115 replies to this topic

[aportinga]

I don't even care - just sort of feel ripped off losing Senna before his time and frankly the same for Schumacher.

 

These are ambassadors of a great generation(s) who I would have loved to seen in pit lane and perhaps in an even greater role in F1.

 

Selfish = yes.

 

But that's where I am at.

[BuddyHolly]

I don't even care - just sort of feel ripped off losing Senna before his time and frankly the same for Schumacher.

 

These are ambassadors of a great generation(s) who I would have loved to seen in pit lane and perhaps in an even greater role in F1.

 

Selfish = yes.

 

But that's where I am at.

 

Damn right man!

 

Senna and Schumi around in the pitlane in 2019 would be amazing, I'd be hung on their every word!

as for feeling ripped off, yes 1994 we were all royally ripped off as it could have been one of the greatest F1 seasons of all time, Ayrton and Michael battling wheel to wheel, it wouldn't matter who was WDC at the end, it would just have been a superb season    ..but we were robbed of it. 

[garoidb]

Damn right man!

 

Senna and Schumi around in the pitlane in 2019 would be amazing, I'd be hung on their every word!

as for feeling ripped off, yes 1994 we were all royally ripped off as it could have been one of the greatest F1 seasons of all time, Ayrton and Michael battling wheel to wheel, it wouldn't matter who was WDC at the end, it would just have been a superb season    ..but we were robbed of it. 

 

We still have Niki Lauda, one of the greatest legends of all. They don't tend to as revered as you suggest. It is all fine until they say something about current F1 that someone disagrees with. Then, their opinions are worth less than those of the average poster. 

[sopa]

We still have Niki Lauda, one of the greatest legends of all. They don't tend to as revered as you suggest. It is all fine until they say something about current F1 that someone disagrees with. Then, their opinions are worth less than those of the average poster. 

 

Considering Senna's charisma, I'm sure he would have had a few strong opinions about modern-day affairs in F1. A bit like James Hunt used to have.

[aportinga]

Considering Senna's charisma, I'm sure he would have had a few strong opinions about modern-day affairs in F1. A bit like James Hunt used to have.

 

Yeah I respect Lauda as a driver but he seems sort of a fair winded tool in modern day F1. I frankly do not know his role other than being in front of the camera. 

 

MS/AS IMO would have likely had a more meaningful role with a team or within the sport.

Edited by aportinga, 04 January 2019 - 16:13.

[Nonesuch]

They don't tend to as revered as you suggest. It is all fine until they say something about current F1 that someone disagrees with. Then, their opinions are worth less than those of the average poster. 

 

True, even the best among them eventually lose favour. Which is probably normal, as a man in his 70s or 80s can't be expected to connect with those in their 20s and 30s on all things.

 

It also doesn't help when Lauda's role is basically to be the only interesting character in the team, driver(s) excepted. That tends to get people to say pointlessly provocative things. Like his silly argument that the race should just go on even when a guardrail lay in ruin after one particularly nasty crash.

 

Alain Prost for example doesn't feel the need, and we barely heard anything from Schumacher when he was frequently on the Ferrari pitwall in 2007 through 2009 before his ill-advised Brawn-reunion. He did of course, during that time, feature in many a Räikkönen-fan's delusional conspiracy theories, but it's hardly fair to pin that on Michael. Or Kimi, for that matter.

Edited by Nonesuch, 04 January 2019 - 16:46.

[as65p]

.....and we barely heard anything from Schumacher when he was frequently on the Ferrari pitwall in 2007 through 2009....

 

I have fond memories of him being nicknamed "the owl" by the team during that time (supposedly because of the way he peered over the pitwall or soemthing). 

 

Everyone was smart enough not to make any declarations, but I always suspected it was an attempt to grow Schumacher into some kind of team leading role, which eventually didn't work out.

[garoidb]

True, even the best among them eventually lose favour. Which is probably normal, as a man in his 70s or 80s can't be expected to connect with those in their 20s and 30s on all things.

 

It also doesn't help when Lauda's role is basically to be the only interesting character in the team, driver(s) excepted. That tends to get people to say pointlessly provocative things. Like his silly argument that the race should just go on even when a guardrail lay in ruin after one particularly nasty crash.

 

Alain Prost for example doesn't feel the need, and we barely heard anything from Schumacher when he was frequently on the Ferrari pitwall in 2007 through 2009 before his ill-advised Brawn-reunion. He did of course, during that time, feature in many a Räikkönen-fan's delusional conspiracy theories, but it's hardly fair to pin that on Michael. Or Kimi, for that matter.

 

In the past, we have had drivers such as Juan Manuel Fangio and Stirling Moss* as elder statesmen of the sport. In their day, I reckon both would have been considered as charismatic and highly qualified as Senna or Schumacher. Were they viewed as relevant commentators on contemporary F1 twenty five years after finishing their careers? I remember them both being interviewed in Formula Villeneuve (an 80s documentary about Gilles after his death), so maybe they were. 

 

It seems to me, though, that the trick to maintaining revered status is to say very little. 

 

Edit: * Still an elder statesman of course, but out of the public eye now.

Edited by garoidb, 04 January 2019 - 17:26.

[as65p]

In the past, we have had drivers such as Juan Manuel Fangio and Stirling Moss* as elder statesmen of the sport. In their day, I reckon both would have been considered as charismatic and highly qualified as Senna or Schumacher. Were they viewed as relevant commentators on contemporary F1 twenty five years after finishing their careers? I remember them both being interviewed in Formula Villeneuve (an 80s documentary about Gilles after his death), so maybe they were. 

 

It seems to me, though, that the trick to maintaining revered status is to say very little. 

 

Edit: * Still an elder statesman of course, but out of the public eye now.

 

With Fangio it was that way, Moss not so much, i think. He commented and was inteviewed quite frequently in the last decades, excluding maybe the last 3 to 5 years.

[Boing 2]

Senna's deification only really happened after he died, many of the journalists who wax lyrical about how intense and moving his press conferences used to be were actually complaining about how long winded and self righteous they were at the time. Had he survived he'd be another Stewart/Moss/Lauda and half the board would be telling him where to shove his opinions if he dared to air them.

 

We even saw this with Schumacher, he was wandering around the paddock after his retirement pretty much unmolested according to most journo's. The spotlight tends to stay on the top step, some drivers may spend longer than others under it but when they move on the attention stays on the step not on the driver.

[P123]

Senna's deification only really happened after he died, many of the journalists who wax lyrical about how intense and moving his press conferences used to be were actually complaining about how long winded and self righteous they were at the time. Had he survived he'd be another Stewart/Moss/Lauda and half the board would be telling him where to shove his opinions if he dared to air them.
 
We even saw this with Schumacher, he was wandering around the paddock after his retirement pretty much unmolested according to most journo's. The spotlight tends to stay on the top step, some drivers may spend longer than others under it but when they move on the attention stays on the step not on the driver.

Senna was revered in Brazil. I suspect he would have moved on to a political career there rather than faffing about in an F1 paddock post-retirement.

[messy]

What I always feel robbed of with Senna was that final phase of his career that we never got to see. The '94 Williams was a bit difficult early on, but he was in exactly the right place. The stage was set for an epic Senna v Schumacher battle over three or four seasons that would have been proper box office. 1994, would have obviously been because we saw glimpses of it in the first three races. But they you'd have 1995, 1996 and probably 1997 too, Senna in Newey's increasingly effective Williams creations vs Schumacher.

I always think that the 1995 season would have been an absolute cracker if it was a question of Schumacher's Benetton v Senna's Williams. As it was, you had two very strong teams but Hill just wasn't up to scratch. It would have been brilliant. Would Schumacher's Ferrari move even have happened if Senna was still his main rival? Probably, I reckon. But it's one of the great 'what if's'.

With Schumacher, I feel we saw everything there was to see from his career, really. It's his presence in the paddock I miss.

[Henri Greuter]

What I always feel robbed of with Senna was that final phase of his career that we never got to see. The '94 Williams was a bit difficult early on, but he was in exactly the right place. The stage was set for an epic Senna v Schumacher battle over three or four seasons that would have been proper box office. 1994, would have obviously been because we saw glimpses of it in the first three races. But they you'd have 1995, 1996 and probably 1997 too, Senna in Newey's increasingly effective Williams creations vs Schumacher.

I always think that the 1995 season would have been an absolute cracker if it was a question of Schumacher's Benetton v Senna's Williams. As it was, you had two very strong teams but Hill just wasn't up to scratch. It would have been brilliant. Would Schumacher's Ferrari move even have happened if Senna was still his main rival? Probably, I reckon. But it's one of the great 'what if's'.

With Schumacher, I feel we saw everything there was to see from his career, really. It's his presence in the paddock I miss.

 

 

I can't help it but the more I got to see of Schumacher after 1994 (between '94 and '97 in particular) , and having seen what Senna had been capable of until ......

 

Don't get me wrong, I didn't want to see this battle you dream off being prevented in the manner it happened with one of them being killed.

But certainly with hindsight, still, I can't help feeling that I don't feel being robbed of this battle and I am a kind of happy we didn't got to see it.

 

Both Senna and MS were so utterly ruthless and not capable to accept defeat, even if defeat was honorable because of being betaen by a driver in a (much) better car....

I have the feeling that a battle between those two drivers would have been ugly and eventually have gone out of control and would have made the Senna-Prost war comparable with a picknick. And what kind of damage of whatever kind that would have resulted into???

I don't know and in all honesty, I really don't want to know what should eventualy have happened.

There are things within racing people wonder about what happened but there are things of which I feel it's better that we don't know after all.

At least for me: This matter is one of those....

[kyle936]

Senna was revered in Brazil. I suspect he would have moved on to a political career there rather than faffing about in an F1 paddock post-retirement.

I don't think we'd have seen him around the F1 paddock either - he would have seen it as beneath him when he wasn't directly involved.

 

Frank Williams said Senna would have been President of Brazil by now. Politics is the preserve of the Paddock Club, but he'd have been the absolute antithesis of the psycho Brazil has just elected - Senna was his own kind of psycho, but his heart was in the right place, and in that sense he was a greater loss than we'll ever know.

[PlayboyRacer]

What I always feel robbed of with Senna was that final phase of his career that we never got to see. The '94 Williams was a bit difficult early on, but he was in exactly the right place. The stage was set for an epic Senna v Schumacher battle over three or four seasons that would have been proper box office. 1994, would have obviously been because we saw glimpses of it in the first three races. But they you'd have 1995, 1996 and probably 1997 too, Senna in Newey's increasingly effective Williams creations vs Schumacher.

I always think that the 1995 season would have been an absolute cracker if it was a question of Schumacher's Benetton v Senna's Williams. As it was, you had two very strong teams but Hill just wasn't up to scratch. It would have been brilliant. Would Schumacher's Ferrari move even have happened if Senna was still his main rival? Probably, I reckon. But it's one of the great 'what if's'.

With Schumacher, I feel we saw everything there was to see from his career, really. It's his presence in the paddock I miss.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say... and we lost what would have become arguably the greatest rivalry in the history of the sport... I was under the impression it would have been Ayrton off to Ferrari (rather than Michael) from 1996? Didn't they basically have an agreement with him? I don't think its certain he would have been at Williams from 94-97.

Either Ferrari... or I tend to believe Ayrton may have followed Newey back to McLaren and finished his career there if not in red.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 05 January 2019 - 04:08.

[otmarjr]

I read in Brazilian media Todt's declared he had an agreement with Senna to retire in a Ferrari after 2 seasons, starting in 96 or 97.

Edited by otmarjr, 05 January 2019 - 01:03.

[PlayboyRacer]

That would make absolute sense to me. I feel Michael would have ended up at McLaren Mercedes rather than Ferrari with Senna still around. Amazing how one devastating event basically changed a whole era of F1.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 05 January 2019 - 01:22.

[IceSpeed]

Some great opinions here and I personally regard Senna as the best period. Wouldn’t rate Schumacher anywhere close to him. Schumacher was starting to get going and Senna mid to end of his career. 94, 95 and 96 would have been all Senna (no doubt in my mind).

Anyway all alternate realities really and with regards to them being in the paddock; Cars are so different from 20 years back that although their opinions would be respected I fear they may not completely get the complexity of today’s races with tire management, strategy, fuel saving etc... and would have ended up comparing it to their days and upset a lot of people.

[Spillage]

I think too much media coverage can be a bad thing that prevents contemporary drivers reaching those heights. Senna and Schumacher had an air of mystery around them that makes it easy to idolise them. I think that'd be spoiled if they were broadcast every time they grumbled on the team radio, or if they felt obliged to post crap on Instagram.

It would be awesome to have them both around now though. It's such a shame that F1, almost uniquely among sports, doesn't have it's retired GOATs around to give their opinions.

We still have Lauda, Prost and Stewart, but I wish we still had Clark, Senna and Schumacher.c

Edited by Spillage, 05 January 2019 - 01:53.

[danmills]

An unpopular opinion but I strongly feel Senna's legendary status was massively inflated to a ridiculous level because of what happened.

Don't get me wrong, he was an utterly fantastic driver. Truly exceptional. But over his last few seasons he never received the godlike status he is spoken of today truly until after 1994. It's almost an unwritten rule and taboo to speak of any of his faults. His mistakes. That's what death can do. It immortalises and filters things.

Prost is largely left in the shadows by fans versus Senna but he was equally, arguably greater than Senna. But fate has a funny way of tainting things.

By contrast, and having lived through both eras, I believe Schumacher was revered by fans, pundits and the paddock to a much higher level in the midst of his active career than Senna was. Sure, different audience levels and F1 grew, but just look through old commentary and magazine articles at how Senna is reported. He wasn't the holy faultless one in the 1992/93 archives. Then the tone changed.

 

I think Senna would have been as irritatingly opinionated and black/white but less intense as Eddie Jordan. People would both love and hate him for it.

As I say it's an unpopular opinion, and only an opinion. The fact I have to reiterate and apologise in advance for saying it just proves how things are tainted by events and how we have to gloss over and tiptoe.

Edited by danmills, 05 January 2019 - 02:07.

[chrisj]

I wasn't a fan of either guy, but at least appreciated Schumacher's role as part of the dream team that brought success back to Ferrari. And when Senna moved over to Williams, I actually thought he might win every race in '94. Schumacher certainly didn't seem like a serious threat. Somehow, I think Senna would have found something bigger and better to do with his life than Formula 1. Schumacher would surely be using his paddock connections to help Mick. He didn't seem suited for a post-retirement pit wall or punditry role, either. I do wonder if the two of them would have ended up with the same level of respect that Senna and Prost did at the end. I'm not so sure.

[johnmhinds]

I don’t see fans clambering to hear what Nelson Piquet, Keke Rosberg, Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell, Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve, Mika Hakkinen, etc... say when they’re interviewed about something going on in current F1.

If Senna was still alive and Schumacher wasn’t injured I doubt they would be be treated any differently by the fans.

Edited by johnmhinds, 05 January 2019 - 08:23.

[PayasYouRace]

I think Senna, as strongly opinionated as he was, would have similar status in today’s paddock as Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda or Jacques Villeneuve. He’d be both praised or vilified for whatever he said about current F1.

Schumacher was less outspoken, so he’d probably be more like Hakkinen, Hill or Prost. I think he’d be more likely to retain some involvement in the sport. Senna might have gone on to other things so may have been less of a presence in F1 today.

Both would probably be seen when their family (Bruno and possibly Mick in the future) would be in the paddock too.

[B Squared]

An unpopular opinion but I strongly feel Senna's legendary status was massively inflated to a ridiculous level because of what happened.

The same can be applied to Saint Dale of Earnhardt.

[Nonesuch]

An unpopular opinion but I strongly feel Senna's legendary status was massively inflated to a ridiculous level because of what happened.

 

For sure, but it'd also be a mistake to over-correct that status. Senna was already very popular and hugely appreciated before his tragic accident, for all the obvious reasons.

 

Even if he had retired safely in 1996 or whenever, he'd still be ranked right up there as one of the fastest drivers F1 has seen. Maybe the negative aspects of his career and personality would have been given a more prominent part in the narrative, but it would have been, and is, silly to discount the performances because of that.

[Anja]

Prost is largely left in the shadows by fans versus Senna but he was equally, arguably greater than Senna. But fate has a funny way of tainting things.

 

That's the part which irks me the most in this whole story. It's just so unfair. 

[Beri]

For sure, but it'd also be a mistake to over-correct that status. Senna was already very popular and hugely appreciated before his tragic accident, for all the obvious reasons.

Even if he had retired safely in 1996 or whenever, he'd still be ranked right up there as one of the fastest drivers F1 has seen. Maybe the negative aspects of his career and personality would have been given a more prominent part in the narrative, but it would have been, and is, silly to discount the performances because of that.

He was also despised during his day. And totally deserved as well. Something that overnight changed during that fatefull first of may. End result to that is when you are giving any nevative opinion on Senna nowadays, a whole flock of people with pitchforks and torches will hunt you down.
In full honesty; Senna was at times a whining sore loser who never had heard from self reflection. He sometimes was going over the line on track. Something that Magnussen or Verstappen are getting ridiculed for by many keyboard warriors that adore Senna but hate said two drivers (it's an example). But despite the negative side of Senna, the guy sure knew how to get people to listen to him. How to influence his surroundings. It's something that Schumacher also did. Alonso in mild form had this ability as well. But from the current grid, I can't name one single soul who could do the same.

[Henri Greuter]

For sure, but it'd also be a mistake to over-correct that status. Senna was already very popular and hugely appreciated before his tragic accident, for all the obvious reasons.

 

Even if he had retired safely in 1996 or whenever, he'd still be ranked right up there as one of the fastest drivers F1 has seen. Maybe the negative aspects of his career and personality would have been given a more prominent part in the narrative, but it would have been, and is, silly to discount the performances because of that.

 

Silly to discount the performances because of giving prominence to the negative aspects of his career?

 

Now, I am for 99% sure that, had Suzuka 1990 not been determined by Senna in the manner he opted for, but instead had the race develop as is it was to go, then again I am 99% sure that he still would have become champion that year. But then in a much more honorable manner that how he did secure the title.

Prost was already at the point of having to drop points scored and in Suzuka and Australia he had to improve on a 5th and a 4rd place (a total of 5 points!) So only victories and second places did him any good. And that was a very difficult thing to do against Senna & McLaren-Honda. So I am fairly sure that Senna would have been champion anyway.

 

Given the fact that as we know, Prost finished third in Australia (Senna DNF), even having won Suzuka would not have helped Prost to gain the title. But how different could Australia have been had it still been the title decider? Would Prost have found something more to finish higher????

 

Anyway, There is still that little itch that one of the performances within his career Senna is reverred for: it was secured thanks to the worst ever outburst of utterly negative behaviour of any driver during a race.

And that, while the situation he was in really didn't need such an outburst at all to enhance his title chances, or securing it....

Maybe you want to ignore that, think it to be silly.

I don't ignore it and I don't think it's silly to do so.

[BRG]

I think that Senna would have walked away from the sport after he retired.  I can't see him hanging around the paddock, not being the centre of attention anymore.  If, as suggested, he had gone into politics, he would probably be languishing in jail by now, as prosecuting your beaten rival seems to be the norm in South American politics.

 

I think Schumacher might have stuck around, probably as a pundit. Or maybe ousting Lauda from his job (whatever it is) at Mercedes.

[as65p]

End result to that is when you are giving any nevative opinion on Senna nowadays, a whole flock of people with pitchforks and torches will hunt you down.

 

On a sidenote, I really don't understand what it is with this victim mentality of many Senna critics. At least in this place I can see nothing justifying that kind of whining, just look at the last two threads involving Senna and there's a bunch of people being critical to any degree you could wish for... and I'm not under the impression they're in any kind of trouble because of it.

 

Unless you believe the existance of differing opinions equals being "hunted down with torches and pitchforks".

[PlatenGlass]

An unpopular opinion but I strongly feel Senna's legendary status was massively inflated to a ridiculous level because of what happened.

Don't get me wrong, he was an utterly fantastic driver. Truly exceptional. But over his last few seasons he never received the godlike status he is spoken of today truly until after 1994.

I think this side of things is often exaggerated. In 1993 in particular, Senna seemed to be worshipped by commentators and the press in his David v Goliath battle against Prost in the Williams. James Hunt at the time said that he was probably the greatest driver of all time.

[Henri Greuter]

I think this side of things is often exaggerated. In 1993 in particular, Senna seemed to be worshipped by commentators and the press in his David v Goliath battle against Prost in the Williams. James Hunt at the time said that he was probably the greatest driver of all time.

 

 

A perfect example of the warshipping of Senna by life and in the spirit as you describe:

 

 

FIA released an official season review on video tape about 1993. Title of the video?

 

 

Senna fights back  .......

 

 

Remember,Prost was champion that year....

[NotAPineapple]

I read in Brazilian media Todt's declared he had an agreement with Senna to retire in a Ferrari after 2 seasons, starting in 96 or 97.

Yes, Senna had signed for Ferrari for 96

[Nonesuch]

Silly to discount the performances because of giving prominence to the negative aspects of his career?

 

Yes. Senna was without question one of the best F1 drivers in the 1980s and 1990s. Easily top five, whichever way you end up leaning. Probably higher for many.

 

That he had his own share of issues might colour one's view of the man, or of the sportsman - but I like to see that as a separate thing.

 

Maybe Senna would have won fewer races or titles had he been honest to a fault, a fair player all year long - but fine, strike those out. He would still be right up there.

 

You don't need to win the most races or take the most titles to be seen as the best. Just look at how Alonso's star has continued to shine throughout years of, well, failure to win anything.

 

And as we've seen with Schumacher, his reputation - in so far as speed and general performance was concerned - was already rock solid before he ended up inflating his stats in 2001-2004.

 

It's fair enough that some view some of his antics as not just unfortunate but downright distasteful. It's probably for the best he wasn't completely perfect.

Edited by Nonesuch, 05 January 2019 - 22:14.

[Regazzoni]

Yes, Senna had signed for Ferrari for 96

 

Source?

[aportinga]

That would make absolute sense to me. I feel Michael would have ended up at McLaren Mercedes rather than Ferrari with Senna still around. Amazing how one devastating event basically changed a whole era of F1.

 

Senna in a Ferrari and this ^^^

 

How depressing!

[PayasYouRace]

 

FIA released an official season review on video tape about 1993. Title of the video?

 

 

Senna fights back  .......

 

 

 

 

Now available on DVD, though Duke have dropped the cheesy names.

 

https://www.dukevide...cial-Review-DVD

 

Though I'd like to point out that the 1991 review was called "Nearly Mansell" so it wasn't all about Senna.

[PlayboyRacer]

Source?

I don't think anything was at the point of confirmed... but from the bits and pieces said over the years, I think its safe to say Ferrari were courting Ayrton and he was interested in moving there.

[Regazzoni]

"Courting" is not a signed contract or a done deal.

 

He was so interested that he didn't go when actually offered...

[PlayboyRacer]

"Courting" is not a signed contract or a done deal.

Did I say it was? Read into it whatever you like... I think there was certainly a chance he'd have switched there. Pretty sure Luca Di Montezemolo has made strong comments in the past alluding to them working on a deal.

Given they went after Michael Schumacher during the same time period... I can easily believe Senna would have been 'courted' first.

[Regazzoni]

It's all speculation without basis and fanboy's desiderata - "had signed for Ferrari for '96". It doesn't look you can see that,

 

And I was replying to "Pinapple", not you.

 

Not that you know when Senna was actually offered first a Ferrari contract.

[PlayboyRacer]

It's all speculation without basis and fanboy's desiderata - "had signed for Ferrari for '96". It doesn't look you can see that,

And I was replying to "Pinapple", not you.

Not that you know when Senna was actually offered first a Ferrari contract.

Not really concerned who you were replying to. It has been said Ferrari were courting Ayrton during 1994... I never said a 'signed contract' and I'd believe what Luca has said over a pedantic forumer.

As for the first offer... 1990? Cesare Fiorio went after Ayrton didn't he? I believe that to be the first serious offer unless there was one in the 80s.

Irrelevant anyhow to the time period we have been discussing here.

[Regazzoni]

Ah, "Irrelevant". How convenient.

 

So he didn't have a "signed" contract for '96, after all.

 

Carry on, "suspect between the ears", the thread it's all yours.

[PlayboyRacer]

There was no contract signed in 1994 (for 1996). Whoever claimed that is wrong. But I think you just like being pedantic for the sake of it... must like the sound of your own voice haha each to their own.

We'll carry on the discussion here regardless but thanks for your 'valuable' input.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 05 January 2019 - 23:48.

[as65p]

Maybe Senna would have won fewer races or titles had he been honest to a fault, a fair player all year long - but fine, strike those out. He would still be right up there.

 

There is no such thing as a "honest to a fault, fair player [always]" racing driver. That's just a fancy fan idea. The main difference between Senna and the rest is not his actual on track behaviour, but that he was really bad at sugarcoating his exploits in the media. Prost was the master of this, construing a public image that would let him get away with virtually anything, namely shoving a WDC rival off at Suzuka '89, which to this day is an almost non-existant event in public reception, despite there being footage for everyone to see.

 

You don't need to win the most races or take the most titles to be seen as the best. Just look at how Alonso's star has continued to shine throughout years of, well, failure to win anything.

 

That doesn't help, Henri hates Alonso nearly as much as Senna. But really Alonso is a good example of another guy being bad a PR. Too up front, too blatant, unable to make people feel sorry for him. Instead one can always see the arrogant, selfish bastard... only that this is what they all are, truly.

[RPM40]

Senna's deification only really happened after he died, many of the journalists who wax lyrical about how intense and moving his press conferences used to be were actually complaining about how long winded and self righteous they were at the time. Had he survived he'd be another Stewart/Moss/Lauda and half the board would be telling him where to shove his opinions if he dared to air them.

 

We even saw this with Schumacher, he was wandering around the paddock after his retirement pretty much unmolested according to most journo's. The spotlight tends to stay on the top step, some drivers may spend longer than others under it but when they move on the attention stays on the step not on the driver.

 

Drivers kind of just become the joke if they hang around the paddock. Look at Herbert or Hill. There is no huge respect for their achievements or anything, they mostly just seem to be the butt of bad jokes or mocking.

[HP]

Did I say it was? Read into it whatever you like... I think there was certainly a chance he'd have switched there. Pretty sure Luca Di Montezemolo has made strong comments in the past alluding to them working on a deal.

Given they went after Michael Schumacher during the same time period... I can easily believe Senna would have been 'courted' first.

I think that Ron Dennis would have moved everything at McLaren to convince Senna drive for him instead of a Ferrari.

[Regazzoni]

There was no contract signed in 1994 (for 1996). Whoever claimed that is wrong. But I think you just like being pedantic for the sake of it... must like the sound of your own voice haha each to their own.

We'll carry on the discussion here regardless but thanks for your 'valuable' input.

 

Pedantic?

 

The post above states that Senna had a “signed” contract for 1996 with Ferrari - and he died in the early part of the 1994 season.

 

If he had something “signed” so far ahead, that is a big deal, something that changes substantially the perspective of what then actually happened, and the fact remains that in the first half of 1994 there was no hindsight at all how things would have panned out. At all.

 

Senna at Ferrari wasn’t a foregone conclusion, in the slightest. Also, because Ferrari might not have had the winning car he seemed to require at that point of his career; that came eventually after years of hard teamwork in which one called Schumacher (render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s) was instrumental.

 

And Montezemolo (vain, yes – but not dumb, the guy) might likely have gone after a hungrier and younger driver than a semi-retired elephant looking for to tick his last item off the list.

 

Even with the benefit of hindsight it seems you can’t see that.

[Henri Greuter]

Yes. Senna was without question one of the best F1 drivers in the 1980s and 1990s. Easily top five, whichever way you end up leaning. Probably higher for many.

 

That he had his own share of issues might colour one's view of the man, or of the sportsman - but I like to see that as a separate thing.

 

Maybe Senna would have won fewer races or titles had he been honest to a fault, a fair player all year long - but fine, strike those out. He would still be right up there.

 

You don't need to win the most races or take the most titles to be seen as the best. Just look at how Alonso's star has continued to shine throughout years of, well, failure to win anything.

 

And as we've seen with Schumacher, his reputation - in so far as speed and general performance was concerned - was already rock solid before he ended up inflating his stats in 2001-2004.

 

It's fair enough that some view some of his antics as not just unfortunate but downright distasteful. It's probably for the best he wasn't completely perfect.

 

 

OK, Thanks for explaining your view.

I can see some logic within your reasoning but I can't agree with all of them, and as a result the main conclusion you come up with.

Let's agree that we won't agree on this matter entirely. But again, thanks for taking the time t discuss this in a civilized, non personal attack mode.

[noikeee]

Prost was the master of this, construing a public image that would let him get away with virtually anything, namely shoving a WDC rival off at Suzuka '89, which to this day is an almost non-existant event in public reception, despite there being footage for everyone to see.

Eh? Everyone knows about this "event".