planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

bonecrasher wrote: The narrative has been to build up Hamilton as the hero fighting the evil empire with inferior machinery. If he wins what a god and if he loses, well he never had a chance with a car disadvantage anyway....

Corrected for accuracy.

Strange I've never seen threads saying that the Ferrari is a dominant car.

And I've never eaten a pine cone, how very strange. And relevant.

...and what you're saying is relevant?

I was being sarcastic.

Invade wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Invade wrote:

KingVoid wrote:To save this from becoming another Ferrari vs Mercedes debate (we already have a thread for that):

Is anyone in disagreement with me that Alonso, Hamilton and probably Vettel all deserve to be in the top 10 all time list?

My top 10 is (in no particular order): Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Ascari, Lauda, Hamilton and Alonso/Vettel.

My uncertainty is Alonso vs Vettel. Alonso is more proven against a greater variety of teammates, and has done more than Vettel with inferior machinery. Vettel has the statistics, and Vettel has never burned bridges with any team like Alonso has.

Alonso at this point slightly ahead of Vettel. However, Alonso is pretty much at the end of his career. I can't see him getting back into a winning car soon, and when he does, he'll be close to 40. Vettel is 30 and still has 5 prime years left to go.

If Vettel does the following two things:

1. Win a championship with Ferrari
2. Beat Ricciardo in a rematch (rumors suggest that they could be teammates again at Ferrari in 2019)

Then he has surpassed Alonso on the all-time list and firmly placed himself in the top 10.

I can only judge those who came before Schumacher in retrospect and frankly I'm hazy on Schumacher. From what I've read your list seems reasonable.

I always assumed something like the following (chronological):

Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Alonso.

Those are the drivers I always understood as generally being accepted as undisputed legends of the sport. Guys like Ascari, Lauda, Hamilton and Vettel + some others like perhaps Piquet and various other multiple World Champions were always more marginal and not guaranteed top-ten all-time, though that might be changing now with all the success Hamilton is having and Vettel continuing to prove himself post Red Bull. Maybe both of them will be consensus top-ten (say 95% acceptance) by the time they retire.

Not sure how you conclude that Alonso has solidified his position while neither Hamilton nor Vettel have. Especially considering what happened when Alonso and Hamilton were on the same team. In fact, since Vettel and Hamilton have come into the sport in 2007, Alonso has acheived the least among the three of them (albeit in generally the worst machinery of the three).

For me, there's no one on that list who belongs there any more than the big 3 of the current era (Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel). Just need to remove the rose tint some times.

Also, given the now long history of F1 there is increasingly limited room and more and more "legends" will be left out of the top ten.

Who is your top ten and who just misses out but is close and worthy of consideration for those final couple of spots?

It's hard to come up with a top 10. Certainly I won't try to put them in order. I also think it matters how you intend to judge the drivers. If it's who you think would be the best if they were all in the same car then the top 10 doesn't go back any further than the 80s. If you are talking about greatness by comparison to their peers, the list is quite different.

For the latter type of list, I'd inlcude: Fangio, Ascari, Clark, Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel (the tenth guy is a toss up between Jackie Stewart and Nikki Lauda - Honorable mention to Piquet, Hakkinen and Mansell)

Invade wrote:

Poker wrote:

Invade wrote: Generally when I've read about F1, Senna is so incredibly adored and considered obviously greater than Prost or even Schumacher, yet when I take a look at Prost-Senna I'm not even sure Senna is greater/better than Prost overall. To actually understand I'd need to read far more thoroughly about their careers, their rivalry, and actually watch all or most of the races because as far as I could see Prost was just as productive as Senna in bringing home points, wins and trophies and had fantastic race pace.

This is just my opinion ! But ......
I was a Prost fan, and eventually a Senna fan. They were the yin and yang <?> of drivers at that time.
Prost "The professor", and Senna "The raw emotion of racing".

Both were probably equal as far as production, but it was how they got those results.
Prost really depended on thinking his way through a race, he was calculated, and probably ushered in the more technical aspect of racecraft.
Senna was raw talent, charged with emotion and pure skill.

I think Senna was the last of the pure "racers".

Both drivers were great talents, and I cannot really pick betweeen the 2 for results .. but I know my favorite became Senna because of the pureness of his racing.

Put it this way ... If I knew I needed to get across London quickly ...... If I had a day's notice, I would have Prost plan it and drive me.
If it was a right now situation, I would be throwing the keys to Senna.

That's a very poetic and fascinating way to put it and describe the differences and yet parity between the two racers. I guess though that the extra sort of thrilling, immediate and sensory nature of Senna presents a more romantic and compelling perception for most - and most of us tend to love our brilliant and otherworldly performances in sport as the ultimate expression of sporting talent and genius. In other words, there's more to it than being equally productive and that's even assuming equal conditions; it's also much about how one produces.

It typically comes down to personal preference. Most people prefer the swashbuckling hero that throws caution to the wind in their pursuit of glory, others prefer the calculating mastermind with the methodical approach to achieving success in the most economical manner

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote: Corrected for accuracy.

Strange I've never seen threads saying that the Ferrari is a dominant car.

And I've never eaten a pine cone, how very strange. And relevant.

...and what you're saying is relevant?

I was being sarcastic.

No I meant the post before.

mcdo wrote:

Invade wrote:

Poker wrote:

Invade wrote: Generally when I've read about F1, Senna is so incredibly adored and considered obviously greater than Prost or even Schumacher, yet when I take a look at Prost-Senna I'm not even sure Senna is greater/better than Prost overall. To actually understand I'd need to read far more thoroughly about their careers, their rivalry, and actually watch all or most of the races because as far as I could see Prost was just as productive as Senna in bringing home points, wins and trophies and had fantastic race pace.

This is just my opinion ! But ......
I was a Prost fan, and eventually a Senna fan. They were the yin and yang <?> of drivers at that time.
Prost "The professor", and Senna "The raw emotion of racing".

Both were probably equal as far as production, but it was how they got those results.
Prost really depended on thinking his way through a race, he was calculated, and probably ushered in the more technical aspect of racecraft.
Senna was raw talent, charged with emotion and pure skill.

I think Senna was the last of the pure "racers".

Both drivers were great talents, and I cannot really pick betweeen the 2 for results .. but I know my favorite became Senna because of the pureness of his racing.

Put it this way ... If I knew I needed to get across London quickly ...... If I had a day's notice, I would have Prost plan it and drive me.
If it was a right now situation, I would be throwing the keys to Senna.

That's a very poetic and fascinating way to put it and describe the differences and yet parity between the two racers. I guess though that the extra sort of thrilling, immediate and sensory nature of Senna presents a more romantic and compelling perception for most - and most of us tend to love our brilliant and otherworldly performances in sport as the ultimate expression of sporting talent and genius. In other words, there's more to it than being equally productive and that's even assuming equal conditions; it's also much about how one produces.

It typically comes down to personal preference. Most people prefer the swashbuckling hero that throws caution to the wind in their pursuit of glory, others prefer the calculating mastermind with the methodical approach to achieving success in the most economical manner

For Prost to come out on top or even be level the theory is that Senna was a car breaker, 90% of the time when the 2 cars were on track Senna was in front, in the wet it was a massacre, in qualifying another massacre.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote: Strange I've never seen threads saying that the Ferrari is a dominant car.

And I've never eaten a pine cone, how very strange. And relevant.

...and what you're saying is relevant?

I was being sarcastic.

No I meant the post before.

Ok, yes.

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Invade wrote:

Poker wrote:

Invade wrote: Generally when I've read about F1, Senna is so incredibly adored and considered obviously greater than Prost or even Schumacher, yet when I take a look at Prost-Senna I'm not even sure Senna is greater/better than Prost overall. To actually understand I'd need to read far more thoroughly about their careers, their rivalry, and actually watch all or most of the races because as far as I could see Prost was just as productive as Senna in bringing home points, wins and trophies and had fantastic race pace.

This is just my opinion ! But ......
I was a Prost fan, and eventually a Senna fan. They were the yin and yang <?> of drivers at that time.
Prost "The professor", and Senna "The raw emotion of racing".

Both were probably equal as far as production, but it was how they got those results.
Prost really depended on thinking his way through a race, he was calculated, and probably ushered in the more technical aspect of racecraft.
Senna was raw talent, charged with emotion and pure skill.

I think Senna was the last of the pure "racers".

Both drivers were great talents, and I cannot really pick betweeen the 2 for results .. but I know my favorite became Senna because of the pureness of his racing.

Put it this way ... If I knew I needed to get across London quickly ...... If I had a day's notice, I would have Prost plan it and drive me.
If it was a right now situation, I would be throwing the keys to Senna.

That's a very poetic and fascinating way to put it and describe the differences and yet parity between the two racers. I guess though that the extra sort of thrilling, immediate and sensory nature of Senna presents a more romantic and compelling perception for most - and most of us tend to love our brilliant and otherworldly performances in sport as the ultimate expression of sporting talent and genius. In other words, there's more to it than being equally productive and that's even assuming equal conditions; it's also much about how one produces.

It typically comes down to personal preference. Most people prefer the swashbuckling hero that throws caution to the wind in their pursuit of glory, others prefer the calculating mastermind with the methodical approach to achieving success in the most economical manner

For Prost to come out on top or even be level the theory is that Senna was a car breaker, 90% of the time when the 2 cars were on track Senna was in front, in the wet it was a massacre, in qualifying another massacre.

It had long been acknowledged that Prost wasn't prepared to take risks in the wet. Trying to keep up to Senna would have been outside of his comfort zone and in his risky territory. Settling for 2nd was better than ending up in the wall. And it was no secret that everyone was deficient to Senna over one lap, Prost included. It mattered little as he typically had 2nd place on the grid wrapped up. He had as good a chance at the race win starting from there, which of course transpired again and again

"Fast man in fast car go really fast" is something I kind of got over years ago. Gimme a guy who can think his way out of a hole any day. One of my favourite moments of the last decade was Alonso and Hamilton both slowing down before the DRS detection point in Canada. Two all-time greats playing this mental chess at 200mph. Watching either of them crushing the field on a given day in 2006 or 2015 was of little interest

mcdo wrote: It had long been acknowledged that Prost wasn't prepared to take risks in the wet. Trying to keep up to Senna would have been outside of his comfort zone and in his risky territory. Settling for 2nd was better than ending up in the wall. And it was no secret that everyone was deficient to Senna over one lap, Prost included. It mattered little as he typically had 2nd place on the grid wrapped up. He had as good a chance at the race win starting from there, which of course transpired again and again

"Fast man in fast car go really fast" is something I kind of got over years ago. Gimme a guy who can think his way out of a hole any day. One of my favourite moments of the last decade was Alonso and Hamilton both slowing down before the DRS detection point in Canada. Two all-time greats playing this mental chess at 200mph. Watching either of them crushing the field on a given day in 2006 or 2015 was of little interest

Settling for 2nd wasn't always better than ending up in the wall. If you had a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of nothing, then going for it some of the time was the correct strategy. The points system was best 11 results from 16. 2nd places were basically useless to Prost from mid season on wards in 1988 for example.

In fact from race 6 on wards, Prost had already collected enough 2nd places and it was just about wins from then on. He had 6/6 finishes. So only 5 finishes from the last 10 rounds could count toward his score, he needed to go out and win races, 5 wins from those 10 races would win him the title. But he couldn't live with Senna's speed.

The stereotypical traits of Prost and Senna are often way over played for each too.

In modern F1 Senna would handily beat Prost, because 1) the cars are more reliable and that's the only way Prost beat Senna and 2) Its car + driver for weight limits so Prost would lose that big advantage he held over Senna when they were team mates. Senna carried 7-9 Kgs more weight. The difference between Senna and Prost was larger than the difference between Hamilton and Rosberg even before allowing for weight. But like what was mentioned above, so little analysis of results and information was spread back then. Most fans weren't that knowledgeable. In fact it simply wasn't possible to be knowledgeable, we can pull up a lap chart from any season now, re-watch any season or incident. Back then you got to watch a 2 hour race with no post race analysis and that was it.

When they were team mates Senna was a lot better Prost. Prost high rating comes from terrific performances outside of those 2 seasons.

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Invade wrote:

Poker wrote: This is just my opinion ! But ......
I was a Prost fan, and eventually a Senna fan. They were the yin and yang <?> of drivers at that time.
Prost "The professor", and Senna "The raw emotion of racing".

Both were probably equal as far as production, but it was how they got those results.
Prost really depended on thinking his way through a race, he was calculated, and probably ushered in the more technical aspect of racecraft.
Senna was raw talent, charged with emotion and pure skill.

I think Senna was the last of the pure "racers".

Both drivers were great talents, and I cannot really pick betweeen the 2 for results .. but I know my favorite became Senna because of the pureness of his racing.

Put it this way ... If I knew I needed to get across London quickly ...... If I had a day's notice, I would have Prost plan it and drive me.
If it was a right now situation, I would be throwing the keys to Senna.

That's a very poetic and fascinating way to put it and describe the differences and yet parity between the two racers. I guess though that the extra sort of thrilling, immediate and sensory nature of Senna presents a more romantic and compelling perception for most - and most of us tend to love our brilliant and otherworldly performances in sport as the ultimate expression of sporting talent and genius. In other words, there's more to it than being equally productive and that's even assuming equal conditions; it's also much about how one produces.

It typically comes down to personal preference. Most people prefer the swashbuckling hero that throws caution to the wind in their pursuit of glory, others prefer the calculating mastermind with the methodical approach to achieving success in the most economical manner

For Prost to come out on top or even be level the theory is that Senna was a car breaker, 90% of the time when the 2 cars were on track Senna was in front, in the wet it was a massacre, in qualifying another massacre.

It had long been acknowledged that Prost wasn't prepared to take risks in the wet. Trying to keep up to Senna would have been outside of his comfort zone and in his risky territory. Settling for 2nd was better than ending up in the wall. And it was no secret that everyone was deficient to Senna over one lap, Prost included. It mattered little as he typically had 2nd place on the grid wrapped up. He had as good a chance at the race win starting from there, which of course transpired again and again

"Fast man in fast car go really fast" is something I kind of got over years ago. Gimme a guy who can think his way out of a hole any day. One of my favourite moments of the last decade was Alonso and Hamilton both slowing down before the DRS detection point in Canada. Two all-time greats playing this mental chess at 200mph. Watching either of them crushing the field on a given day in 2006 or 2015 was of little interest

Prost actually enjoyed driving in the wet it was the spray and not being able to see that he didn't like, not all wet races have terrible spray conditions, Senna won the title on a damp track after passing Prost, I also remember another wet race that Senna was leading and Prost had a spin so that doesn't fit with a driver simply not trying.

I could have beat him but I didn't try, I'm not sure how that sits with being a legendary driver, modern day drivers like Grosjean get laughed at for trying to get race starts delayed everytime it rains.

mikeyg123 wrote:When they were team mates Senna was a lot better Prost. Prost high rating comes from terrific performances outside of those 2 seasons.

Yes, this is indeed true and why Prost is still my clear number 3. Prost was 33 by the time Senna came up against him but some who are pro Prost try to talk him up for 1988 and 1989. Especially 1989, it was probably his worst ever year in F1 but some use that season to make him Senna's equal as it was 1-1 in titles with Senna as team mates. Or they go with the total points scored thing, when everybody knew it was best 11 results.

Prost was great, just not as great as Senna when they teamed up together, in part due to age no doubt.

lamo wrote:

mcdo wrote: It had long been acknowledged that Prost wasn't prepared to take risks in the wet. Trying to keep up to Senna would have been outside of his comfort zone and in his risky territory. Settling for 2nd was better than ending up in the wall. And it was no secret that everyone was deficient to Senna over one lap, Prost included. It mattered little as he typically had 2nd place on the grid wrapped up. He had as good a chance at the race win starting from there, which of course transpired again and again

"Fast man in fast car go really fast" is something I kind of got over years ago. Gimme a guy who can think his way out of a hole any day. One of my favourite moments of the last decade was Alonso and Hamilton both slowing down before the DRS detection point in Canada. Two all-time greats playing this mental chess at 200mph. Watching either of them crushing the field on a given day in 2006 or 2015 was of little interest

Settling for 2nd wasn't always better than ending up in the wall. If you had a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of nothing, then going for it some of the time was the correct strategy. The points system was best 11 results from 16. 2nd places were basically useless to Prost from mid season on wards in 1988 for example.

In fact from race 6 on wards, Prost had already collected enough 2nd places and it was just about wins from then on. He had 6/6 finishes. So only 5 finishes from the last 10 rounds could count toward his score, he needed to go out and win races, 5 wins from those 10 races would win him the title. But he couldn't live with Senna's speed.

The stereotypical traits of Prost and Senna are often way over played for each too.

In modern F1 Senna would handily beat Prost, because 1) the cars are more reliable and that's the only way Prost beat Senna and 2) Its car + driver for weight limits so Prost would lose that big advantage he held over Senna when they were team mates. Senna carried 7-9 Kgs more weight. The difference between Senna and Prost was larger than the difference between Hamilton and Rosberg even before allowing for weight. But like what was mentioned above, so little analysis of results and information was spread back then. Most fans weren't that knowledgeable. In fact it simply wasn't possible to be knowledgeable, we can pull up a lap chart from any season now, re-watch any season or incident. Back then you got to watch a 2 hour race with no post race analysis and that was it.

I meant more in terms of coming out of it alive and intact. 2nd place was better than ending up like Didier Pironi

Ifs, buts and maybes - in modern F1 the points score would be different so there's no guarantee. With modern scoring Prost would have won 1988. The number of mechanical issues that both encountered during races was similar. A cursory glance over race reports tells me that it was Prost that had more issues over the course of the season. He certainly had more DNFs due to unreliability (2 to Senna's 1). What are you going to tell me next, that Senna wouldn't have crashed out in a modern car?

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Invade wrote:That's a very poetic and fascinating way to put it and describe the differences and yet parity between the two racers. I guess though that the extra sort of thrilling, immediate and sensory nature of Senna presents a more romantic and compelling perception for most - and most of us tend to love our brilliant and otherworldly performances in sport as the ultimate expression of sporting talent and genius. In other words, there's more to it than being equally productive and that's even assuming equal conditions; it's also much about how one produces.

It typically comes down to personal preference. Most people prefer the swashbuckling hero that throws caution to the wind in their pursuit of glory, others prefer the calculating mastermind with the methodical approach to achieving success in the most economical manner

For Prost to come out on top or even be level the theory is that Senna was a car breaker, 90% of the time when the 2 cars were on track Senna was in front, in the wet it was a massacre, in qualifying another massacre.

It had long been acknowledged that Prost wasn't prepared to take risks in the wet. Trying to keep up to Senna would have been outside of his comfort zone and in his risky territory. Settling for 2nd was better than ending up in the wall. And it was no secret that everyone was deficient to Senna over one lap, Prost included. It mattered little as he typically had 2nd place on the grid wrapped up. He had as good a chance at the race win starting from there, which of course transpired again and again

"Fast man in fast car go really fast" is something I kind of got over years ago. Gimme a guy who can think his way out of a hole any day. One of my favourite moments of the last decade was Alonso and Hamilton both slowing down before the DRS detection point in Canada. Two all-time greats playing this mental chess at 200mph. Watching either of them crushing the field on a given day in 2006 or 2015 was of little interest

Prost actually enjoyed driving in the wet it was the spray and not being able to see that he didn't like, not all wet races have terrible spray conditions, Senna won the title on a damp track after passing Prost who had a gearbox problem, I also remember another wet race that Senna was leading and Prost had a spin so that doesn't fit with a driver simply not trying.

I could have beat him but I didn't try, I'm not sure how that sits with being a legendary driver, modern day drivers like Grosjean get laughed at for trying to get race starts delayed everytime it rains.

It seems you remember only some of it

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote: It typically comes down to personal preference. Most people prefer the swashbuckling hero that throws caution to the wind in their pursuit of glory, others prefer the calculating mastermind with the methodical approach to achieving success in the most economical manner

For Prost to come out on top or even be level the theory is that Senna was a car breaker, 90% of the time when the 2 cars were on track Senna was in front, in the wet it was a massacre, in qualifying another massacre.

It had long been acknowledged that Prost wasn't prepared to take risks in the wet. Trying to keep up to Senna would have been outside of his comfort zone and in his risky territory. Settling for 2nd was better than ending up in the wall. And it was no secret that everyone was deficient to Senna over one lap, Prost included. It mattered little as he typically had 2nd place on the grid wrapped up. He had as good a chance at the race win starting from there, which of course transpired again and again

"Fast man in fast car go really fast" is something I kind of got over years ago. Gimme a guy who can think his way out of a hole any day. One of my favourite moments of the last decade was Alonso and Hamilton both slowing down before the DRS detection point in Canada. Two all-time greats playing this mental chess at 200mph. Watching either of them crushing the field on a given day in 2006 or 2015 was of little interest

Prost actually enjoyed driving in the wet it was the spray and not being able to see that he didn't like, not all wet races have terrible spray conditions, Senna won the title on a damp track after passing Prost who had a gearbox problem, I also remember another wet race that Senna was leading and Prost had a spin so that doesn't fit with a driver simply not trying.

I could have beat him but I didn't try, I'm not sure how that sits with being a legendary driver, modern day drivers like Grosjean get laughed at for trying to get race starts delayed everytime it rains.

It seems you remember only some of it

That's a case of I didn't even know.

mcdo wrote:

lamo wrote:

mcdo wrote: It had long been acknowledged that Prost wasn't prepared to take risks in the wet. Trying to keep up to Senna would have been outside of his comfort zone and in his risky territory. Settling for 2nd was better than ending up in the wall. And it was no secret that everyone was deficient to Senna over one lap, Prost included. It mattered little as he typically had 2nd place on the grid wrapped up. He had as good a chance at the race win starting from there, which of course transpired again and again

"Fast man in fast car go really fast" is something I kind of got over years ago. Gimme a guy who can think his way out of a hole any day. One of my favourite moments of the last decade was Alonso and Hamilton both slowing down before the DRS detection point in Canada. Two all-time greats playing this mental chess at 200mph. Watching either of them crushing the field on a given day in 2006 or 2015 was of little interest

Settling for 2nd wasn't always better than ending up in the wall. If you had a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of nothing, then going for it some of the time was the correct strategy. The points system was best 11 results from 16. 2nd places were basically useless to Prost from mid season on wards in 1988 for example.

In fact from race 6 on wards, Prost had already collected enough 2nd places and it was just about wins from then on. He had 6/6 finishes. So only 5 finishes from the last 10 rounds could count toward his score, he needed to go out and win races, 5 wins from those 10 races would win him the title. But he couldn't live with Senna's speed.

The stereotypical traits of Prost and Senna are often way over played for each too.

In modern F1 Senna would handily beat Prost, because 1) the cars are more reliable and that's the only way Prost beat Senna and 2) Its car + driver for weight limits so Prost would lose that big advantage he held over Senna when they were team mates. Senna carried 7-9 Kgs more weight. The difference between Senna and Prost was larger than the difference between Hamilton and Rosberg even before allowing for weight. But like what was mentioned above, so little analysis of results and information was spread back then. Most fans weren't that knowledgeable. In fact it simply wasn't possible to be knowledgeable, we can pull up a lap chart from any season now, re-watch any season or incident. Back then you got to watch a 2 hour race with no post race analysis and that was it.

I meant more in terms of coming out of it alive and intact. 2nd place was better than ending up like Didier Pironi

Ifs, buts and maybes - in modern F1 the points score would be different so there's no guarantee. With modern scoring Prost would have won 1988. The number of mechanical issues that both encountered during races was similar. A cursory glance over race reports tells me that it was Prost that had more issues over the course of the season. He certainly had more DNFs due to unreliability (2 to Senna's 1). What are you going to tell me next, that Senna wouldn't have crashed out in a modern car?

I think you drive to the rules. No doubt Senna would have tackled the championship differently if he needed points rather than wins.

No, but the car might be. The team of Hamilton and Mercedes, all 200 odd of them, have produced results way beyond any other combination this year and two of the other times Hamilton won the WDC.

mikeyg123 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

lamo wrote:

mcdo wrote: It had long been acknowledged that Prost wasn't prepared to take risks in the wet. Trying to keep up to Senna would have been outside of his comfort zone and in his risky territory. Settling for 2nd was better than ending up in the wall. And it was no secret that everyone was deficient to Senna over one lap, Prost included. It mattered little as he typically had 2nd place on the grid wrapped up. He had as good a chance at the race win starting from there, which of course transpired again and again

"Fast man in fast car go really fast" is something I kind of got over years ago. Gimme a guy who can think his way out of a hole any day. One of my favourite moments of the last decade was Alonso and Hamilton both slowing down before the DRS detection point in Canada. Two all-time greats playing this mental chess at 200mph. Watching either of them crushing the field on a given day in 2006 or 2015 was of little interest

Settling for 2nd wasn't always better than ending up in the wall. If you had a 50% chance of winning and a 50% chance of nothing, then going for it some of the time was the correct strategy. The points system was best 11 results from 16. 2nd places were basically useless to Prost from mid season on wards in 1988 for example.

In fact from race 6 on wards, Prost had already collected enough 2nd places and it was just about wins from then on. He had 6/6 finishes. So only 5 finishes from the last 10 rounds could count toward his score, he needed to go out and win races, 5 wins from those 10 races would win him the title. But he couldn't live with Senna's speed.

The stereotypical traits of Prost and Senna are often way over played for each too.

In modern F1 Senna would handily beat Prost, because 1) the cars are more reliable and that's the only way Prost beat Senna and 2) Its car + driver for weight limits so Prost would lose that big advantage he held over Senna when they were team mates. Senna carried 7-9 Kgs more weight. The difference between Senna and Prost was larger than the difference between Hamilton and Rosberg even before allowing for weight. But like what was mentioned above, so little analysis of results and information was spread back then. Most fans weren't that knowledgeable. In fact it simply wasn't possible to be knowledgeable, we can pull up a lap chart from any season now, re-watch any season or incident. Back then you got to watch a 2 hour race with no post race analysis and that was it.

I meant more in terms of coming out of it alive and intact. 2nd place was better than ending up like Didier Pironi

Ifs, buts and maybes - in modern F1 the points score would be different so there's no guarantee. With modern scoring Prost would have won 1988. The number of mechanical issues that both encountered during races was similar. A cursory glance over race reports tells me that it was Prost that had more issues over the course of the season. He certainly had more DNFs due to unreliability (2 to Senna's 1). What are you going to tell me next, that Senna wouldn't have crashed out in a modern car?

I think you drive to the rules. No doubt Senna would have tackled the championship differently if he needed points rather than wins.

Exactly. It never ceases to amaze me how people look at this as though the drivers didn't know the rules...

mikeyg123 wrote:I think you drive to the rules. No doubt Senna would have tackled the championship differently if he needed points rather than wins.

I'm not convinced he would have. Yes, Senna certainly knew the rules, but he also had an unshakable belief that he was the best driver on the planet (possibly true) and the need to prove it every time he got in the car. I'm not sure he would have deliberately gone slower than he knew he could, especially considering it was something he wasn't very good at (see Monaco 1988).

That aside - and as a dedicated Prost fan - the narrative that Prost drove slower than Senna on purpose and didn't try to win is false. He abandoned any hope of out-qualifying Senna and set his car up for the races, true, but he never tried to finish second to Senna in a race.

The narrative that Prost was unable to beat Senna in a race without his car failing is also false, however. Admittedly it didn't happen very often, but he did beat Senna on merit some times.

Came across this and made me chuckle

https://youtu.be/A4GrhOuKt9A

There's an article on Sky F1 where they talk to James Alison about working with Hamilton where he describes it as being completely different to what he expected. I suspect that that that is a implied backhanded compliment of saying Hamilton is far more professional and focused behind the scenes than his public persona would suggest.

James Allison to SkyF1 wrote:I think I'd only ever said hello to him once in all the years prior to that and the experience of working with him is very different to what I imagined it would be,

It has been a considerable pleasure joining Mercedes this year for many, many reasons but one of those was that it was my first opportunity to start working alongside Lewis.

I've found a racing driver or the sort of excellence that all of us can see from his statistics and the way he goes about his job but what has been particularly good is that I've found a guy that conducts himself as a man in a way that makes you happy to work alongside him. And that's been an enjoyable and good thing about joining Mercedes.

Allison, as the only major F1 person to have worked alongside Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton does say that it's impossible to definitively say which is the best but they all have deserved the successes they've achieved.

There's a slightly sensationalist article on the BBC about Hamilton's pole abilities but if you pick through it there are some parts that do back up my theory about Hamilton ironing out a lot of his key weaknesses this season regarding his frame of mind:

BBC wrote:An F1 car is a complex object, and it needs to be fine-tuned to get the best out of it. And a driver is a human being, prone to distractions and weaknesses, which need to be eliminated for him to operate at his best.

Hamilton admits this has been a flaw in the past.

"It is definitely an area I really wanted to improve this year," he says. "It has always been something I have enjoyed and generally excelled at. [But] it is all about the small percentages, and getting those extra little bits out of your own performances has really been my goal this year and I have managed to do that.

"You've seen how I live my life over the years and I really think the balance I allow myself to make is what enables me to perform the way I do.

"I arrive at the weekends in a positive frame of mind. I don't have any baggage. I generally don't give a you-know-what about what anyone says. I know my values, who I am and what I am about. I know what I am here to do, so I do it.

"I guess it is about building a force field against all the negativity that generally tries to penetrate. Nothing generally gets in and I know how to race and drive. It is about doing it."

Link to part of the recent Lauda/Bensinger interview. About 2 hours worth in total elsewhere on youtube.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:There's an article on Sky F1 where they talk to James Alison about working with Hamilton where he describes it as being completely different to what he expected. I suspect that that that is a implied backhanded compliment of saying Hamilton is far more professional and focused behind the scenes than his public persona would suggest.

James Allison to SkyF1 wrote:I think I'd only ever said hello to him once in all the years prior to that and the experience of working with him is very different to what I imagined it would be,

It has been a considerable pleasure joining Mercedes this year for many, many reasons but one of those was that it was my first opportunity to start working alongside Lewis.

I've found a racing driver or the sort of excellence that all of us can see from his statistics and the way he goes about his job but what has been particularly good is that I've found a guy that conducts himself as a man in a way that makes you happy to work alongside him. And that's been an enjoyable and good thing about joining Mercedes.

Allison, as the only major F1 person to have worked alongside Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton does say that it's impossible to definitively say which is the best but they all have deserved the successes they've achieved.

There's a slightly sensationalist article on the BBC about Hamilton's pole abilities but if you pick through it there are some parts that do back up my theory about Hamilton ironing out a lot of his key weaknesses this season regarding his frame of mind:

BBC wrote:An F1 car is a complex object, and it needs to be fine-tuned to get the best out of it. And a driver is a human being, prone to distractions and weaknesses, which need to be eliminated for him to operate at his best.

Hamilton admits this has been a flaw in the past.

"It is definitely an area I really wanted to improve this year," he says. "It has always been something I have enjoyed and generally excelled at. [But] it is all about the small percentages, and getting those extra little bits out of your own performances has really been my goal this year and I have managed to do that.

"You've seen how I live my life over the years and I really think the balance I allow myself to make is what enables me to perform the way I do.

"I arrive at the weekends in a positive frame of mind. I don't have any baggage. I generally don't give a you-know-what about what anyone says. I know my values, who I am and what I am about. I know what I am here to do, so I do it.

"I guess it is about building a force field against all the negativity that generally tries to penetrate. Nothing generally gets in and I know how to race and drive. It is about doing it."

Problem with interviews like this is that you're rarely going to get a senior team member saying their "A" driver isn't top-notch. Not saying what Alison said is false in any way, but it's impossible to know how genuine they are being. Could be 100% true, or it could be just PR. No way to know

I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

I disagree. I think over the past decade or so it's become very fashionable to talk up Prost and talk down Senna.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

I disagree. I think over the past decade or so it's become very fashionable to talk up Prost and talk down Senna.

I'm honestly surprised by that, I'd have bet my arm it was the other way around in general when speaking to or reading opinions about F1,lol.

Now I'm conscious of that it'll stick out no doubt.

Lotus49 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

I disagree. I think over the past decade or so it's become very fashionable to talk up Prost and talk down Senna.

I'm honestly surprised by that, I'd have bet my arm it was the other way around in general when speaking to or reading opinions about F1,lol.

Now I'm conscious of that it'll stick out no doubt.

It was interesting, when BBC started F1 coverage again in 09 they had a sort of drivers get to know you quiz on their website where they asked all the drivers the same questions. One of which was "Senna or Prost". Every driver except for Webber either sat on the fence and said Prost. They did the same thing about 5 years later and this time round a good 30% said Prost.

It makes sense that there is pushback on Senna definitely being better/greater than Prost because the generations now starting to learn about F1 and get into sports (for the last 10 or so years really) have become increasingly obsessed with numbers and stats and on the surface of things when you look at productivity Prost is no worse than Senna. When I was like 15-25 and bits of reading I'd end up doing from time to time painted a picture of Senna as definitely the better other than one website (which still might be up) which put up a stout defence of Prost.

BTW the recent turn to pure number hoarding is not a good one in my opinion. It's turned tennis talk into full-blown you know what at times over the last decade. Final Majors tally hardly used to be as important as it is now.

In F1 that approach becomes especially distorted because of the bottomline "championship or not" understanding, when really every single GP won is a very meaningful victory in itself (sort of like a big tournament win in tennis).

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

The Senna film had nothing to do with it, Senna was viewed as the best and when he was killed it had the same ramifications as when Jim Clark was killed.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

I disagree. I think over the past decade or so it's become very fashionable to talk up Prost and talk down Senna.

It really hasn't

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

The Senna film had nothing to do with it, Senna was viewed as the best and when he was killed it had the same ramifications as when Jim Clark was killed.

The film certainly played a role with some fans I know and especially with younger fans the film helped create. Impossible to quantify of course but if I didn't notice it I wouldn't have said it.

Hence the surprise but obviously opinions in one circle doesn't translate to all circles so I probably shouldn't have been that surprised to be fair.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

The Senna film had nothing to do with it, Senna was viewed as the best and when he was killed it had the same ramifications as when Jim Clark was killed.

The film certainly played a role with some fans I know and especially with younger fans the film helped create. Impossible to quantify of course but if I didn't notice it I wouldn't have said it.

Hence the surprise but obviously opinions in one circle doesn't translate to all circles so I probably shouldn't have been that surprised to be fair.

I guess maybe with fans who didn't live through it sort of thing, at the time I never got the impression that Prost was seen as the better driver, Williams even had the temerity to sign Senna when Prost was their world champion.

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

you make this statement as though everything you say if FACT, it is not. Yes, you have said it before, no argument, but there is a doubt "that Senna was superior" There is just no doubt that you believe it, that is the only FACT you have established. And if they were not closely matched or if your opinion were truly the "simple truth" why would there be ANY discussion about it?

Personally, I don't believe that Senna was better than the "professor". Yes, he was more flamboyant, and yes, he passion was very visible and gained him fans... but that does not necessarily make him the better driver only more popular amongst some fans. That is about all you can prove.

Prost's approach the the sport was different, it wasn't as flashy, but no one can deny it was effective. Prost may not have had the big Pole position numbers, but then his race-craft was tough to argue against. Also, I sometimes wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had Senna not deliberately plowed into Prost... we may well have been discussing a 5x WDC vs a 2x WDC. While WDCs are not the only measure of a driver, the greater discrepancy might well have kept this whole topic from coming up every year in here.

Lastly, I don't think that one can dismiss the effect of a great driver dying on the track can have on how he is remembered. I think of Senna and I think of Dale Earnhardt and see how revered they have become since their passing and how much greater their skills seem to have become in some people's minds. Earnhardt would have never approached Richard Petty's win totals, his Daytona 500 wins, and his positive effect on a growing sport.... yet almost any poll you see today of great NASCAR drivers in history, will have Earnhardt at the top. Petty made the "error" of not dying on the track. How many references have seen to about how many WDCs Senna would have had if it were not for his accident, taking them away from Schumi, of course, thereby justifying his greatness over Schumi. The simple truth is we do not know if Senna would have ever won another WDC, or not. Schumi was coming into his own at the time, certainly was not afraid of Aryton, and may well have been tough for even Senna to beat. We don't know one way or the other, and while it may be fun to discuss it, one cannot make an statement of "fact" one way or the other... to be blunt!

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

I disagree. I think over the past decade or so it's become very fashionable to talk up Prost and talk down Senna.

It really hasn't

I am with you on this mcdo. I think if anything it has become "very fashionable" to talk of Senna "superiority"... and there are few in here who willing to stand up for Prost. Senna is certainly the more "romantic" of the two drivers, and yes, the film does not hurt Senna in building that image... nor did it Prost in the best light at times. I simply do not know where the idea that there is an effort to talk up Prost at Senna's expense comes from, as I sure have not seen it in here.

Blake wrote:Lastly, I don't think that one can dismiss the effect of a great driver dying on the track can have on how he is remembered. I think of Senna and I think of Dale Earnhardt and see how revered they have become since their passing and how much greater their skills seem to have become in some people's minds. Earnhardt would have never approached Richard Petty's win totals, his Daytona 500 wins, and his positive effect on a growing sport.... yet almost any poll you see today of great NASCAR drivers in history, will have Earnhardt at the top. Petty made the "error" of not dying on the track. How many references have seen to about how many WDCs Senna would have had if it were not for his accident, taking them away from Schumi, of course, thereby justifying his greatness over Schumi. The simple truth is we do not know if Senna would have ever won another WDC, or not. Schumi was coming into his own at the time, certainly was not afraid of Aryton, and may well have been tough for even Senna to beat. We don't know one way or the other, and while it may be fun to discuss it, one cannot make an statement of "fact" one way or the other... to be blunt!

I agree very much with the point you're making here, and I think you also touch somewhat on something I believe is important to Senna's legacy: because he was never around to be beaten by Schumacher, his reputation didn't suffer the effect of being displaced as the best driver. Because it didn't happen one is free to believe that he might have changed history and beaten Schumi to his first two titles, whereas I believe that would not have occurred.

Blake wrote:I am with you on this mcdo. I think if anything it has become "very fashionable" to talk of Senna "superiority"... and there are few in here who willing to stand up for Prost. Senna is certainly the more "romantic" of the two drivers, and yes, the film does not hurt Senna in building that image... nor did it Prost in the best light at times. I simply do not know where the idea that there is an effort to talk up Prost at Senna's expense comes from, as I sure have not seen it in here.

I see hardly anyone trying to claim that Prost was better. This idea of people 'talking up Prost' is founded on people trying to refute the overblown godlike reputation Senna has acquired, not people actually trying to claim Prost was superior. It's a seesaw, and the harder the Senna faithful push, the harder the people who want to prevent the whitewashing of their time together push back. It's a phenomenon we see all over internet debates.

Exediron wrote:

Blake wrote:Lastly, I don't think that one can dismiss the effect of a great driver dying on the track can have on how he is remembered. I think of Senna and I think of Dale Earnhardt and see how revered they have become since their passing and how much greater their skills seem to have become in some people's minds. Earnhardt would have never approached Richard Petty's win totals, his Daytona 500 wins, and his positive effect on a growing sport.... yet almost any poll you see today of great NASCAR drivers in history, will have Earnhardt at the top. Petty made the "error" of not dying on the track. How many references have seen to about how many WDCs Senna would have had if it were not for his accident, taking them away from Schumi, of course, thereby justifying his greatness over Schumi. The simple truth is we do not know if Senna would have ever won another WDC, or not. Schumi was coming into his own at the time, certainly was not afraid of Aryton, and may well have been tough for even Senna to beat. We don't know one way or the other, and while it may be fun to discuss it, one cannot make an statement of "fact" one way or the other... to be blunt!

I agree very much with the point you're making here, and I think you also touch somewhat on something I believe is important to Senna's legacy: because he was never around to be beaten by Schumacher, his reputation didn't suffer the effect of being displaced as the best driver. Because it didn't happen one is free to believe that he might have changed history and beaten Schumi to his first two titles, whereas I believe that would not have occurred.

Blake wrote:I am with you on this mcdo. I think if anything it has become "very fashionable" to talk of Senna "superiority"... and there are few in here who willing to stand up for Prost. Senna is certainly the more "romantic" of the two drivers, and yes, the film does not hurt Senna in building that image... nor did it Prost in the best light at times. I simply do not know where the idea that there is an effort to talk up Prost at Senna's expense comes from, as I sure have not seen it in here.

I see hardly anyone trying to claim that Prost was better. This idea of people 'talking up Prost' is founded on people trying to refute the overblown godlike reputation Senna has acquired, not people actually trying to claim Prost was superior. It's a seesaw, and the harder the Senna faithful push, the harder the people who want to prevent the whitewashing of their time together push back. It's a phenomenon we see all over internet debates.

I'm sorry I think you're both wrong. Generally Senna was rated way higher than he is now in the late 90s and early 00s. That's not to say the current view is wrong. I rate them both fairly equally although I think during there time together Senna was superior.

I guess it all comes down to perception.

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

you make this statement as though everything you say if FACT, it is not. Yes, you have said it before, no argument, but there is a doubt "that Senna was superior" There is just no doubt that you believe it, that is the only FACT you have established. And if they were not closely matched or if your opinion were truly the "simple truth" why would there be ANY discussion about it?

Personally, I don't believe that Senna was better than the "professor". Yes, he was more flamboyant, and yes, he passion was very visible and gained him fans... but that does not necessarily make him the better driver only more popular amongst some fans. That is about all you can prove.

Prost's approach the the sport was different, it wasn't as flashy, but no one can deny it was effective. Prost may not have had the big Pole position numbers, but then his race-craft was tough to argue against. Also, I sometimes wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had Senna not deliberately plowed into Prost... we may well have been discussing a 5x WDC vs a 2x WDC. While WDCs are not the only measure of a driver, the greater discrepancy might well have kept this whole topic from coming up every year in here.

Lastly, I don't think that one can dismiss the effect of a great driver dying on the track can have on how he is remembered. I think of Senna and I think of Dale Earnhardt and see how revered they have become since their passing and how much greater their skills seem to have become in some people's minds. Earnhardt would have never approached Richard Petty's win totals, his Daytona 500 wins, and his positive effect on a growing sport.... yet almost any poll you see today of great NASCAR drivers in history, will have Earnhardt at the top. Petty made the "error" of not dying on the track. How many references have seen to about how many WDCs Senna would have had if it were not for his accident, taking them away from Schumi, of course, thereby justifying his greatness over Schumi. The simple truth is we do not know if Senna would have ever won another WDC, or not. Schumi was coming into his own at the time, certainly was not afraid of Aryton, and may well have been tough for even Senna to beat. We don't know one way or the other, and while it may be fun to discuss it, one cannot make an statement of "fact" one way or the other... to be blunt!

You seem offended by my statement for some reason...It's sort of implicit that a statement that I make is my own view. There is no way to establish one driver as factually better than another. Michael Schumacher is not factually a better driver than...me. It's all just opinions in these forums. Don't get so riled up about it man.

Look, I'm not talking about nostalgia or some effect of Senna's death and I'm definitely not talking about "flamboyance". I'm talking about the reality of the pairing. Senna was almost always quicker. We talk about how Alonso "demolished Kimi" or how Hamilton "demolished Bottas" in qualifying but they did not outpace their teammates by the margin that Senna beat Prost by. He was quicker almost everywhere and only lost out due to reliability. The Hamilton/Button comparison is much more appropriate. One clearly superior in terms of ability but the other perhaps more crafty and measured.

As far as Dale goes, I think a lot of that has to do with the sport being much more popular during his time than it was during Petty's time (never knew you were a Dale hater lol).

Lotus49 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

Is it really more popular saying that Prost was superior?. In my experience it's the opposite and the people who think Prost was superior are quite rare, especially since the Senna film.

Seems way more people view Senna as the best out of those two these days (As do I fwiw).

Was that very different back at some point?.

What I meant was that it's more popular to talk about their rivalry as though it was about two closely matched guys battling on track wheel to wheel when, in actuality, it was often Senna several seconds up the road where he would either win the race or have a mechanical failure.

sandman1347 wrote:

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

you make this statement as though everything you say if FACT, it is not. Yes, you have said it before, no argument, but there is a doubt "that Senna was superior" There is just no doubt that you believe it, that is the only FACT you have established. And if they were not closely matched or if your opinion were truly the "simple truth" why would there be ANY discussion about it?

Personally, I don't believe that Senna was better than the "professor". Yes, he was more flamboyant, and yes, he passion was very visible and gained him fans... but that does not necessarily make him the better driver only more popular amongst some fans. That is about all you can prove.

Prost's approach the the sport was different, it wasn't as flashy, but no one can deny it was effective. Prost may not have had the big Pole position numbers, but then his race-craft was tough to argue against. Also, I sometimes wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had Senna not deliberately plowed into Prost... we may well have been discussing a 5x WDC vs a 2x WDC. While WDCs are not the only measure of a driver, the greater discrepancy might well have kept this whole topic from coming up every year in here.

Lastly, I don't think that one can dismiss the effect of a great driver dying on the track can have on how he is remembered. I think of Senna and I think of Dale Earnhardt and see how revered they have become since their passing and how much greater their skills seem to have become in some people's minds. Earnhardt would have never approached Richard Petty's win totals, his Daytona 500 wins, and his positive effect on a growing sport.... yet almost any poll you see today of great NASCAR drivers in history, will have Earnhardt at the top. Petty made the "error" of not dying on the track. How many references have seen to about how many WDCs Senna would have had if it were not for his accident, taking them away from Schumi, of course, thereby justifying his greatness over Schumi. The simple truth is we do not know if Senna would have ever won another WDC, or not. Schumi was coming into his own at the time, certainly was not afraid of Aryton, and may well have been tough for even Senna to beat. We don't know one way or the other, and while it may be fun to discuss it, one cannot make an statement of "fact" one way or the other... to be blunt!

You seem offended by my statement for some reason...It's sort of implicit that a statement that I make is my own view. There is no way to establish one driver as factually better than another. Michael Schumacher is not factually a better driver than...me. It's all just opinions in these forums. Don't get so riled up about it man.

Look, I'm not talking about nostalgia or some effect of Senna's death and I'm definitely not talking about "flamboyance". I'm talking about the reality of the pairing. Senna was almost always quicker. We talk about how Alonso "demolished Kimi" or how Hamilton "demolished Bottas" in qualifying but they did not outpace their teammates by the margin that Senna beat Prost by. He was quicker almost everywhere and only lost out due to reliability. The Hamilton/Button comparison is much more appropriate. One clearly superior in terms of ability but the other perhaps more crafty and measured.

As far as Dale goes, I think a lot of that has to do with the sport being much more popular during his time than it was during Petty's time (never knew you were a Dale hater lol).

Which brings me back to my initial point - it typically comes down to personal preference. Prost and Senna are generally viewed as the kings of two polar opposite ways of racing - the tortoise and the hare. The vast majority will always cheer for the hare - and that's before you add in this hare's innate ability to always play the victim, his era-defining "martyrdom" and a hugely popular lopsided movie

Of course the regulars here had to weigh in and couldn't accept personal preference for what it is. Senna was better here, here, here and here. Even put them in fantasy land and Senna would "handily" win it. I don't know if there's another group of F1 fans that talks in such absolutes. I'm sure you can appreciate the kick that we get out of the 1989 result

It gets tiring being told Prost wasn't a tortoise, he was just a slower hare (as if he never learnt a thing from losing due to DNFs himself or being pipped by an elder champion teammate or having already succeeded by relying on other abilities outside of sheer speed in 1986). There's a small few of us that don't agree with this increasingly popular viewpoint. And that's all it is - A viewpoint. An opinion. A personal preference

sandman1347 wrote:

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:I've said this before but I will repeat it in here. Having watched the battle between Senna and Prost, there really was no doubt that Senna was superior. Its not the popular thing to say but it's the simple truth. They were not even closely matched to be blunt.

you make this statement as though everything you say if FACT, it is not. Yes, you have said it before, no argument, but there is a doubt "that Senna was superior" There is just no doubt that you believe it, that is the only FACT you have established. And if they were not closely matched or if your opinion were truly the "simple truth" why would there be ANY discussion about it?

Personally, I don't believe that Senna was better than the "professor". Yes, he was more flamboyant, and yes, he passion was very visible and gained him fans... but that does not necessarily make him the better driver only more popular amongst some fans. That is about all you can prove.

Prost's approach the the sport was different, it wasn't as flashy, but no one can deny it was effective. Prost may not have had the big Pole position numbers, but then his race-craft was tough to argue against. Also, I sometimes wonder if this discussion would even be taking place had Senna not deliberately plowed into Prost... we may well have been discussing a 5x WDC vs a 2x WDC. While WDCs are not the only measure of a driver, the greater discrepancy might well have kept this whole topic from coming up every year in here.

Lastly, I don't think that one can dismiss the effect of a great driver dying on the track can have on how he is remembered. I think of Senna and I think of Dale Earnhardt and see how revered they have become since their passing and how much greater their skills seem to have become in some people's minds. Earnhardt would have never approached Richard Petty's win totals, his Daytona 500 wins, and his positive effect on a growing sport.... yet almost any poll you see today of great NASCAR drivers in history, will have Earnhardt at the top. Petty made the "error" of not dying on the track. How many references have seen to about how many WDCs Senna would have had if it were not for his accident, taking them away from Schumi, of course, thereby justifying his greatness over Schumi. The simple truth is we do not know if Senna would have ever won another WDC, or not. Schumi was coming into his own at the time, certainly was not afraid of Aryton, and may well have been tough for even Senna to beat. We don't know one way or the other, and while it may be fun to discuss it, one cannot make an statement of "fact" one way or the other... to be blunt!

You seem offended by my statement for some reason...It's sort of implicit that a statement that I make is my own view. There is no way to establish one driver as factually better than another. Michael Schumacher is not factually a better driver than...me. It's all just opinions in these forums. Don't get so riled up about it man.

Look, I'm not talking about nostalgia or some effect of Senna's death and I'm definitely not talking about "flamboyance". I'm talking about the reality of the pairing. Senna was almost always quicker. We talk about how Alonso "demolished Kimi" or how Hamilton "demolished Bottas" in qualifying but they did not outpace their teammates by the margin that Senna beat Prost by. He was quicker almost everywhere and only lost out due to reliability. The Hamilton/Button comparison is much more appropriate. One clearly superior in terms of ability but the other perhaps more crafty and measured.

As far as Dale goes, I think a lot of that has to do with the sport being much more popular during his time than it was during Petty's time (never knew you were a Dale hater lol).

I'm not going to weigh in on the Prost/Senna debate but the bit in red is probably why Blake responded the way he did. By calling your opinion a "simple truth" you elevated it to a universal "fact."