Best driver in F1?

Even IF what you are saying is true, it is not Schumacher's fault that he was competiting in an era that he had no equal, not to mention the fact that you had just insulted a whole generations of GP drivers in one shot. It was not Schumacher's fault that Senna crashed and died at Imola in 1994. The very same arguement can be made for J. Clark and G. Villenevue, who knows what they could have accomplished if they had not died before their time. Senna is gone, get over it and move on. He was a great driver during his era and is perhaps one of the best of all times, but that's about it.

 

What do you mean "perhaps"? If Senna isn't one of the best of all times, who is?

I'm no Senna fan, but c'mon!

 

Michael Schumacher has won 85 Grand Prix races, led more race laps than I can remember, surpassed the great Argentinian Juan Manuel Fangio in total driving championships, and yet there are still some who question his mention
as the greatest driver in the history of racing. Senna had his charisma and charm, but I wouldn't put him ahead of Fangio, Sir Jackie Stewart, or even Gilles Villeneuve. Michael's records will remain intact for a long time!

 

Simmer down, my friend. The reason I said "perhaps", as it is too hard to assess who are the top 5 drivers of all times as it is not possible to come up with just 5. For every "top 5", you can also come up with at least another 2 names that can easily make a case to displace one of the 5. Then where do you go from there, a top 10 list, a top 15, top 20, 30, 40, 50 etc. And where do we stop? It is simply not possible to compare drivers of different eras, I have never seen F1 in the pre-war era, or in the 50's, 60's and the 70's, so I can't even think of commenting on what the drivers of those eras had to deal with and to go through to become a world champion.

As a real world comparion is not possible among all the drivers, hence statistics is all we have left to go with, but as anyone of us knows and understands, numbers can never tell the complete story, thus we are back to square one and the cycle begins again.

Anyway, I do think Senna should be one of the top 10, but can I claim him to be one of the top 3 or top 5? Honestly, I can't say that I as I do not know enough about the complete F1 history and all it's drivers to make that claim. However, if we go by shear numbers only, as in # of champiosnips won and # of GP won (There has to be some limiting factors somewhere as there are way too many variables out there), it will be hard to argue against J.M.Fangio and M.Schmacher for their place among the Top 5 ever.

 

Ok, I see your point. Each decade of F1 produces at least a couple of drivers who are heads and shoulders above the rest. So yes, even a top ten list could be insufficient.

 

I have to vote for MS. Last week it was KR, the week before it was FA, but untill they dominate like MS, then he gets my vote. FA allready has 3 wins and 5 podiums, so he might be better than MS, but lets see how the season finishes before we crown a new king.

 

According to F1.com

MS 217 starts in 13 years
Wins 83 (that's 38%)
Poles 63 (that's 29%)

Senna 161 starts in 7 years (and it wasn't a full 7 years)
Wins 41 (that's 25%)
Poles 63 (that's 40%)

In my opinion if you want to take a real look at how they stack up together just end MS career in 1999 (not a full seven either but more than Senna's) and compare the number of wins and poles. Or you could just take the info after MS made his 161st start. Yes MS didn't have a good car when he first joined Ferrari but Senna didn't have the best cars at Tolman or during his final years at McLaren. I think this would equal the two out in so far as that argument goes.

Someone like to do the math and see how they stack up?

 

My choice for best driver now:

1. Kimi
2. MS
3. Truli
4. Fisi
5. Alanso

 

Senna had 65 poles and he raced from early 1984 to early 1994 - 9 1/2+ seasons in total.

 

Yeah yeah, whatever you say, keep right on smoking what you're smoking. Michael could have easily bought the farm on many occasions, the cars are way safer these days. He'd mop up the floor with MS on most days. You obviously know nothing about F1 history

 

From what I've heard and read, Michael will retire with Ferrari and probably not go back. But I wouldn't be surprised to see him owning a team, or being involved in some way like Jackie Stewart, and so many other great drivers. Let's remember he's aging and is already one of the oldest drivers on the grid. Reaction times slow, life's priorities change, etc. It'll be fun however, to see who steps up from the young crowd as the new dominant force.

 

Other than Mika Hakkinen who else was even close. Hill was brilliant on ocassion but that's about it. Everyone else was either at the end or the very begininng of thier careers. How many drivers from those days are even still around? Senna was dealing with two 3 times world champs and Nigel Mansell who was brilliant if unlucky for most of his career. How can the two era's even be compared. MS would make a lot of mistakes while under no pressure when he first started out. I take nothing away from him, he's the most successful driver of all times but i don't think he's the best ever. Not even close.

 

I understand that you are a BIG Senna fan, and that you feel passionate toward Senna's career, but let's try to be realistic here. No era should ever be compared, and if you have been on the racing forum long enough, you must have seen me saying that time and time again.

As I stated before, there are way too many variables that comes in to play when anyone tries to compare one driver to another. Should Schumacher be punished because of the lack of competition as you claimed? If you want to blame anyone, blame Senna for dying too early. It is Senna's fault that Schumacher had no competitions at all then, isn't it? And while you are at it, blame Alesi for staying with Ferrari, who knows what he could have done if he was behind the wheels of a Williams, Bennetton (When they were good) or a McLaren. Also blame Frank Williams for letting Mansell go, FW should have paid Mansell and let him stay on along side with Prost etc. Don't you see that there are way too many if's and but's? you are basing your arguement on speculations and speculations are meanless except fun to talk about or think about. Hence I never said that M.Schumacher is the best, but according to stats (things that actually happened), he has to be considered as one of the best.

 

Something just occured to me, does MS's stat include the season when he was "erased", the 1997 season?

 

I Report. You Decide.

Michael Schumacher (14 years, including his six race rookie season and 1999 when he missed 7 races due to a broken leg):
7 World Championships
83 Grand Prix wins
Youngest driver to win twin world championships (94 and 95).
Rookie Year: Best finish was first at Spa, 1991.
Last Five Years as a F1 driver (not including 2005): Five World Championships (2000-2004).

Ayrton Senna (9 seasons and 2 races):
3 World Championships
41 Grand Prix Wins
Rookie Year: Best finish was ninth.
Last Five Years as a F1 driver (not including 1994): Two World Championships (1990 and 1991)

 

Mr. Ferrari never knew Michael. It would be interesting to hear his take on Michael, now.

 

With that logic we could argue, that Eddie Irvine's pressure on MS was too great and it tempted Michael into a costly mistake at Stowe in 1999.

 

Who's Eddie Irvine??

 

Slight correction as Senna's best finish his rookie year was 2nd at Monaco in 1984 in a Toleman (a poor to average car and in his sixth F1 race) which he would have passed Alain Prost in the all conquering McLaren and won the race if the clerk of the course Jacky Ickx had not stopped the race at the time because of the rain. Also he finished 6th in his second and third races in his rookie season at the 1984 South African GP and 1984 Belgian GP.

 

I never said Schumacher wasn't one of the best. That would be wrong as well, but if you are basing that assesment on his accomplishments then it would be wrong to call him the best simply because he's had a dominant car for so long. The best way to judge a driver to me, is when they don't have ther best car, that is when you see what they are really made of. 93, to me was Senna's best year even though he didn't win it all. Same for MS when he didn't have the best car is when he was really showing what he was made of. A driver that can work miracles with a car that is subpar is more impressive than a driver that has the best car all the time and just has to go out there and finish the race. One thing you are leaving out is the fact that the two did race against each other on several occasions so you can make a comparison although an incomplete one. Stats in this case if you really want to be fair, only count on years they raced each other.

 

thank you for account of senna. he was in another league than shumacher. i think shumacher and prost have similar talents but senna was better by an order of magnitude. even the year he died, the williams was not the best for the first 3 races and i remember saying "what must he be doing to put that pig on the poll?"

shumacher has got to wonder what if...? senna won in a toleman, lotus, mc laren, and williams...he could win in anything.

in most cases, the best car wins...as we have seen in recent years but having said that, the best always get the best! you have to assume had the crash not occured, senna would have wone the championship...how many more would have come?

 

Sure, let's compare a seasoned F1 driver to a relatively new driver. You don't actually think comparing M.S. in a Jordan or with a developing team (Bennetton) to Senna in a McLaren or a Williams is a better method to gauge their abilities, do you? What kind of logic is that?! This is exactly why I said comparing their stats are pointless because you will never be able to creat a truely fair situation to compare them, as you shouldn't do so to begin with anyway.

 

I caught the mistake: Senna's best rookie finish is second at Monte Carlo.
Still, Schumacher's best rookie finish, his first full season, is first at Spa.

*Senna finished his rookie season in ninth with 13 points.
*Michael finished his first, full season in third with 53 points.

 

On what do you base that conclusion since Michael won the first two Grands Prix whereas Ayrton had two DNFs?

 

If that is your vote as the best guitarist ever, then I feel very sorry for your ignorance and for not having a clue about music. But I bet you know a lot about LSD, pot and other drugs...