I checked out this column after a very long time mainly to wish you all a Happy New Year. I was amused and even shocked by some of the comments some people have made. I thought that this debate will make good reading & that I could learn something more about F1. All I have learnt so far is that there are lots of people who are really lost. If you want to rate Senna higher than Schumacher or the other way around, that's fine. If you do that simply because you are a great Fan of either of them that is acceptable. But don't rate them for the wrong reasons. Don't make wrong/manufactured claims & don't make personal attacks. If you want to give reasons, stick to Facts. Evaluate them both against same or similar criteria. Also, I do not believe that Senna was a Truck Driver or that Schumacher wins because of Poor Competition & Team Orders. I rate Schumacher higher than Senna. The biggest single reason for this is that while Senna won RACES in sub-standard equipment, Schumacher won RACES & CHAMPIONSHIPS in sub-standard equipment. 1994 & 2000 are good examples (even 2003 was not far off). Also 1994 was only his third Full Season & Benetton had never won a Championship before. (Senna's Championship wins came in the already dominant McLaren Honda at that time) I am sad to say that most of the people who rated Senna higher, have actually done injustice to him by giving not-so-good reasons, some even stating the complete opposite of the truth (of Schumacher).
But I take my hat off to Gem D & Don G of USA. Gem D gave his reasons & backed them with links to two good articles that described how good Senna was & Don G stated a very good point : ie, None of us could claim to know exactly who's better but we know whom we would prefer to watch. If people rate Senna for that reason, I will not argue against it. I love(d) watching both (plus Mansell & I like what I see in Alonso).
There are a few points that I think needs clarification:
1. A gentleman from Scotland said that Schumacher was put into capable Teams from the start of his career. Please tell me when did Benetton Win or come close to winning prior to Schumacher joining them ? Then he said that Schumacher never left a winning team. Well, after winning in 94 & 95 he left Benetton to join Ferrari - which in Senna's own words (end of 93) was NOT COMPETITIVE! And Ferrari only got worse in 94 & 95. When was the last time a Ferrari driver won a championship prior to Schumacher ? Well, it was in 1979. (They won the Constructor's in 1982 & 83).
Question for you, why didn't Senna join Ferrari in 1994 ?? Further, Senna was with Toleman only for one season before moving to Lotus. Lotus had won a Championship before (1978) though I agree that it wasn't comparable to McLaren & Williams. Then he jumped ship to McLaren, which WAS WINNING ANYWAY, and won his three Championships!!! Then when he couldn't win anymore he left McLaren for the Williams Renault, which was by far, the Best Car of the 90's. Now tell me who has only moved to a better car all the time & who has dared to leave a winning team for an inferior one & also turn it into a winning Team ???? Mate, the Answer to this question is the biggest reason why I say Schumacher is better. Hang the six Championships & 70 Wins.
As for the claim that Senna did better in 93 than Schumacher, what about 92 ?? When Schumacher did better than Senna in only his first full season, in a much lesser known Car & Team than Senna's ???
2. Lots of people say that Statistics are not important & then pull out one themselves (like Senna's 65 poles & that Schumacher lost to Hakkinen by 16 points while his Team mate lost only by 2 in 98). Isn't that ridiculous - contradicting themselves ?? I don't know about any Sport where Statistics are not important. It is like telling the Brazilians that their five World Cups in Soccer is just another Statistic & it is not important, when we all know that they are the Best Soccer playing Nation.
3. Some say that Championships are not important. Can someone tell me what these guys risk their lives for- Senna being the perfect example ?
4. Isn't it ironical that one person claims that Schumacher didn't have good competition & say that Hakkinen, Hill & Villeneuve were jokes while another say that Hakkinen was good Competition even as a Rookie; both to justify that Senna is better?
5. For the assumption that Senna would have beaten Schumacher had he lived. What's there to back this ? Between 1991 & 1994 (when both were in F1), Schumacher has done at least as well as Senna if not better. So, the same argument can be turned around to say that Schumacher would have beaten Senna.
6. Finally, for those who want others to check their heads, Please check if you've got one in the first place!!!
It is NOT my intention to try to force anyone into saying that Schumacher is better, but it would be nice if people stick to Facts. Also, my above comments are certainly not intended to belittle Senna in anyway. Cheers. Have a good one - Ryan T - Sri Lanka

While its futile (but interesting) to compare drivers of different decades, its safe to say that both drivers had the ability to get the absolute most out of a very quick car.
What sets Senna apart from Schumacher (and others) is his ability to win with sub-standard equipment. The performance he was able to wring out of the 1993 Ford powered McLaren was nothing short of astonishing.
I don't claim to know which driver was better... but I do know which driver I would rather watch - Don G - USA

Hey Mathew T, I agree with everything u say! All your arguments and comments are true. I too agree that Ioana is biased - Jazz - South Africa

Seriously you Schumacher fans are living in dreamland if you really believe Schumacher is better than Senna. They were barely in the same league!
Senna will always be the greatest!!! - Adam - England

Mathew u have no idea what you're talking about. Senna was a master in the wet ( remember Brands Hatch), he was the greatest qualifying driver of all time ( u have no argument to this). I'm a Schumacher fan but overall Senna is my favorite driver and the greatest driver of all time. If Schumacher had have raced in the same era he'd be lucky to get one championship let alone 6. Look at the past decade who has Schumacher had to contend with? Hakkinen, Ralf, Villeneuve, again a joke. u cant ever compare them to Prost.
Senna was the most gifted driver of all time and his desire to win and passion for the car is second to none. he didn't have a teammate to help him and as I said b4 the era Senna raced had superior drivers to the era Schumacher raced? compare them Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell to Schumacher, Hakkinen. It's not even close - Chris - Canada

I will always like Michael Schumacher better than Senna because I think his driving skills are supreme and unbeatable, his personality is out of this world, the media runs him down they should look before they speak.
I'm doing research and a book about Michael and I have no bad thoughts on him as for his team mate his is also fabulous.
When Michael's contract expires in 2006 grand prix racing will never be so good.
I wish Michael good luck and I hope he wins next year to become champion again also happy birthday Michael on the 3rd of Jan 04 if he reads this letter I hope one day to meet him and have a lovely long chat - Mrs Gail G - England

Michael Schumacher is the best, hands down - Shaun D - USA

Now Mathew, who's being illogical? worse, you are despotic, since you ask everybody to think the way you do!
Well, sorry, that's not the case, and yes, I dare to reply without agreeing with you! You must have needed a substitution idol pretty bad, haven't you? It's sad...
About team mates, ha ha , you chose your example well: MS had Nelson Piquet for a team mate! The problem is that our friend Nelson didn't know when to retire and he happened to stay a little too long in F1, making a fool of himself and of his past glory. So the fact that MS was so much better than him isn't relevant at all , since he wasn't the only one...
Senna had Prost for a team mate, and it's useless to comment upon any further, we all know ( at least the ones who are honest about it ) that they prevented mutually from winning more races and titles. And the same Prost always acknowledged that senna had been the best driver he had ever raced against and when MS got his 6th title the same Prost said it didn't mean that he was the best pilot ever because of the last ten years' contest in F1... don't be so contemptuous about Elio de Angelis, learn first to spell his name correctly. He was a talented driver but he happened to die too soon, did you know that, Mathew? Gerhard Berger is not exactly what I would call a failure in F1 and Mika Hakkinen may have been a rookie at the time but he was already very fast.
Yes, Senna prevented Warwick from coming to Lotus, and was always sorry for having acted this way, but you got the explanation yourself: Lotus didn't have the means to have two winners... Senna wasn't against competition within the same team if the team could have afforded to concentrate equally on the two drivers. So what do you imply, that Ferrari doesn't have the money to have two champions??? then how can they pay MS those huge amounts of money????
Your comments about changes of the rules in F1 who make that today the winner is the one who scores more points are also irrelevant !!!!! Every driver adapts to the rules in force, and therefore you can't know what Senna's tactics would have been had the rules been different !!! So come on, you have no better arguments? I'd like to see some logic from you, since you are so keen on figures and statistics...
So I agree with you on one point: MS is not a bad driver, he is really talented, and mechanics who worked both for senna and for ms also say so. but this doesn't imply that he is better than Ayrton Senna, sorry to disappoint you... to make a great champion, maybe the greatest ever, it takes more than skill and great ability in a car and MS doesn't possess anything else... Senna did! he was able to transmit all his force and his passion for the race, not through press statements but through his way of driving. He was MAGIC! It was an enchantment to see him racing, it was pure art, especially when he was not in good cars because it was especially then that all his skill was obvious. remember Donington 1993... and above all, Ayrton Senna was such a special human being, and people felt his personality and loved the man who lived behind the driver!
And to answer someone else here, I really do not wish MS to die on the track, but had it been the case I honestly don't believe it would have the same impact on people. I mean, I would be extremely sorry for him and his family, and I hope he will have a long and healthy life, but that wouldn't make me like him better!!! I don't like him now, so why should I like him in that case?
Ayrton's death has nothing to do with his legend ! it is awful to say such a thing... as far as I am concerned ( but I think the most of Senna's fans will agree), his death induced only sorrow, and frustration of being deprived of the privilege of seeing him anymore... it couldn't have added to his legend, as his legend was already huge.
I was, and always will be, an unconditional of Ayrton Senna whether he won or lost, can you understand this Mathew? I really don't care about statistics and titles, and I would still consider Senna better than MS even if he had survived his accident in Imola but lost his championship to MS!!! Would you feel the same about MS if he hadn't won all those titles ? Thank You , Ayrton, for all the passion and emotions and tears and for having been so much alive outside the tracks but also on F1 tracks! My memories can't be taken away nor can they be replaced by memories about some other driver. You are irreplaceable... Sorry for my English, really poor especially when I am carried away with my feelings. OBRIGADA! AYRTON SENNA, SEMPRE O MELHOR! - Ioana - (Romanian living in France)