LOLOLO, me neither...finaly the BS about that goat will stop..and we can start talking about real G.O.A.T.S
+1 stupid game. Schumacher 1999 easily his, 2006 if his car didn't break down in Suzuka whilst leading, also his. 2007 and 2008 because he would've stayed. 2014, 15 and 16 had he not retired etc. Dumb, dumb game.
The only reason that title fight was even close was because of the ridiculous race bans later in the year on MSC. The title race was over before the FIA made him sit out two races for ignoring a black flag from the British Grand Prix 3 races earlier (Lol). He trounced the competition that year, please don't try to act like Damon Hill was some sort of competition for Schumacher. Senna was rattled and there was a new sheriff in town. Schumacher was a beast in 1995. Senna would have had nothing for him in my opinion. To say this would be some sort of guaranteed win for Senna is ludicrous. Lucked into a great car? WTF? No, even if this fictitious scenario played out they would still be talking about how he went to a team that hadn't won anything in decades and built it into a power, just like they do today, because that's what happened. C'mon Gordo, you're better than this...
+1000.....If one looks at what happened at the start of 2004, we can conclude that Senna would have had a very hard time to defeat Michael....In Brazil, after spinning because he couldn't keep up with Michale, Ayrton broke down mentaly.....he got drunk and went to benetton motorhome calling Shummi out, saying he would never again humiliate him...it was a very sad scene, Senna had to be removed from there while Michael just stood there without anything to say.....Michael clearly had the uperhand on Senna....the fact that damon arrived to the last race with any chyance was a pure fraude by Mosley....Michael did 5 races less...and still he was leading!!!
Oh look, more Senna Vs Schumacher nonsense. Guess what? since everyone is on about Hamiltons stats, Schumie couldn't keep up with Senna when they raced together. I personally think Senna would've won 5-6 Championships in his career. But History is written. Statistics only for races they participated together Michael Schumacher - Ayrton Senna 41 - Races - 41 11 26% Best on grid 73% 30 21 51% Best at finish 48% 20 5 12% Victory 24% 10 0 0% Pole 19% 8 20 48% Podium 46% 19 9 21% Fastes Laps 9% 4 26 63% Finished In Points 60% 25 139.00 33% Points 38% 158.00 http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/senna_vs_schumacher.html This is actually a good read and pretty unbiased. It takes points from both sides. Fact is, no one will know for sure.
..Maybe because in those 41 races, Ayrton was the top driver at the time and had the best cars avaiable, while Michael was just a newbie....why don't you try to compare the first 41 races from Ayrton with the first 41 from Michel...does that seem fair to you? What was the nonsense i wrote? did i lied about something?
In the modern era, the GOAT contest I would like to have seen more of, was Senna vs Schumacher. The fact that we were robbed of that by cruel fate is regrettable. Regardless, those two are absolutely GOAT candidates. Surely we can all agree on that. My hope for 2017 is that there is more than one team capable of winning the championship and that can finally see more than 2 drivers contest the WDC.
Stop being so defensive, it was nonsense all around. I didn't single anyone out. Fact of the matter is this, nobody will ever know what could've happened. Lewis will go down in history as one of the greats, regardless if you like him or not. He'll most likely end up with his 4th WDC this year and 2nd all time wins. Whether or not Vettel and Ferrari will make that gap disappear is yet to be seen.
Means nothing because they were in different cars and Senna was in his prime and MSC was just beginning his career. Pretty amazing that MS actually had more higher finishes, finishes in points, fastest laps and podiums.
Let's not forget about the TC that MS might have enjoyed during the 94' season if we believe the likes of Senna and others? It's a shame that AS died as it would have been a great season with Senna trying to catch Schumi who had built a large lead. Also remember that as the season carried on, Williams finally sorted the car out and it was much more stable than earlier in the year, which allowed Damon to stay close.
Obviously nobody could no...but shumacher was showing in 2004 he was the man to beat, like it or not. Senna had passed his prime and Shumacher still hadn't reached it, but he was phisicaly much stronger and better prepared than Ayrton ever was....you often saw Senna in the podium completly exausted...shumacher was the oposite..seemed as fresh as when he stated the race!! Truth is Senna was crumbling mentaly in 2004...what happened at brazil proves it... And sorry but lewis will not go down as one of then greats..regardless of how many more title he'll win...and neither will go Seb..whom by the way is a much more complete driver.
This ban and the 2 disqualifications didn't come out of the blue, just to favour Damon Hill; Benetton and Schumacher were caught cheating !!! In fact, Benetton was lucky not to be stripped of all his points like Tyrrell and McLaren were at one point.
May 1, 1994. Was in the gym today and watched "Senna" on the ipad whilst on the treadmill. LOVE his response to the question about his happiest times-racing karts vs. Fullerton, no money, no politics, no bs. Great stuff
1 DQ for not taking a penalty (overtaking another car on formation lap), FIA initially gave a black flag and reinstated the penalty, which he took...but they later DQ'd him anyway, presumably because he finished 2nd still, lol. and a 3 race penalty for wear on the skidblock. Hmm.
"I don't think there is such a driver. You just cannot compare drivers from different eras, different formula, different rules, etc..." This is an interesting perspective, & I'm certainly not going to disagree. However, I will describe a conversation I had at Road Atlanta in approximately 1992 with someone who would know ... So 20+ years ago I pointed out that Jimmy Clark never drove a car with wings or turbos, Fangio never (I believe) drove a mid-engine car, Jackie Stewart never drove a ground effects car (well, once in the 2-J fan car), etc. So I asked whether technology's march would have rendered all those folks, plus the person to whom I was directing the question, non-greats. And to that, Dan Gurney told me, "Jimmy could drive anything." He then paused a moment and added, "I think you would see the same folks at the front of the grid if they were in their prime today". I believe Dan knew what he was talking about. And here is my own insight ... DG didn't say HE could drive anything (although history regards him as racing's greatest all-rounder) which speaks both of Dan's modesty and his great respect for Jim Clark. I have really enjoyed these GOAT threads, as they make me reflect on what I consider to be racing's greatest days.
Cerrated kerbs caused the skidblock issue. Was BS but they wanted to get him on something since they couldn't prove the TC, LC and fuel rig manipulation Matchett 's book about 94 is a must read since he was a Bennetton meccano
And why was McLaren (or all involved team leaders) not excluded from racing for all time like Flavio for industrial spying? Alonso and Hamilton were not even penalized although just like Schumacher the drivers certainly benefit from the team cheating. Or why could Alonso keep a victory achieved by cheating of the team but Schumacher was excluded? Because the penalties were always a question of interpretation and unfortunately of politics...You might be right that Schumacher/Benetton was caught cheating but one might doubt that a few others would have been penalized the same way....
Cool, haven't read it but something for future. All I could find was that FIA said that they didn't agree with benetton regarding the skid block damage. IMO, especially with the heavy penalty, they just wanted a close finish in the title race, and would be happy with either winner.
So, it looks like the rules were enforced in those days. All these infringements were made to obtain an unfair advantage ; it's called cheating.
It was that (just as it was with Hamilton's first WDC and the two fake benefits for Massa) AND it was what I said, which is: Get them for something we can prove. Kinda like the US Govt got Al Capone for tax fraud but never for his real crimes. At any rate I was rooting for MS in 94 and was over the moon when he clinched the title against Hill. Regardless read Matchett's book. It is a fantastic read and 94 is probably one of the most amazing years in F1. So much happened in one year, it is unreal.
Boy, you must think Ron Dennis and company are incompetent idiots, having saw something special enough in Lewis at such a young age to start backing him? Were they ever wrong, huh? All that time and resources - all for what? I mean, he's only won 4 titles, and will probably win more than any other driver currently racing by the time he calls it a day. I admit that I didn't buy into any of the hype when they started talking about him coming into F1. I was skeptical. I didn't want to believe he was anything special, as I was more of an Alonso fan back then. What happened from there is that he proved me wrong, terribly wrong. I would bet that if you asked any team principle, in confidence, which driver they would most like to have on their team, the unanimous answer would be Lewis.
