a decent driver but nowhere at the level of the others of course it´s impossible to consider him the best lol.

#1281 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 15:31

So, having to lock all four wheels and wait to make the turn now is a common form of defense... And I beg your pardon to continue doubting that it was 'the same thing', MS's move in 1997 didn't look as an 'early turn-in' IMO.


It was morally the same thing, which was the point of discussion, not the technicalities.

What about the press conference before the 1991 Australian GP, with mentions to the 1989 title, 'stolen' by 'the system'...?


Well, I have to take your word for it, don't remember it. Literal quote would have been nice, though.

And since AS was the first driver to hang out with 'his' journos or 'image caretakers' and deliberately having influence about what they did publish, they are a lot of indirect quotes too... If it's not enough, google it in Portuguese, maybe it will be a surprise...


Ah I see, journalists writing stuff you don't agree with are the ones influenced by Senna. Oh, what an evil man he was, wasn't he? :p I understand it's tough for Piquet fans being confronted with Senna's legacy. Get over it.

Oh, and sorry, I don't see me googling anything portuguese, not in this life. :)

#1282 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,738 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 15:31

:rolleyes:

so theres no prove if was or not set in stone, it may or may not, and even if it wasn't i don't change the fact that the pole should be where gives the fastest driver in qualifying an advantage, not a hindrance


What is bizarre is believing that the same actions will be seen equally independent of the circumstances that the actions took place.



It's not bizarre we are not talking about court decision and a client with a bad child hood to understand his actions. Formula One is a hard business and I see no reason why Senna' action is more ethically justified than Prost or Schumacher's. The circumstances were different in Sennas, Schumachers and Prost situation but you want us to believe the were so unfair, different, Senna nearly had the right to do so (I know you believe he did something wrong). You have no right to win a championship by hitting your opponent, even Prost did it the year before, even you as "driver" think all others play against you. You don't make your own right, or use your own moral to justify your decision.

#1283 schubacca

schubacca
  • Member

  • 796 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 15:37

So AS cannot do no wrong, whilst MS cannot do no right...?

I think that this is what the last couple of pages have degenerated to.

In Benson's write up on MS, it was almost as if he had to cite all the negatives to his career.

I wonder whether or not he glosses over Senna's shortcomings?

The smart money is NO.

Sure, a sentence will be devoted to him ramming Prost off the track.

I am sure that his contriteness years after the fact will be used to frame his actions.

I got no problem with that. I just wished that the same leeway was given to MS.

Senna #1 on this list. I got no problem with that.

Those trying to compare Moss with Schumacher..... Come one now....

#1284 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 15:52

Obviously Senna only did it because the WDC was at stake, but what I said (or at least was my intention) was that he only did because Prost did the same the year before and so he taught he was in his right to do the same, while Prost and MSC did without anyone taking this approach against then, and like I said they all should have been DSQ (they all did the same thing in the end), but ethically speaking they are different things.


First: This will be my last post about that issue, as it was discussed often enough and it has become rather tiring.

I tend not to differentiate much between the incidents regarding the level of their ethical dubiousness. But if i had to, i certainly wouldn´t come to the conclusion that Senna´s action was less condemnable. He is the only one, of whom we can say for sure, that he had already preplanned that, before the race had even started. But more importantly: His action was really really dangerous - much more dangerous than the other incidents, which were low speed collisions. Donnelly was crippled in a high-speed crash only a few weeks before and i´m pretty sure, Senna hadn´t forgotten about that...

Edited by LiJu914, 15 November 2012 - 15:56.


#1285 Gag Bueno

Gag Bueno
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 November 2012 - 15:59

It was morally the same thing, which was the point of discussion, not the technicalities.



Morals and Senna ... Sorry, but :rotfl: And it's up to you if the difference between ramming an opponent with healthy 200 km/h or slamming the door before a chicane is 'technically' or 'morally' different, I only hope you acknowledge it...

Well, I have to take your word for it, don't remember it. Literal quote would have been nice, though.


I think it can be googled in English, with a bit of luck...


Ah I see, journalists writing stuff you don't agree with are the ones influenced by Senna. Oh, what an evil man he was, wasn't he? :p I understand it's tough for Piquet fans being confronted with Senna's legacy. Get over it.


I'm sorry, but AFAIK Senna was the first F1 driver to hang around ( incl. spending holidays & so... ) with 'his' journalists and broadcasters and discussing image issues and what was convenient to publish with them . Schumacher, who was his legitimate successor and 'heir' ( not only in this regard, but also 'morally' IMO ) had even an exclusive reporting contract with RTL, I think it was a major improvement to do it open- and officially rather than behind closed doors...

And I have no problem whatsoever with Senna being rated higher as Piquet, but more with 'Senna's legacy', especially knowing the amount of bias related to it.

Edited by Gag Bueno, 15 November 2012 - 16:01.


#1286 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 16:35

First: This will be my last post about that issue, as it was discussed often enough and it has become rather tiring.

I tend not to differentiate much between the incidents regarding the level of their ethical dubiousness. But if i had to, i certainly wouldn´t come to the conclusion that Senna´s action was less condemnable. He is the only one, of whom we can say for sure, that he had already preplanned that, before the race had even started. But more importantly: His action was really really dangerous - much more dangerous than the other incidents, which were low speed collisions. Donnelly was crippled in a high-speed crash only a few weeks before and i´m pretty sure, Senna hadn´t forgotten about that...

You have a fair point, and I see why you think different.

I'm done too, I usually do not even start discussing ethics since it has no (or should not have) influence to rank the best drivers.

#1287 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 17:14

Morals and Senna ... Sorry, but :rotfl: And it's up to you if the difference between ramming an opponent with healthy 200 km/h or slamming the door before a chicane is 'technically' or 'morally' different, I only hope you acknowledge it...


Morally, as I used it, is an unqualified term, I didn't talk about good or bad. And yes, there's a difference in danger level (but not nearly as hyperbole as sometimes propagated). Still, no difference as in both being professional fouls.

I think it can be googled in English, with a bit of luck...


Which you didn't have, I guess?!

I'm sorry, but AFAIK Senna was the first F1 driver to hang around ( incl. spending holidays & so... ) with 'his' journalists and broadcasters and discussing image issues and what was convenient to publish with them .


Sounds like you're trying to start an unspecific (and therefore impossible to disprove) smearing campaign.

Look, it's okay to dislike Senna. But I would really appreciate if you could come up with something substantial and debatable, if you feel the need to explain why you do so.


#1288 Gag Bueno

Gag Bueno
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 November 2012 - 18:13

Which you didn't have, I guess?!


I'm sorry again, but would David Tremayne from MotorSport Magazine be a credible source? As written there:

"He railed against exclusion from victory at the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix after that famous collision with Prost, accusing the sport’s governing body of cheating him out of a second title."

The original statement of the bespoken interview can be found easily in Portuguese ( I wonder why not in English... ) and includes 'pearls' like:

"They should f*ck themselves with their rules that I can't give opinion, Sh*t, we are in a modern world and are professional drivers..."

And so on... (My own translation, even if I prefer a less rude tone.) Nice, you don't think so? Anyway, I start feeling like an atheist who knows the Holy Script better than the worshipers...



Sounds like you're trying to start an unspecific (and therefore impossible to disprove) smearing campaign.

Look, it's okay to dislike Senna. But I would really appreciate if you could come up with something substantial and debatable, if you feel the need to explain why you do so.


Smearing campaign? Please... Talking about it, in the 'Bible' of all the Senna worshipers ( The Revealed Hero, his official bio by one of the referred journos, I really don't know if an English translation is available ) there is a detailed description of Senna spending a holiday 'chez' G. Bueno (Until today the most brown-nosing journo around Senna) in the end of 1987 and taking advantage of it to start a smearing campaign against the... reigning WDC. Strange, or not?

#1289 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 18:52

I'm sorry again, but would David Tremayne from MotorSport Magazine be a credible source? As written there:

"He railed against exclusion from victory at the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix after that famous collision with Prost, accusing the sport’s governing body of cheating him out of a second title."

The original statement of the bespoken interview can be found easily in Portuguese ( I wonder why not in English... ) and includes 'pearls' like:

"They should f*ck themselves with their rules that I can't give opinion, Sh*t, we are in a modern world and are professional drivers..."

And so on... (My own translation, even if I prefer a less rude tone.) Nice, you don't think so? Anyway, I start feeling like an atheist who knows the Holy Script better than the worshipers...


So no direct quote from Senna saying what you claimed. What a surprise. And then a "lost in translation" parody on top of it. Righto... :drunk:

Here's the only direct quote on the matter I know:

"1989 I was rub by the system. I won 1989 in Suzuka. That one in 1989 I won and it was taken away. I miss one victory in my career and I will never forget that. I was prevented to go to the podium by Balestre."

And it says what I stated before he claims to be robbed of that race (Suzuka '89) not of the championship, as you claimed.

Still all the time in the world for you to do some more research. Maybe 2nd time lucky?

Smearing campaign? Please... Talking about it, in the 'Bible' of all the Senna worshipers ( The Revealed Hero, his official bio by one of the referred journos, I really don't know if an English translation is available ) there is a detailed description of Senna spending a holiday 'chez' G. Bueno (Until today the most brown-nosing journo around Senna) in the end of 1987 and taking advantage of it to start a smearing campaign against the... reigning WDC. Strange, or not?


Sounds like you have some issues with some brazilian journos. I'm not qualified to comment on those issues, nor do I care. Interesting in any case how familiar you seem to be with "the 'Bible' of all the Senna worshipers".


#1290 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 19:51

The way I always understood it is that Senna did get screwed in 1989 by the FIA/Balestre, and Prost delibrately drove into him.

He was about to get screwed again in 1990 after he took pole and it was switched to the dirty side.

He deliberately placed his car near Prost's rear, that resulted in unavoidable contact going into T1, since he had reached his breaking point and felt the system was stacked against him.

Right and wrong are another issue altogether.

#1291 Gag Bueno

Gag Bueno
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 15 November 2012 - 20:24

So no direct quote from Senna saying what you claimed. What a surprise. And then a "lost in translation" parody on top of it. Righto... :drunk:

Here's the only direct quote on the matter I know:


Dear as65p, I think I know more Senna quotes than you. It's not my fault that he did whine and complain in English and Portuguese, at the end... And if the reference and my translation ( OK, it was a little 'cherry'-picking...) is not enough for you, so it be...

For instance, as a racing and F1 fan, I try to read the most I can on the matter, even things I know will not be that likeable, as is the referred 'Bible' And I think it should be enough on the subject.

Back on topic, I think that Clark, who was at least equally fast and talented as Senna, but had a immaculate reputation, would be a much better #1. Or, quoting Ensign14 (I never thought I would do it, we mostly disagree... )


Clark below Senna? They are taking the ****ing piss.


That's it...

Edited by Gag Bueno, 15 November 2012 - 20:25.


#1292 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,748 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 15 November 2012 - 21:04

He was about to get screwed again in 1990 after he took pole and it was switched to the dirty side.


Pole was on the dirty side, but it wasn't switched. It was the same side as the year before.





#1293 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 5,751 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 21:16

Pole was on the dirty side, but it wasn't switched. It was the same side as the year before.

Really pleased to see somebody realizes that. It wasn't switched at the last second, the indisputable fact is that the starting grid boxes were painted and numbered before the weekend even started and never changed.

#1294 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 21:32

The way I always understood it is that Senna did get screwed in 1989 by the FIA/Balestre, and Prost delibrately drove into him.

Even if Senna's win stood, he still wouldn't have won the title. So no, he didn't get screwed.

#1295 repcobrabham

repcobrabham
  • Member

  • 9,311 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 21:40

yeah, suzuka 89 was just about keeping the title race going to adelaide - which was one of AS's favourite circuits, which was why AP was so keen to nip things at the bud.

#1296 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 21:53

Pole was on the dirty side, but it wasn't switched. It was the same side as the year before.


Yeah, and it has been moved to the other, clean side a year later and remained so ever since.

#1297 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,283 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 November 2012 - 22:03

Dear as65p, I think I know more Senna quotes than you.


Good for you. I have no interest to get into that sort of contest.

It's not my fault that he did whine and complain in English and Portuguese, at the end... And if the reference and my translation ( OK, it was a little 'cherry'-picking...) is not enough for you, so it be...

For instance, as a racing and F1 fan, I try to read the most I can on the matter, even things I know will not be that likeable, as is the referred 'Bible' And I think it should be enough on the subject.

Back on topic, I think that Clark, who was at least equally fast and talented as Senna, but had a immaculate reputation, would be a much better #1. Or, quoting Ensign14 (I never thought I would do it, we mostly disagree... )

That's it...


And it's perfectly okay to believe other drivers more worthy, better, faster, whatever, than Senna. Such was never the thing I argued with you.

Instead it was you claiming a statement...

In this context, it irritates me very much that AS always spoke about the 'stolen' championship in 1989, actually what was at stake in Suzuka was his chance to continue in the WDC fight, or not?


... which you failed to back up with a quote from Senna, so far. Still time, though...


#1298 Vic Vega

Vic Vega
  • Member

  • 194 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 15 November 2012 - 22:26

The way I always understood it is that Senna did get screwed in 1989 by the FIA/Balestre, and Prost delibrately drove into him.

He was about to get screwed again in 1990 after he took pole and it was switched to the dirty side.

He deliberately placed his car near Prost's rear, that resulted in unavoidable contact going into T1, since he had reached his breaking point and felt the system was stacked against him.

Right and wrong are another issue altogether.

There's your problem.

#1299 Aloisioitaly

Aloisioitaly
  • Member

  • 272 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:01

Prost outscored Senna two years in a row on equal machinery.
Prost won a championship driving a clearly inferior car (1986), an achievement Senna never accomplished.
Throghout his career Prost was forced to challenge competitive teammates, while Senna in his team had to face Andretti, Berger, Nakajima, Dumfries, Johansson and so on.

That being said, putting Senna ahead of Prost doesn't make any sense.

Advertisement

#1300 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,279 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:19

Prost outscored Senna two years in a row on equal machinery.
Prost won a championship driving a clearly inferior car (1986), an achievement Senna never accomplished.
Throghout his career Prost was forced to challenge competitive teammates, while Senna in his team had to face Andretti, Berger, Nakajima, Dumfries, Johansson and so on.

That being said, putting Senna ahead of Prost doesn't make any sense.


This has already been discussed to death.

Senna was better than Prost in 89 although Prost won the championship. End of.

That said, I don't mind if someone puts Prost ahead of Senna, but I do mind if someone claims that one was unarguably better as that clearly was not the case. Otherwise people wouldn't still be arguing.