Nearly 10 years on and Senna lives on as the best. He may
not have broken all the records in his short life and others may have
passed him in the stats department but no one yet has shown the skill and
the passion that Senna showed.
I completely agree with what some of you have already said: There is no
point of comparing. How can people consider the record breaking 6 times
World Champion as 'the best' when he demands his team-mates to help him
(down to the contract) and his team gives him the better car ? Real
Champions race everyone including their team-mates - Graham R -
Australia
Milton from Brazil got it right, I quote : "Senna is
dead! Schummy is the best! - Milton - Brazil"!!!!!.
He said it all : since Ayrton is not here anymore, MS can be the best...
but, hadn't he been dead, MS wouldn't have been the best, that's for sure.
( I wonder how old is Milton and whether he ever had the chance and
privilege to see Ayrton race...)
There is no point in asking the question, the mere fact of asking it is
the answer : if almost 10 years after Ayrton's death and after the 6
titles of MS the need of comparing the two is felt, to me this can have
only one explanation : WHATEVER MS MIGHT DO, HE WILL NEVER BE AS GOOD AS
AYRTON SENNA.
Having said that much, you can all understand that I rate Ayrton Senna,
higher, so much higher than MS. I fully agree with the persons who said
this is not a matter of statistics and figures. But, in terms of speed,
Ayrton Senna was so much faster, his record of poles is here to prove
it.
Racing on the wet, undoubtedly MS is good, but he can't overrate Ayrton
Senna. And Senna didn't have his best races with the best cars, just
remember Monaco 1984 ( his first year in F1, his first race in Monaco,
which is such a demanding race! especially on the wet, and he scared the
hell out of Lauda, and even Prost acknowledged that hadn't the race been
stopped, he would have let Ayrton pass as he didn't feel able to resist,
yet Prost was far from being a greenhorn at the time... ), Portugal 1985,
Donnington 1993, or Brazil 1991 where his gear box was broken for almost
20 laps... Who did MS scare ? Villeneuve? what a good joke!
Also Ayrton Senna's ambition, the passion for the race, he would always
feel bound to win, and for a long time he thought in termes of 'all or
nothing' , ie pole - fastest lap- win, I can't say I saw the same
dedication in MS. But I must correct something Adam of England (I think)
said : Ayrton wasn't willing to risk his life ! He was far from being
self-destructive, he didn't have suicidal thoughts! He just pushed the car
and himself to the limit, and then further... which means that he pushed
the limit a little bit further, and made things possible. And to him, it
was as simple as that : you have a limit, you touch this limit, well, then
you realise you can go a little bit further! There was his great talent...
but he did it so naturally that he isn't given credit for that, from him
this was normal... well, it was, but I wonder whether the same thing
applies to MS ... I think not. But don't say he would have risked his
life, here you have the proof : he explained that he didn't have a record
of fastest lap in race since he never wanted to do more than necessary to
win, he didn't want to put himself and the others in danger
uselessly.
And how could you forget Alain Prost in (almost) all your comments? Hadn't
it been for Ayrton especially after 1988, and had his luck been a little
bit better before, Alain Prost could have won more than 6 titles. And
hadn't Alain Prost been there, Ayrton Senna would have won more titles !
So the story of the two pilots is closely linked, each one preventing the
other from going much farther!
Now tell me, when has MS had such a valuable team mate and challenger????
NEVER.
And don't say that MS won 6 titles and Ayrton only 3, this means nothing.
I think that even MS fans will agree on the fact that you can't compare MS
and Fangio, for instance, as bare figures do not mean much.
As Ayrton Senna himself put it : every year some guy wins the
championship, but this doesn't make of him a world champion ... Well, to
me MS is this guy who wins the championships, but it ends here.
AYRTON SENNA IS THE TRUE CHAMPION, THE ONLY CHAMPION, SIMPLY THE BEST! - Ioana
- (Romanian living in France)
No doubt dudes, even a blind would see the difference.
Forever Ayrton Senna better than Michael Schumacher.
In qualifying - Do you know when was the first pole of MS? Monaco 94, so
he never could beat Ayrton in that item.
On the wet - Do you remember any other race with a heavy rain alike Monaco
1984?? What would have MS done.
Racing - Do you remember the overtakes Ayrton used to do?? Now MS need his
team-mates to be his slaves so he can win a damn race. Don't waste your
time comparing a great champion like Ayrton with an average one like MS - Maria
LC - Argentina (This post was edited)
Who's kidding who here? Of course Michael is the best. And
he's proven. You cannot say Senna is better. Be realistic here people - Jazz - South
Africa
SCHUMACHER HAS NEVER HAD AND OUTCLASSED A WORLD CHAMPION
TEAM-MATE. SIMPLE AS THAT. SCHUMACHER IS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS PROST -
BELOW SENNA!! - Dean - England
Ayrton Senna, the all-time greatest driver of Formula One
History. Nobody does better... Henrique R - Brazil
Senna was a great driver and its just not possible to
compare him to Michael. Forget the 6 world titles which Michael has won.
Had the tragedy not been happened he would have written the history of F1
racing. Titles do not matter - Bronson D - India
(In reply to Al - Syria) to a certain extent I agree with
you. But in 1999 Schumacher couldn't win the championship because he broke
his leg at Silverstone and was out for 5 races. So Irvine took over the
team leader job from Schumi. I have to admit if this hadn't happened he
would have won because although then I wanted Hakkinen to win, now I can
say he was very lucky. Loads of times his car let him down and who can
forget when he crashed out in the lead at Monza?? Schumacher has had it
easy with his team mates though and that is something that will always be
held against him and in my opinion what doesn't make him the best.
I don't think Alex Yoong would be able to win a championship in a Ferrari,
because he is far too inexperienced and fair play to Schumi he is a good
driver (Just not the best)
In all the races I've seen and read about. I would say 1st Senna 2nd Prost
3rd Schumacher - Adam - England
Cheers! So much excellent debate!.
I respectfully state that, for me, it becomes clearer and clearer that
Ayrton was more talented, which is what matters in the first term. Maybe
Michael is better at getting results at any cost (team orders, special
clauses in team-mate contracts, dirty maneuvers,...), but even then it
wouldn't be enough to match Ayrton's statistics, hadn't he died...Alberto
R - Paraguay
Well, you can't ever say the MS is better than AS simply
because Schumacher had the best car always and his team-mates were not
there although they are as good as himself. Let us begin with Eddie, for
four years he was slower than Schummi by 0.1 second and many times faster,
and in 1999 that was a big prove that even MS team-mates have the right to
fight for the championship. MS lost for Mika with a 16 points gap while
Eddie lost only for 2 points. And the Greatest of all Rubens. I think he's
much better than Schummi, we saw him this year fighting and he was faster
than Schummi 6 times. and if his luck was better in Germany and Hungary.
and if Ferrari didn't ask him to do that comic play during the States GP,
he would have got it. I tell you ! He was the best qualifier this year in
a rate of 3.6 followed by Montoya with 4.2 then Schummi 4.3 then Kimi and
Ralf with 6.8 then Jarno with 7.3, Fernando with 7.9 and finally David
with 8.5. Three poles , three fastest laps and two wins. Rubens got 77 pts
last year and 65 pts this year. while MS got 144 last year and 93 this
one. Who went backward then ???
Schummi would have lost 2000 for Hakkinen and 2003 for Montoya if both
Coulthard and Ralf were team-ordered. Drop 1994 and 2002 because they are
in doubt and then you'll see that MS is no great driver. he's so far
behind Senna who fought every one else including team mates especially
Alain Prost. He won 3 great championships and don't forget that race in
Suzuka when his car stalled.
If he lived to race in 94 , he would have dunit then and the next year and
the next...
Finally , statistics are nothing for me. Get Alex Yoong to drive the best
car for 20 years!!! he would break all MS records although he is Alex
Yoong - Al - Syria
Hello there, I do respect most of your opinions, however I
definitely don't think Senna was a truck driver and I also don't believe
that today's cars with electronic aids (not ABS though) make MS less of a
great driver (as long as that goes for everybody not just the ones who can
cheat without getting caught). However the lack of a great opponent (like
Prost), except of course for Hakkinen, do.
Anyway the reason I'm writing this is because of what Samir from USA
wrote. It's quite clear that this guy has been actually watching races for
at least the last 16 years, more than that he has been actually looking
into them as my dear friend Mathew accused me of not doing so.
Bottom line, guys please get the facts right before writing here and also
you must have been watching F1 since, at least, the early 90's before
saying anything about Senna (actually 84 should be the right number). Of
course that doesn't mean that I agree entirely with Samir and I also can't
possibly believe that even the Brasilians are beginning to accept MS as
the best. Unless they're under 17.
Now for the last time can any MS fan sincerely answer to this question
because I don't recall Mathew or another ever did.
DID MS, AT ANY POINT OF HIS CAREER, HAVE A TEAM-MATE AS HALF AS GOOD AS
PROST WAS? And something else, Can anyone remember those special terms in
Irvine's contract with Ferrari? Did any Senna team-mate have a contract
like that?
Hakkinen won in 98 and lost in 00 while fighting not only MS but also DC.
In fact MH lost 2 races in 00 to DC, while during the last years, MS's
team-mates have been having mysterious brake problems (hahahaahhahaahhaaa)
or strange team orders.
Well I suppose that if you are a really great driver, if you always have
team-mates that can't or won't be allowed to beat you, if you have the FIA
working for you and not against you (like Senna did), if you can find two
great engineers who can maximise your potential (and cheat without getting
caught) in a team with probably an unlimited budget, be very lucky over
the years, and finally if you have the best car or even just a good and
reliable car and Hill as the next best thing, then not only will you be
the most successful, some will say you are the best ever.
(PESTA RE TOLI) - George - Greece
Adam of England - Hello. Firstly, I am glad that you
accepted my comments in a sporty manner & I respect you for
that.
I do agree that the incident in Austria was probably the ugliest incident
in F1. It was not nice to see Michael ram into Hill or Villeneuve either.
I don't know if Michael is a cheat but he certainly is not very
sporty!
I did mention this the first time I put my two-cents'-worth in this little
debate. For sportsmanship Schumacher gets zilch from me. However, why I
say Michael is the best is because of his overall performance, whether he
had a good car or not. Not because he beat Senna in 2 races or because
he's won 6 championships. He's been around for 12 - 14 years in F1 and
consistently performed better than anyone else. One cannot say that he did
not have enough competition, he always had the best car or that he won by
cheating - over such a long period.
By the way, I am not a Schumacher fan. Neither am I a fan of any other
driver but sure am an F1 fan. I do appreciate the entertainment provided
by most of the good drivers including Senna. I just happen to think that
Michael has done the Best. Cheers - Ryan - Sri Lanka
On basis of achievements Schumacher is the most
successful, however there is more to judging drivers. I would first like
to clear some misconceptions that I have noticed doing the rounds...
1. Myth - Senna always had better cars - This is strictly true only in '88
and '89. But in those seasons his team-mate was Prost (who surprisingly is
never considered in this discussion).
In '90 the Honda engine saved the aerodynamically deficient McLaren
chassis on a few occasions but the truth is that Senna's ability to win
races even when the McLaren was slower in the races made the difference,
esp at places like Belgium, Italy and Portugal (just like Schumi won it in
2000, when the competition was close).
In 1991 the Williams was a long way ahead but their slow start (like 2003)
and Senna's ability to maximize his finishing position saw him run out a
comfortable winner in the end.
The '94 Williams was initially a difficult car to drive and when you
compare the difference between Hill and Schumacher at the beginning of the
year and the end, it becomes easier to understand this.
2. Myth - Schumacher is better because he had beaten Senna in the first
two races of 1994 - You can't compare based on two races. Remember that
the Williams was difficult to drive, and there was a lot of trickery going
on at Benetton (traction control, launch control, superfast refuelling ;)
... remember the rocket starts at Aida and Magny-Cours, the best of
Schumi's career, looks like he lost that ability later ;) Plus when it
went down to the wire, Schumi cracked under Hill's pressure. He cracked in
'97 again. In those Benetton years Schumi's only competition was Hill, and
then Villeneuve. Until Hakkinen, a driver who could match and often beat
him on pace came along, Schumi had few real rivals.
My own opinion is that Senna and Schumacher are very similar in several
aspects - skill, racecraft, commitment, technical ability etc. They both
possess a single minded ambition to be champion. Senna I believe had a
little extra in pace and skill when it came to racing on the track (he
also made a few more mistakes than Schumacher and Prost). His numerous
spectacular qualifying laps, his drives against faster cars driven by some
of the great drivers of the 80's in the Toleman and Lotus, his historic
first lap at Donnington immediately come to my mind as examples. Any
opponent was undoubtedly pressured to drive at the ragged edge to keep up
with Senna.
Schumacher has built a formidable team around him which is why he is so
successful. His team works tirelessly for his championship and that
includes Barrichello, all of Ferrari and often the FIA. It always seems
that when it comes to off-track foul play, his teams are at the centre of
attention. These are his 'strengths' too, which Senna didn't have in the
same measure.
However, in a sport when every little thing matters , these factors
contribute enormously to Michael's success. For example if Williams had
insisted at all times that Ralf defer to Montoya (Canada, France,
Nurburgring) this year, and worked around Juan, the championship would
have been a lot lot closer. Same with Hakkinen and Coulthard in 2000.
However, that spoils the sport and Michael is responsible for insisting
that his team mates race for him, even when Ferrari have the resources to
support two championship contenders, and at times no competition like in
2002.
Senna, was a flawed genius but his passion for motor racing and magnetic
personality make him my personal favourite, and the reason I began to
follow Grand Prix. His '90 accident with Prost is the only real major blot
on his career. He was at his best when he died and if you have followed
his career it's good money that he would have gotten even better... Samir
- USA
(In reply to Ryan from Sri Lanka) Ok fair play mate, I
respect opinions from any Ff1 fan. Obviously you are a Schumi fan and of
course I am a Senna fan. I would be interested to know what you think of
the fair play at Ferrari? Rubens letting!!! Michael win at Austria?
Licking Michaels boots as Alain Prost said?? For sure you would have to
admit these 2 drivers were very talented and leagues ahead of many, but I
can't deny the fact that Michael is not under pressure in the same way
that Ayrton was in the races in his heyday. I would not describe Coulthard
nor Montoya as threats to Schumacher. Montoya is still too inexperienced
and Coulthard will never be champ.
In Sennas day you had to drive the car, nowadays you just sit back and
switch on the ABS and traction control, there's no work that goes into
it.
Plus Schumi is a bit of cheat when it comes to ramming!! people off the
circuit (Hill 94 and Villeneuve in 97!!) I'm well aware of the fact that
Senna rammed Prost off but that was in retaliation for the year before
when Prost did a Schumacher and took him out.
I guess none of us are saints and without a doubt I completely respect
you're opinion. I will be interested to see your reply - Adam -
England
The argument is over Schuey is the best simple as that. As
EMELIO from Brazil says even Brazilians are beginning to accept it. Adam
from England also forgets that the electronic aids were not available in
the junior formulas and sports cars series that MS drove in and won in the
late eighties so his comment that Schuey would not be as good without
driver aids is irrelevant - Mathew T - Australia
Adam of England, Please don't get me wrong I'm not taking
a hit at you but your reasons for rating Senna higher than Schumacher is
way out of whack!
Firstly, don't insult the good drivers in F1 by including Ricardo Patrese
as good competition. He won only one race in his 200 odd races, that too
because he was in the fastest car at the time (by miles) & Nigel
Mansell retired during the race. Mansell, I must say, was quality
opposition.
Are you saying that Hakkinen, Coulthard & Montoya are not good
drivers? (I agree that Hill & Villeneuve are not.)
Secondly, between 91 & 94 Schumacher never had a faster car than
Senna. Also remember that Schumacher had just entered the F1 scene &
Senna was already a Champion.
You say that Senna was leading in the Imola race in '94 but do you
remember that Schumacher overtook Senna in both races prior to that and
won in style - when Senna was in the best car at the time.
A driver who risks his his life is not a good driver. He won't live long
enough to win many races -for himself, for his Team, for his Fans or his
Sponsors. Please do not expect that from a driver. Some people say that
you should not compare two (or more) drivers of different eras. I can
agree to that to a certain extent. However, if, for what it's worth one
needs to do so, then the best way is to see what a driver has done with
the Car & Team he's given against the opposition at the time. There's
no point talking about Senna driving different cars & Schumacher
driving semi-automatics with electronics. His opposition had the same
benefits. Cheers - Ryan - Sri Lanka
This is a comment to T.B. from Canada and all the others
that talk about the fact that Schumi has made some dirty mistakes in his
career. Ironically I find that the people that loved Senna usually hate
Schumi. The reason I find it ironic is that Senna was a racer who would do
anything to win a Grand Prix. T.B. from Canada says Schumi is dirty for
what he did to Jacques and Damon and yet he loves Senna, a driver that
would take out his own teammate just to win a race, let alone a
championship. He would do whatever it takes.
Whether you like one over the other, the fact remains we'll never know for
sure who would have been better in today's cars. They are both incredible
drivers of their own eras, and should not have to be compared at all, but
individually appreciated for what they have done in Formula One. - M M
- Canada
There is no doubt in my mind that Ayrton Senna was a much
faster, more gifted and deserved world champion. Although Schumacher has
won more titles and had more race wins, this doesn't necessarily make him
the greatest.
Senna had many more poles than him. Meaning in a one shot qualifying he
was faster than anyone else (often in an underpowered car). He had a lot
of fast rivals. Alain Prost, Riccardo Patrease, Nigel Mansell, Nelson
Piquet etc. He had many mechanical failures that he could not help (many
of them happened while he was leading and He did not have a teammate to
let him win grands prix.
You only had to watch him drive a lap and then compare it to Schumacher to
see just what makes them so different. Senna really drove the car to the
limit at all times, to the extent that he was putting his life at risk.
Schumacher would not risk his life to win, he only has the desire. During
the seasons they raced together (91 - 94) Senna often beat Schumacher
hands down, despite the fact Schumacher's Benetton was faster, and during
the race that Senna was killed (Imola 94) Senna was winning in a badly
handling Williams.
There is no way you could say Schumacher is better, he has had it easy
with all the electronics and no.2 drivers. It would never have been
allowed ten years ago and when Senna was driving in 94 they had only just
introduced the semi automatic gearbox. Thank you for reading - Adam -
England
Senna is better than Schumacher...Senna is the best driver
at all time no one is greater than him - Jondale - Philippines
Senna is the best. The numbers cannot say that Shummy is
the best. Because Senna did not have time enough to show us who is the
greater in F1. Senna was talent, emotion, speed... Thanks - Rafael
- Brazil
Senna was a more complete driver. He raced during both
eras. Turbo, Aspirate, manual shifter and Semi-automatic.
During the turbo era, 1300 Hp (Now it is 900hp with Driver electronic
Aid), He was champion racing against Prost with the same car with no
electronics and Manual Shifter.
He was champion in 1990 with an aspirated car and 1991 with the
semi-automatic car racing against Mansell and Mighty Williams.
Schumi just raced with aspirated engines and semi automatic cars.
I wish the FIA could eliminate the semi-automatic shifter. The difference
between Schumi and the other drivers will be for sure reduced - Chrytian
- Germany
The respective periods that these drivers competed means
that measuring the technology vs skill ratio is difficult. Add in other
factors like rule changes and team orders, and it makes it even harder.
They can't be accurately compared, but it can be said that they were/still
are the best drivers of their times - Peter - Australia
They are both in a class of there own. Two totally opposite
people, both great in their own right Senna started when he was young, Michael
older. Two different types of driving, and two totally different types of personalties -
Janis - USA
I had to read all the comments because now that M.S. has
his 6th title, the comparisons move from the race track where things are
decided to the minds of fans --where they achieve a legendary
status.
Lovers of Ayrton (and I am one), remember brilliant moments on the road
and a kind of vulnerability about his own talent when he talked about it.
One book I read about Ayrton remembered him saying that he scared himself
one day on the track and so brought the car in and parked it (he was
testing, not racing then, needless to say.) He realized he was driving
beyond, not merely the car's limit, but his own!
Now I rather doubt Michael has ever had such a moment or, if he has, that
he would ever share it with us. But that doesn't make him an inferior
driver --or an inferior human being; it simply means he is naturally
reticent and supernaturally talented at bringing his entire rational being
into and incredibly challenging environment and CONTROLLING both himself
and the situation. So. If I were an owner and wanted to win races and
championships, and could put anyone I wanted (alive or dead) in the
machine --it would be Michael.
Racing is a business. It is about winning; being the "best" is
about demonstrating some sort of spiritual superiority. And I, for one,
can't imagine any excitement in some kind of eternal and spiritual Grand
Prix. The reason we race is to see who can win. Here. In the here and
now.
By the way, for fun I calculated the qualifiers for last season, thinking
Rubens might have been better at it than Michael (who isn't, as most know,
considered a great qualifier). Guess what? If you give each pole 10, each
2 place 8 and each 3rd place in qualifying 6 points. And if you then
SUBTRACT one point for each G.P. that the person failed to qualify first,
second, or third... Michael has more points (69) than Rubens (65); the
rest are: JPM (56); Ralph (45) & Kimi (31) [compared to D.C.'s MINUS
7!!] Fernando and Jarno each get 2 points and everyone else is in negative
numbers.
So, in his most recent season (a difficult one in many ways) M.S. not only
won the championship; he out-qualified the field!
The man is the model Racing Driver. Period - Jim W - USA
If it wouldn't have been for Senna, Prost now should have
at least 7 titles and who knows how many GP and podiums and vice versa;
Not to count the fact that they achieved what they did against other
monsters like Lauda, Piquet and Mansell.
Schumacher's first pole was the next race after Senna died and up to that
point he had almost nothing for the stats. 98% of what he has achieved has
been against mediocres like Coulthard (not even a 2 place ) and Barrichello
( 3 GP or so in a lifetime ).
Senna's first GP was stolen in his 1st. year in F1 in Monaco racing a
Toleman (Minardi type) and he ended up with a 2 place and a 3 place. Then
he won several GP including Monaco again in 1987 driving a Lotus that was
like driving a Sauber or BAR.
What did Michael win between 1992 and 1993 driving a better car like
Benetton only eclipsed by the shadow of the super Williams? - Tibor -
Ecuador
Michael has to be better. He took Ferrari, which used to
be comparable to Minardi and made them what they are today. Yes he surrounded
himself with the best and brightest and rebuilt a TEAM. Some people say
his driving style is not sporting, if the FIA doesn't stop him, then it is
within the rules end of discussion.
Senna may have been a more entertaining driver, but Michael is a better
TEAM member and leader. It is a shame that we were robbed of the chance to
see these two race in good cars, but I don't think the results of the past
few seasons would be that different - Jeff S - USA
Michael is by far the best!
Senna might have had his days and it would have been quite interesting to
see them up against each other today with the latest tech and all, but I
don't think Senna would have been able to match up to Michael.
Michael has definitely proven his greatness to the world and cannot be
compared to anyone - Jay W - South Africa
Both champions - both had great teams with tremendous
ability. You never know who would be better.
My bet however - Juan Montoya. I would like to see him with equal
equipment - he drives the life out of a car. Longevity however is
important - can't argue with what Michael has accomplished - Brakeman -
USA
They are both in a class of there own. Two totally opposite
people, both great in their own right Senna started when he was young, Michael
older. Two different types of driving, and two totally different types of personalties -
Janis - USA
Who knows how many championships Senna would have won? He
won three and then he died. I doubt he would have won six, but Senna was a
terrific driver. I'm sure if the question was Senna vs Schumacher in 2003,
then it would have been a different story.
They cannot be compared, full stop - Daniel P - Australia
Senna is dead! Schummy is the best! - Milton - Brazil
I do not rate Senna high at all, there were lots of better
drivers in F1. Even during Senna's era - Yves B - USA
Senna was a tractor driver compared to Schumi. And Schumi
proved it before Senna died - Formula1fan - EU
No questions. Shimmy's the best, even Brazilians are
beginning to accept it - Emilio N - Brazil
As much as many would like to, the two cannot be compared.
Senna's death before his time leaves too many questions unanswered.
It is just as pointless an exercise as comparing either with Fangio (who
started racing in Grands Prix in his forties for goodness sake), Clark
(how many more titles would he have won?) or Nuvolari - Gavin -
Australia
Whilst I agree with the views of many others, that, it is
sometimes very difficult to compare who in fact is/was a better driver in
my opinion looking at both Senna and Schumacher in their respective eras
and what they have accomplished I for one rate Schumacher in front of
Senna. Not taking anything away from Senna for my mind Schumacher has
succeeded far more than Senna did. Having said that it is unfortunate that
we would never know what Senna may have achieved.
Looking at Schumacher's achievements, he has won driver's championships at
times where he was not in the best F1 car, ie at Benetton and his early
days at Ferrari. Leaving aside his championship in 2002, Ferrari could not
be considered to be leaps and bounds above any other F1 team.
Putting everything into perspective Schumacher could be credited a large
amount for putting Ferrari where it is today. Driver's in the past have
not done this for Ferrari nor any other teams for that matter.
One distinction I will draw between Senna and Schumacher, Schuey in my
opinion was the better driver in the wet by far. He comes second to none
and apart from Senna the rest of the driver's past and present don't even
rank a mention alongside both these driver's.
Putting aside Schuey's six championships, he has come come second on at
least four occasions that I can think of, twice missing out on a
championship by a few points to Damon Hill and Jacque Villeneuve.
Furthermore Schuey may have had another championship under his belt had he
not collided some years ago where Mika Hakkinen won his second
championship and if I'm not mistaken Mika won it by some ten points or so,
bearing in mind Schuey missed a number of races that season.
In conclusion both Senna and Schumacher will both go down in history as
two of the greatest F1 drivers and along with many others it is a great
shame that we didn't see both these drivers battling against each other
when both were at the peaks - K K - Australia
I think a great driver would still be great regardless of
the cars technical regs etc. The talent and drive will still be present.
Both these drivers had that greatness, but I think Michael has the edge
over Senna in that he is able to keep that drive, determination but more
importantly focus than what Senna was able to do, remember Michael's and
Ralf's drive in Monza after their mother just died?
Senna though had more visible passion, which I think Michael has but keeps
it hidden from the public - Steven P - Australia
Let it be known, I have been involved and followed Auto
Racing for the last 39 years and Michael Schumacher is the Greatest Racing
Driver to ever sit in any race car any time ever !!!!!!!!!!. - Dave W -
USA
To Ryan from S-L. I guess it's a matter of how you
perceive life after all and how different people can succeed, doing the
same thing.
You are either a perfect machine like MS and move yourself and your team
to miracles or you have a gift to go beyond miracles. And that's what I
think Senna was...
Don't tell me MS could pull out the Senna Barcelona stand pleaseee.. - Gem
D - USA
The two cannot be compared ... period... - kaustubh -
India/USA
While I agree that Senna was one of the best & perhaps
the most aggressive, Michael Schumacher is the Complete Driver :
Aggressive, Intelligent (not very sporty though).
I rate Michael slightly ahead of Senna. We were all denied some real
entertainment with the tragic demise of Senna. I would have loved to see
both of these guys going at each other on a wet track!
A few things that I don't see people considering :
1. Michael won the Championship in 1994 beating the Williams Renault,
which was many Country miles ahead of his Benetton Ford. Remember, Senna
was in it in the first 2 races & Michael got ahead of him.
2. When Michael joined Ferrari, they couldn't even finish a race, let
alone winning! He won 3 races (I think) in the first season. (If I
remember right Senna was asked to join Ferrari but didn't want to, because
the car wasn't good. He joined Williams instead. Don't hold me to this - I
vaguely remember reading something along these lines.)
3. Michael drove about a third of a race stuck in 5th gear, still
finishing second. Most would have parked their car.
4. Gem D of USA - I agree that those were brilliant manoeuvres by Senna
& we saw many of those from him. So did we from Schumacher! One that I
regard as the best is when in 1995, he overtook Damon Hill on a tight
Chicane (?) in pouring rain; he was on Slicks & Damon on Wets. Made it
look so easy. Damon was sliding even on some of the straights. Can't
remember the venue - could be Donington park, again.
5. In 1992, when Nigel Mansell was thrashing the hell out of everyone,
Michael beat him by 30 odd seconds in the rain in Belgium. Senna was
racing too.
6. And when given a good car (Ferrari 2002), he ends up on the podium in
every race. Match that!
That's my two-cents' worth. Cheers! - Ryan T - Sri Lanka
Ayrton raced clean and fair. MS is a dirty driver who will
wreck himself to stop his competition from beating him. He won two
championships that way. He did it to Hill and also to Jacques. Put him in
a BAR or one of the other less developed teams and if he can win a world
championship with them then I would change my opinion of him.
Bottom line is that you can't compare. One is dead other wise he might be
a six time champion - T B - Canada
It was a pleasure watching senna drive. Can't say the same
for Michael. That's more important for me than how many championships they
won. Here are 2 clips with senna doing things MS couldn't imagine doing in
his wildest dreams..
Donington Park 1993 - Barcelona
1991
It's so sad we lost him so early ... Gem D - USA
You can' t compare Fangio with Senna or Schumacher or
Schumacher with Senna .. Different regulations, times, track
designs, team orders. But they are alike and different in the same
time. They brought happiness, sadness and surprises for millions of
fans.
Senna firstly was brave and some time dangereus (Mantoya has this black
side of the Power). Was technical and never took anything granted. He
valued his adversary and he put them on the edge.
Schummy is maybe one of the most technical drivers in F1. A very
calculated one and hardly fogiving. He is one of the guys with such
mechanical and technical experience like nobody else.
Lets face it in 1991, Schumacher was a "greenhorn" teaming
Jordan's more experienced Andrea De Cesaris and who knows how the race
will resume without his dnf on the first lap. 1992 Schummy score Senna 0.
1993 Senna score big time-21 points Schummy 0. In 1994 new rules new
regulations, before Tamburello tragedy Senna was struggling to adapt but
in the mean time Schummy had 2 wins. So who's beter. We'll never know and
the speculations will take place at any discussion. Who's more like Senna,
who's more like Michael. We will never know. It is certain impression in
my view that Kimmy is a truly falower of Mika Hakkinen, and no one in
actual F1 circus has a better discipol than Mika. Thanks, Marian -
Romanian living in the USA
These drivers are great in their own rights, in their own
time. Comparing them is just like the joke of a comparison people made on
Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano.
Different conditions and different race car developments make comparison
almost impossible between two drivers of different times. In his time,
Senna was the champion for a number of reasons. Foremost is his ability
and heart on track. Schumacher is also a champion in his present time for
a number of reasons, perhaps, the same as Senna's. But grand prix rules
then are relatively different from the rules now so one may not be able to
compare how either driver would have adjusted with the different rules.
Engine, tire, electronics, etc., development are also different in their
respective times.
The real winner here are actually the F1 fans like myself as we are
fortunate enough to have enjoyed watching both drivers, great as they are
in their own rights, battle it out with the best of the rest.
Record books? To hell with the record books. Just enjoy the races as they
come. It is a great sporting event, producing great sportsmen - Manny P
- Philippines
To me, the greatest tragedy of Senna's death, apart from
the loss of one of F1's greatest characters and drivers, was the
accompanying loss of the years of great rivalry that would have existed
between him and Schumacher. The thing that both these drivers share is an
attitude that winning is the only acceptable result at any race and any
championship. They are not happy with simply being an F1 driver!
They have not succeeded by making it into F1 - they have simply qualified
for the big show! Hakkinen almost fits this mould, maybe Villeneuve too
and to a lesser extent Hill, but none seem to match the utter
determination and dedication of these two. It is their life -
everything!
I thought Montoya was there but settling for 2nd and then whining about
backmarkers at Monza was a disappointment to me. Still though, I think if
he raises his mental approach a notch or two then Montoya is there with
them.
Raikkonen is like Hakkinen #2 to me. Unfortunately, Ralf is not like
Michael #2.
Though Webber, Alonso, Button and Da Matta are good, I'm not sure there's
a Senna incarnate amongst them.
Anyway, I think that Senna wins 4 straight WDCs if not for his fatal
accident. 3 at the very least.
Not that I think he's better than Schuey. Just that the William's was a
great car over this period. The Benetton-Renault of 1995 aside perhaps - Byron
F - Australia
