So its generally known that Both Senna and Prost are at the very top of the legends, true legends of the sport, I like them both alot they are one of my favorite drivers for sure, however when rating the very best drivers I always use this chart where I have
Where S means the greatest drivers in history, while S+ is reserved for a very very small group of drivers that are basically S level but just that slight little bit more, something special about them.
I have Prost in S while I have Senna in S+
Now I know most people also rate Senna slightly higher, but there are some people who think they are pretty much equal for various reasons, and I completely accept that, theres not much between them for sure.
However what I don't understand and baffles me completely is when people say Prost is equal or some few might even argue slightly better, because he has better stats, 4 world championships, more wins etc...
Now please explain to me if maybe I am a bit weird, but Prost has quite alot more races than Senna, even more so if you take DNF into account, and Senna had he not die would in my opinion based on the Williams from 94-97 have had quite
a bit better stats than Prost.
Now if you take comparisons from when they actually competed together the stats are not in favor of Prost at all.
Ive made some charts to show this:
1988-90 they had pretty much the same car, the 90 Ferrari even some argue was slightly better that year, Senna has alot more poles (not suprizing) and he has a whooping 4 more wins even tho he finished 4 less races, if he finished 4 more races he would have even more wins while Prost most likely less, and podiums would be pretty much the same.
1988-91 the stats get even more skewed, Prost had a not so good year and Ferrari was a bit iffy that year, but not as bad as some people claim
then we ignore the 92 where Prost was not competing
start by adding the 93 season where Prost possibly had the most dominating car in history, so a huge advantage against Senna, but despite this when looking at the 88-91 and 93 season stats, Senna is clearly better, still dominates the poles, pretty much equal DNF and finished races yet Senna with alot more wins, a whooping 52% vs 37%... with Prost with a very slight edge in Podiums.
So again, I completely accept if someone is of an opinion of rating Prost on the same level or whatever or they prefer him for whatever reason, but I don't understand how someone can claim stats are in Prost's favor, clearly they are not and show Senna at least when both in similar cars (even tho 93 prost had a huge advantage) Senna most often than not was the better driver.
I would love to hear some opinions on this from everyone.