113 replies to this topic

[Joe Fan]

Michael Schumacher! He will eclipse Senna's total of 41 wins by the end of the year. That would give him 42 wins in 143 starts (if he gets win number 42 in the last race of the season), compared to Senna's 41 wins in 161 starts.

Although it is still early, Michael more than likely will win the WDC this year giving him 3 WDC's. I am convinced that if Schumacher would have been healthy, he would have won the WDC last year as Eddie Irvine had a shot in the last race of the season. If today's system of scoring all race results were used in 1988, Alain Prost would have been champion over Senna since he outscored him 105-94. So using today's scoring system, Senna only actually has won 2 WDC's.

Senna drove a car that won the Constructor's championship 4 different seasons. Schumacher so far has only driven a car that has won 2. If Ferrari wins the Constructor's championship this year, then Michael would have driven the top car in three seasons. Senna was a better qualifier than Michael but big deal, we seen today that poles don't really mean anything--it is the race that matters. I think it is real clear who is the better driver between the two--Michael Schumacher!!!

Enough said!



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 04-09-2000).]

[Zeus]

You must have forgotten, but Senna was in the midst of his career when he died-- he's totals can be considered incomplete.

[This message has been edited by Zeus (edited 04-09-2000).]

[5150]

Oh dear, now I'm convinced, thanks for bringing this up, but, how about Senna's 65 POLES to Shumi's 23.......hell, Mika has 24.

You should know by now, stats can be pretty misleading.

[Bob Nomates]

You can't campare Schumacher and Senna because Schumacher runs a one man team, Senna had direct competion from within the same camp, Schumacher has always had the whole team including the other driver focused on him winning.
Personally I think Senna was a much better driver, more determined and dedicated and fair.

[Williams]

I don't think that Senna was more dedicated, dertermined, or fair for that matter. I stil think he was the better driver however.

[Bruce]

If you want to go with stats, I think that you will find that the most successful F1 driver ever was an American named Lee Wallard who won exactly 50 % of his rcaes and had an average finishing position over his entire F1 career of 3rd place...

I kid you not - this is a fact. You look it up... Senna, Fangio, Prost, Schumacher - all of them bob in the wake of this amazing American...

[mono-posto]

Joe, I think that you'll find that Schumacher has one major advantage of Senna.

He's still alive.

Your arguements are extremely weak.

[Bob Nomates]

Lee Wellard, right I think I will support his cause from now on ;)

[PDA]

Better? Maybe. But Best?? How about 24 wins from 51 starts?JMF

Realistically, all you can say is that each was/is the best of his generation.

[Bruce]

Don't think you can support Lee - he raced in the 50s...

[Rich]

Neither have had the greatest team-mate competition. Although of course Senna did have Prost for two years. I think on track Senna was clearly better, but as a whole package (car development, PR, sponsorship attraction, team motivation, leadership etc), MS has the edge. Michael is a corporate leader, who can really gee up a team. Senna was always his own man and a bit of an enigma, even to his own team. I just can't see teams rallying around Ayrton the way they do around Michael.

[Joe Fan]

Michael Schumacher will get to 41 wins in fewer starts than Senna, what does that have to do with Senna not being alive?

65 poles for Senna? Big deal, it is not where you start but where you finish that counts. Since Senna had 65 poles, shouldn't he have won more races? Schumacher has 38 wins with only 23 poles.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 04-09-2000).]

[Bruce]

Joe Fan - Schumacher has more wins then Senna, Prost, Clark, Fangio, Stewart and many more - if you really beleive that this makes him better then them you are welcome to it.

We've been over this before, but I still say that GV was a more talented and better driver then MS - he may not have been as dedicated, as good at politics, or as willing to stoop to unsportsmanlike gestures ;) as MS, but in terms of raw driving talent, I don't think that MS can compare.

GV had 6 wins.

Using stats to "prove" that MS is the "best" only suggests that perhaps your knowledge of the sport isn't what it could be.

MS's stats bear out that he is a top, front line driver. They certainly do not prove that he is... "the best".

[Thunder]

Senna was a the best overtaker, Senna was the best defender , Senna was the best qualifier , Senna was the rage, Senna was the best of Galaxy. Those who say MS is better than Senna didnt watch races from Senna era i think. How can you suggest Senna was better than MS with todays cars. You cannot. There is no slicks. Narrow cars. etc.

But there are similarities with Senna and MS.
Both are kings of Monaco where what counts is driver not car. Both are king of wet races where still what counts is driver not the car. Both are ass.. outside the cars.

Ms is not a match for Senna. No one is, no one can be. Senna was raged. Dont look at the 93-94 performances by Senna. He was already dead before Imola94. No one can assume MS will be so flawless during next years.

[911]

One thing that can not be overlooked is the fact that Senna was driving in an era that had better drivers. There were 3-4 other World Champions (Rosberg, Lauda, Piquet, Prost, Mansell) on the grid for most of F1 career. One season where this wasn't the case was 1992, and if you didn't have a Williams-Renault you were fighting for 2nd or 3rd.

After Senna was killed in '94, there weren't ANY former World Champions on the grid (until Mansell had a couple of one-offs towards the end of the year).

All of this, unfortunately, is coincidental to Schumacher and it's a shame because he IS an incredible driver - no doubt. He can only do the best in his current situation and he has definitely done that. Had he raced a few years earlier in F1, then I believe there could have been legitimate comparisons made between Senna & Schumacher.

Regardless of the stats, one thing that these two drivers have in common is, for most of their era, they have established themself as the dominating force in F1. Even when they didn't have the best car, both drivers could never be counted out of a race.

911

------------------
"Driving fast does not necessarily make you a fast driver."

[This message has been edited by 911 (edited 04-09-2000).]

[doohanOK]

Look at the calibre of racers when Ayrton was around, Mansell, Prost, Piquet, Lauda, Rosberg...shall I go on?

Don't forget Senna drove for Toleman and Lotus, hardly good teams in F1 at those times, but Schumacher at Benetton and Ferrari, both top teams, there's a difference.

Michael Schumacher wouldn't have won half the races he has without Ross Brawn.
Senna won races with cunning, out-smarting, and overall quickness and intimidation.

Senna was more of a presence in the cockpit than Schumacher, forgetting the fact that Schuey drives for Ferrari.

Senna's career was 1984-1993, plus the 3 races in 1994; Schumacher has been the last few races of 1991, and then 1992 to 2000.

Schumacher never drove for average/above-average teams like Senna. I'll bet if Senna had retired in 1999, for instance, he'd have won in the vicinity of 65 races, plus at least another 20-30 poles.

Senna was is a better qualifier than Schumacher I believe, but Schuey is very good in race trim like Senna.

But going back to the opponents; Senna had 5 world champions driving around him, imagine if half of them weren't there the amount of races he could've won. Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, there were at least 3-4 teams that could've won races, nowadays in 1999, it's only 2 teams who dominate.
Thus the other drivers don't have a chance to win races unless Schuey, Rubinho, DC, or Mika retire from a race.

I think Senna was probably a bastard sometimes, but he was a very kind-hearted man like Schumacher in some incidents. Both are also ferocious on track, they are determined as hell.

Simply, in conclusion: If Senna had driven another few years to make up for the years at Lotus and Toleman (they were a learning experience, not that bad), Schumacher wouldn't come close to Senna. 65 poles is still impressive, but the win factor is another thin altogether. That comes back to who your opponents are and the cars they and Senna/Schuey drive/drove.

Verdict: Senna is much better than Schumacher.

regards,
doohanOK.

[busternuck]

It is bound to happen - somebody will raise the MS / AS thread ..

This thread is set to challenge fulcrums' and Colin's records ..

[Joe Fan]

Bruce, I brought this direct comparison up last year. Once Michael Schumacher had one visit to each of the circuits, Schumacher then outscored Senna 102-89. Schumacher's second trip to each of the circuits began with the 1992 Belgium Grand Prix. From the 1992 Belgium Grand Prix unitl Senna's last Grand Prix (the San Marino Grand Prix in 1994), Michael outscored Senna 102-89.

Senna was a great driver no doubt, but I think his greatness grew in the minds of quite a few due to his tragic death.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 04-09-2000).]

[Rich]

I'm constantly surprised at why people judge the relative strength of the field by 'how many WDC's are racing'. Let's say that in 98, DC had managed to beat Mika for the WDC. That means that last year, we'd have had five WDC's in the field - MS, DH, JV, DC and MH. Does this mean that the SAME field of drivers would have suddenly become much better, purely because there were 'more WDC's' on the grid?

[This message has been edited by Rich (edited 04-09-2000).]

[mono-posto]

All in all, using one drivers accomplishments to try to either elevate or degredate another driver is a stupid concept.

[Bruce]

911, I don't necessarily think that the drivers of the 90s are that much worse then the drivers of the 80s - I think that (with the notable exception of 1988) what makes the difference is that in the 80s there was greater parity between the teams from top to mid-field. Remember for example, Senna was winning races in the Lotus which was really, a "third" team behind macLaren and Williams and though he only won 2 races a season for Lotus (in each of his 3 years there) he was fighting at the front or thereabouts most of the time. This was generally true in the 80s.

This parity made the drivers look better.

How good does JV look in the BAR?

Frentzen in the Jordan?

They are just not there -the cars, not necessarily the drivers.

In the 90s, we have been cursed with dominant teams. In 1990 it was Maclaren and Ferrari. In 91, MacLaren again. In 1992 and 93, no one was going to touch Williams.

In 1994 Benetton and Williams. In 95 Benetton. In 96 Williams. In 97 Williams and Ferrari, and in the last 2 years MacLaren and ferrari. In all these years, there has never been a "3rd" team that has challenged the front runners. That means that out choice of "greats have to come from only one of two teams. No wonder there seems to be such a dearth of talent.

It is unfortunate that Senna, Prost, Piquet and Mansell, the four dominant drivers of the 80s all "left" the sport within a year or two of each other (not counting NMs embarrasing "comeback").

If Mika Hakkinen, Miceal Schumacher and Jacques Villeneuve, and Perhaps Frentzen were
racing each other in 1885 MacLarens, Lotuses and Williams, I think that ALL of them would come off looking better, because the competition would be much closer.

[doohanOK]

Joe Fan, you twit! You forget the Honda engine was lost in 1992, was no where near the quality of Renault, and Senna drove a McLaren-Ford in 1993, with 5 wins, to Schumacher's 1 win in a Benetton-Ford. ....care to continue? Give me a break!

Not to mention the fact the times that Senna blew away Hill and Prost, especially Alain. Remember Donington, Interlagos, Monaco, Adelaide, Suzuka....Ayrton was pure magic in those races.

In 1988, the WC for drivers was as such:
Senna - 1 (later 3)
Mansell - 0 (later 1 - should've been 3, he was runner up 4 times)
Prost - 2 (later 4)
Piquet - 3
If any other drivers besides Hill, Villeneuve, Michael Schumacher, or Hakkinen were in McLaren's/Ferrari's/Williams' between 1996 to 2000, I'm sure they would've gotten some success.

But in my opinion, Senna did his dirty work at Toleman and Lotus, and went to success at McLaren, and minor glimpses at Williams.

It's a debate that won't shut up, but if only Ayrton were alive today, I'll bet one thing: Schumacher would have less championships (more like 1, instead of 2), Hill probably wouldn't have won, Hakkinen and Villeneuve might have won. And Coulthard wouldn't have been at McLaren, that's for sure. Oh well, it's just something that will always keep us guessing....

Isn't it funny Michael Schumacher won 2 world championships in 1994 and 1995, and yet 5-6 years later, in 2000, he's still considered the best without actually have won a championship since 1995.

regards,
doohanOK.

[shemp]

Senna, sure. He almost won the Monaco GP 1984 with a toleman-hart. Schumy always have a good car.

[Bruce]

Team parity;

# of constructors that posted a win in each of these years;

81 : 6
82 : 7
83 : 5
84 : 4
85 : 5
86 : 4
87 : 4
88 : 2
89 : 4
90 : 4
91 : 3
92 : 3
93 : 3
94 : 3
95 : 3
96 : 3
97 : 4
98 : 3
99 : 4

What these stats show you is that in general, the #s of constructors winning has been declining since 1981.

What it does not show you is that in the early 80s the wins tended to be spread a little more evenly over the different teams. For instance, in 1981, you had Williams with 4 wins, Brabham with 3, Renault with 3, Ferrari with 2, Talbot Matra with 2 and lastly McLaren with 1.

Compare that to 1997, what looks like a year with good parity - 4 teams having won; Williams, 8, Ferrari, 5, McLaren, 3, and Benetton 1. This is the most even year in recent memory - far less even then the early 80s. More representative of the recent past are 1998, 3 constructors; Mclaren, 9, Ferrari, 6, and Jordan 1 or 1999, again, apparently good, with 4 constructors winning - but look; Mclaren, 7, Ferrari, 6, Jordan, 2 and Stewart, 1.

In the 90s, for the most part 3 teams have won each year. Unfortunately, the third team winning is usually a one-off, like Panis in the ligier at Monaco, or Alesi in the Ferrari at Canada, 1995. Take these wins away, and both those years become straight fights between 2 teams.

The early 80s gave more drivers a chance to shine. In the 90s, unless you are in one of 2 cars, you may as well stay at home...

[doohanOK]

exactly my point.

Why do you think the JV rumours of him going to McLaren are heating up!

regards,
doohanOK.

[Joe Fan]

DoohanOK, who is really the twit? The direct comparison I presented above between Schumacher and Senna from the 1992 Belgium GP to the 1994 San Marion Gp, only accounted for 5 races in 1992. 5 races! It isn't like the Ford engine was any better. Berger and Senna both qualified better than Schumacher and Brundle in those last 5 races in my direct comparison, so who really had the better car? Well it is obvious that the 1992 McLaren-Honda was better than the 1992 Benetton-Ford.

In 1993, both Schumacher and Senna had the same Ford HB V8 engine. In 1994, the Williams-Renault won the constructors over the Benetton-Ford that Schumacher drove. This is probably insignificant because it only accounted for three races.

The bottom line is Schumacher, a second and third year driver directly outperformed Senna the great veteran driver in that time frame, in cars that were at best equal to what Senna had. Schumacher was better then and has reached the major milestones faster than Senna today. Why? Because Schumacher is simply better a driver than Senna.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 04-09-2000).]

[doohanOK]

As I stated, Michael didn't do the tough work at minor/average teams; Senna did.

And I was complaining about the engines specifically, only that Honda's performance had dropped off by the time they left.

And the 1992/1993 McLaren's weren't so good anyway, considering the fact that Ron Dennis decided to focus on the McLaren F1 Road Car, and not on his team.

Senna at times at Lotus (on some occasions), did out perform guys like Rosberg, and Piquet, and Mansell, and Prost, even in sub-standard equipment. Look who Schumacher went against, it was only one or two guys to beat...Senna had to beat a few, even in ordinary machinery, which Schumacher never really did. And I said it a few posts before this, Senna in a McLaren-Ford won 5 races compared to Schumacher's Benetton-Ford with 1 race.

It'll be something we can never agree on, but Schumacher did admit that he thought Senna was going to win the championship in 1994; and look how close Hill got, from nowhere. Schumacher never outperformed guys like Senna at Donington, or at Monaco....I don't recall Schumacher leading many races in 1993...do you?

regards,
doohanOK.

[Bruce]

Joe Fan - you are incorrect. In 1993, Mclaren and Benetton both had Ford HBs - but Benetton had the higher revving Series VIII motor - a motor that McLaren only got at Silverstone. The fact that AS was able to outqualify MS 4 times in the 8 races before Silverstone, despite the fact that they didn't have as good an engine argues that, though MS was competitive, AS was the more impressive of the 2.

[doohanOK]

I'm not trying to beat/win against someone, but thank you Bruce for clarifying.

How many times was Senna on the podium or points compared to Schumacher in 1993?

Maybe that'll clear things up a bit...
a comparison of each other in each race could be interesting.

regards,
doohanOK.

[Eph]

Senna is always better than Schumacher.

------------------
Eph 2000
eph@hax.cjb.net
http://www.hax.cjb.net/

[Nikolas Garth]

Bruce,
Interestingly enough, When Senna's team got the same engine, the qualifying for the next 8 races was 4 to Senna, 4 to Schuey.

Please keep in mind that in 93, McLaren boasted that it was the best chassis they had ever built and Benetton struggled to get all their electronic gizmo's working as well.

[130R]

Senna

[Bruce]

Nik - There was NO WAY I was going to point that out....

[Daemon]

This is one debate that can never be resolved. Senna died before he and Schummi had the chance to face off against each other. Had Senna not died at Imola, I don't doubt that he would have won in 94, BUT, Senna had a lot more experience than Schuey by that stage. If they were to face off against each other in their prime, in equal cars, then it would be to close to call. As a matter of fact, they would probably take each other off as soon as the other looked like passing ;)

[404KF2]

...another circle-jerk debate!!

[rock]

I'm not surprised that these discussions will be brought about as Michael achieves greater statistics than Senna.

Theres one thing that he cannot achieve, no matter how hard he tries and thats the charisma that Senna had.

Senna was an instituition, just like Ferrari is. Senna did not need Ferrari to get that excess fame.

[Nathan]

First, if Senna had not been killed, half of you would say yeah, Schumacher is better. People may not agree, but as soon as he died, he all the sudden was better than Prost hands down, were as before he passed away, it was is he better than Prost?

Someone else mentioned that MS will pass Senna records, but Senna was killed during his prime, which is true. But MS will be passing him also during his prime as well. Also broguht up was the fact that Senna almost won in a Toleman and did in very poor Lotus cars. But, Schuey won in a 93 Benetton, (not the best), plus took a **** box of a Ferrari to 3 wins in 96. So I think the whole "who had the better car thing" is even.

People say how cheap MS is, trying to take out both Hill and Villeneuve for the titles (94,97). But what about all those years in Suzuka. Do you all forget how someone won a couple titles?

Both share the same level of competition. Lets face it, Senna had 2 competitors, Prost and Mansell. MS has had Hill and Hakkinen. Both drivers have had there days in the best cars and the worse. I love Senna. He is my idol. But at the same time MS is almost at the same level in my heart.

Plain and simply MS has accomplished about the same, but did it in lesser cars. MS has NEVER had the top car. Senna did, plenty of times. Im not going to give my opinion to whom is the best, but I think they are equal.

[Nathan]

Also this comparing Senna to MS thing during 93, what is that? What does that prove? It was Mikes 1st full year. If you ask me that was the ending Sennas prime, and I think its damn good MS kept up to him as much as he has.

BUT, if that comparision is fair game, look how Hakkinen did versus MS that same year. I guess that means that now MS is better than Hakkinen...hands down.

[whiplash]

joe fan, ms getting to 41 wins in fewer starts than senna has everything to do with senna's death. do you really think that ms would have as many wins as he has if senna had lived?
and that thing about senna only having 2 wcs because prost's 88 total was higher is ridiculous. all the drivers knew what the points rules (best 11 finishes counting)were, and senna beat prost within that rules framework. he took the wdc in the penultimate round because he WON more than prost. a large portion of prost's total was for coming second (which in a mclaren in 88 wasn't the hardest thing to do).

[Lantern]

Let us not forget that dear old Senna had a taylor made engine from Honda the entire time he was at Mclaren with Prost. With a powerband made just for his style of driving while Prost had to fend for himself.......and WON BTW versus the "great" Senna. It is well documented that Senna's relationship with Honda helped him tremedously in his battles with Prost. In contrast Honda and Prost NEVER saw eye to eye. But, all is forgotten after a death. Sadly, other's achievements are also forgotten when they are in contrast to the legend being made by said death. I'm not saying that Senna didn't deserve legendary status. However I am saying that some of his legend is built on bullshit forgotten in the wake of his death. IMHO Schuey doesn't have Senna to beat to be considered the best ever.....he has Prost.

"But, I am Senna.".....I guess when someone is blatantly arrogant it is OK. After they die

[mtl'78]

Let's not forget this or that...

Fact: No driver has had as much support from his team as MS.

Fact: Senna had preference within his own team.

Fact: Senna had teammates that were miles ahead of what MS had to deal with.

Fact: Senna and MS only won WDC's in the best cars.

Fact: MS has proved himself to be able to use all the tools at his disposition to win races, be it the team, the car, the conditions, the mechnanics, hell even the sponsors.

Fact: Senna always won with his speed.

Senna was and would have been faster. Senna was the fastest driver ever. Would that mean he would have beaten MS? no. Outright speed does not win WDC's.

People like Joe Fan only look at the record to determine "the best" and that is valid. But what does it mean to be the best?

MS isn't the best qualifyier, or overtaker. His speed relative to the grid isn't huge, rather he is almost always at the front, rather than being there by a huge margin.

MS is the complete package, from sponsors on down to driving. Senna was pure driving. So whatever you prefer as a driver "style" will bias you towards a driver.

But MS is better because : "Michael Schumacher 38 wins/129 starts, Senna 41 wins/161 starts. "

that is ******** and shows little understanding of GP racing.

[Nathan]

...

[This message has been edited by Nathan (edited 04-11-2000).]

[Nathan]

Here are the stats and figures of both Senna and Schumacher during their "prime years"

Sennas prime: 1988-1993 (6-seasons)
Scheuys prime: 1994-1999 (6 seasons)

Senna: 96-races, 35 wins, 46 poles, 12 fast laps, 447 points, 3 championships
Schumacher: 95-races, 33 wins, 21 poles, 35 fast laps?, 465 points, 2 championships


Here are the same stats for Jim Clark....

1962-1967..again him prime years

Starts 57
Wins 24
Poles 32
Fast Laps 26
Points 227
Avg. 3.98-pts/race
Champs 3

Clark seems to have accomplished more per race than either Senna or Schumacher

[Daemon]

Who fricken cares, they are both legends...

[Nathan]

We all know that. I just think people elevate Senna over Schumacher just because he died.

[Daemon]

It does that. look what it did to Gilles Villeneuve. He was damn good driver, but he never won a WDC and people think he is the greatest of all time....

[rock]

I don't have any problems with what mtl'78 is saying.

Michael is a part of a machine which is working well. But, you can always buy spare parts if something goes wrong! I can bet you put JV or MH in the same situation and they'll be on the same level.

Senna. He was a machine, he was no part of one.

[This message has been edited by rock (edited 04-11-2000).]

[Honolulu]

Ayrton never threw away his chances the way MS did in Jerez 97 or Suzuka 98 (start) or Silverstone 99 (start). His 93 season in underpowered McFord was heroic.

[Nathan]

Honolulu..when saying Jerez '97 are you refuring to when MS tried to hit JV? Or his incident with Hill in Australia '94?

I remember a 1990 championships won by Senna, in which he drove right into Prost at the first turn to keep his 7 point leed at the end of the season. And I believe there was a other incident with Prost at McLaren when Senna took Prost out.

Looks like Mikey took a page out of Arytons book

My, those two are just 2 peas in a pod...

[Nathan]

Wasn't Scheuys 1994 championship year in a also under powered Ford (the same as Senna in fact) just as "heroic"? Atleast Schumacher managed 8-wins...

Plus I believe he did that in only 12 or 13 races. Pretty darn good how a driver, who didnt even race all the races, still won the championship. To me atleast, thats even more amazing than Senna winning 5.