planetf1.com

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!

Invade wrote:What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

Invade wrote:What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

sandman1347 wrote:

Invade wrote:What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

At that time, Ferrari hadn't won a championship in ages and Williams were the dominant team. I don't think Senna was going anywhere. A lot of people forget the way Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne transformed the team.

pokerman 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!

It annoys me when people flaunt Senna being killed on track as being the reason why he is revered so much and how his skills have been exaggerated because of it, would this same logic be applied to Jim Clark?

All these reference to titles is somewhat irrelevant, Prost still won more titles after all, and then questioning whether Senna would have won any more titles when lesser driver like Hill and Villenueve became Champions in basically the same car he would have had, let's also not forget that Schumacher had to crash Hill out the race in 1994 to win the title from him so how close would Senna have got and is that morally 1 less title for Schumacher?

Also why bring Schumacher into the argument, a driver you always feel the need to defend, so now perhaps we see a need to diminish Senna's reputation?

Regarding crashes no mention of Prost's crash with Senna in 1989 which gave Prost the title.

sandman1347 wrote: 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).

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: 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).

So now I am a "Dale hater" too? Some of you sure seem to love to throw around the word HATE anytime someone questions any aspect of a driver. So am I a sandman1347 HATER too, when I don't agree with something you said?

BTW, Petty is one of the major reasons NASCAR became much more popular for what it is worth.

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: 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).

So now I am a "Dale hater" too? Some of you sure seem to love to throw around the word HATE anytime someone questions any aspect of a driver. So am I a sandman1347 HATER too, when I don't agree with something you said?

BTW, Petty is one of the major reasons NASCAR became much more popular for what it is worth.

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Invade wrote:What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

At that time, Ferrari hadn't won a championship in ages and Williams were the dominant team. I don't think Senna was going anywhere. A lot of people forget the way Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne transformed the team.

Plus, Senna was 34 at the time he died, he would have been 35 and over before joining Ferrari. How long would he have stayed there to really make an impact?

lamo wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Invade wrote:What I wonder about though is how quickly Ferrari might have snapped up Senna had he lived on and how it might have changed the wider narrative.

At that time, Ferrari hadn't won a championship in ages and Williams were the dominant team. I don't think Senna was going anywhere. A lot of people forget the way Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne transformed the team.

Plus, Senna was 34 at the time he died, he would have been 35 and over before joining Ferrari. How long would he have stayed there to really make an impact?

I don't see Senna leaving a dominant car either. I see him at Williams until at least 1997 (his initial contact ended at the end of 1995 I believe) at which point he would have been his earliest point of retirement for me. If he didn't manage to haul MS back in 1994, then the titles of 1995,1996 and probably 1997 were there for the taking.

The top drivers of the time all drove until at least 39, Prost, Mansell and Piquet - Mansell last raced F1 at 41, Prost nearly came back into F1 at 41 too. Senna I think would have gone on at least until he was 37/38 and maybe as long as 1999 at which point he would be 39 himself. Plenty of time for pretty easy titles with Williams and maybe a couple of seasons back at Mclaren/Ferrari at the very end of his career.

lamo wrote:The 1995 Williams was the class of the field for me, it was just Hill had 7 DNFs (4 of which accidents) and Coulthard had 8... those two were useless that year and how Schumacher ran rings around them in a worse car was ridiculous.

Schumacher managed 4 poles that year, the Williams pair and pit wall managed to lose a lot of races. They ended up winning 5 and threw away another 5 with the drivers they had. I have no doubt Senna would have been at very least 0.4-0.5 ahead of the pair of them which would put him in a position to dominant nearly every race from pole. Even in a worst case scenario, Senna wins 7-8 races in 1995 so I don't see him leaving that Williams even if he somehow lost the WDC to Schumacher.

Blake wrote:To answer the question... NO.

Siao7 wrote:Sceptical to ask, which point system have you used?

Siao7 wrote:I am not regarding Lewis for this position yet, as he hasn't finished his career yet. He may go on a 3 year dry spell and mess his statistics, who knows?

mas wrote:What does the table look like if you divide by the power of 2 rather than 3, so 1/2 for a second, 1/4 for a third, 1/8 for a fourth etc ?

Beleriand_K wrote:This is the formula for anyone interested: (First+Second/3+Third/9+Fourth/18+Fifth/36+Sixth/72)/Races*(1-1/LOG(Races))

Exediron wrote:He's not the most successful. F1 drivers race for two things; World Championships first, and Grand Prix victories second. Schumacher has the most of both, so he's still the most successful F1 driver until he doesn't.

There could be an argument that Lewis is the most successful based on the length of his career, but Fangio won half of all the races he entered, took over half the pole positions available, and was first or second in literally every season he completed. There's no comparison.

Bottom line: points are only useful to determine a champion. Championships make a driver successful, not points.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Beleriand_K wrote:This is the formula for anyone interested: (First+Second/3+Third/9+Fourth/18+Fifth/36+Sixth/72)/Races*(1-1/LOG(Races))

Why are you multiplying by 1-1/LOG(Races) at the end. Surely you just need to divide the accumulation of points and divide by the number of races participated in - or am I missing something??

Beleriand_K wrote:
Please notice: That doesn't necessarily mean the BEST driver ever. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but that's another discussion.

MasterRacer wrote:

Beleriand_K wrote:
Please notice: That doesn't necessarily mean the BEST driver ever. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but that's another discussion.

There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10. He's benefited from an unbeatable car and still managed to lose one season.

While the stats for Hamilton look cool, they are distorted by the ridiculous unprecedented advantage Mercedes has had - and the fact we've been running more races than ever before per season during this era of Merc domination.

                   Schumacher       Hamilton  Vettel
1991	            0%								
1992				   6%								
1993			      6%								
1994				   50%								
1995					56%								
1996					19%								
1997					29%	(DSQ)							
1998					31%								
1999					13%								
2000					53%								
2001					53%								
2002					65%								
2003					38%								
2004					72%								
2005					5%								
2006					39%								
2007											24%		0%
2008											28%		6%
2009											12%		24%
2010					0%					 16%		26%
2011					0%					 16%		58%
2012					0%					 20%		25%
2013											5%		 68%
2014											58%		0%
2015											53%		21%
2016											48%		0%
2017											53%		24%

MasterRacer wrote:There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10.

Asked if Hamilton now ranked among the all-time top five drivers in F1, Alonso replied: "Yes."

Felipe Massa wrote:Lewis is definitely one of the best drivers in the history of Formula 1. You cannot really take him away or in a different level compared to Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna. He's there.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

MasterRacer wrote:There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10.

Fernando Alonso would care to disagree with you:

Asked if Hamilton now ranked among the all-time top five drivers in F1, Alonso replied: "Yes."

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24181/ ... ow-drivers

And Massa, a driver who isn't exactly Hamilton's BFF, had this to say:

Felipe Massa wrote:Lewis is definitely one of the best drivers in the history of Formula 1. You cannot really take him away or in a different level compared to Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna. He's there.

Blake wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

MasterRacer wrote:There is no maybe about it. Hamilton is not even in the top five greatest ever, probably not even top 10.

Fernando Alonso would care to disagree with you:

Asked if Hamilton now ranked among the all-time top five drivers in F1, Alonso replied: "Yes."

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24181/ ... ow-drivers

And Massa, a driver who isn't exactly Hamilton's BFF, had this to say:

Felipe Massa wrote:Lewis is definitely one of the best drivers in the history of Formula 1. You cannot really take him away or in a different level compared to Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna. He's there.

OK... I agree with Alonso and Massa. Hamilton is one of the best ever, easily in the Top 50 of all-time. What they are saying is nothing more than a statement that he has been among the best. Most of us would agree with that much.

Blake wrote:From a personal standpoint, I do not think Lewis is, at this point, anywhere near the "greatest" or the most successful "ever". However, I don't put Vettel there either. They both have a long way to go in my opinion, and neither have reached Alonso status yet either... no offense meant to either of them.