Don't forget AS and MS didn't start their careers with competitive rides like LH. Yep, that Toleman was a real world beater....
Exactly. The point about statistics is that although they are "facts" they are meaningless without context. There is no point in quoting some bald statistic to try to "prove" that one driver is/was better than another.
Remember guys, that cars were a lot less reliable during the previous decades than they have been in the last decade, whereas good results were negated by reliablity. I think I read somewhere that in the 70's the cars had a 50% finishing ratio to a race where each subsequent decade they have become more reliable. Now a days not accounting for boneheaded moves we have about a 90% finishing ratio or higher.
You are correct my friend, imagine what Clark's stats would have been if his car didn't breakdown so much. He had what 25 wins and ONE second place in 66 Starts.
And even though few question Clark's ability, I think his is a name that should be a little closer to the tips of our tongues when discussing greatness. A perfect example of where leaning on the statistical lightpole (# wins) neglects the accomplishments of a Champions' Champion. And he drove everything well, too.
I would like to have seen MS win 7 titles in the era of Senna, Prost, Mansell etc having those as teammates. To say that MS would have walked all over Senna is one of the dumbest things I think ive ever heard.
Look at the source where it is coming from? Read their posts and see how knowledgeable they are about F1 and how long they have been going to the races. Most of them probably started in the Schumacher/Ferrari ERA of 2000. There is no question that Michael was the greatest driver of his generation with or without Stats, but he also had somethings in his favor that will never happen in history again. His opportunity (which he did exceedingly well) of taking control of Ferrari and having the right tech people was one of them. Also he emerged at a time when Mansell was old, Prost retired, and Senna was dead.
I believe that if you factor reliability into the equation that Fangio flattens everyone else by a huge margin. I'm not out to start a generation war here just mentionning how strong Fangio's statistics actually were.
Can see that as well, that is the problem of comparing different eras with the different types of cars they were driving.
It is a generational thing. It's natural to have more interest in and affinity with your contemporaries and as many on here were not around in Clark's day he is little more than some numbers in the F1 records to many.
One must also keep in mind that back in the day of Fangio if your car broke down then your lesser team mate would have to pull over and give you his car. Imagine that in the day of MS? Oh and Tony was not around then so he wouldnt have know that.
The measurement I use for MS is different. He was what he was good or bad. I respect him for the millions he gave to the Tsunami relief fund. BTW; GV<AS<MS thbbbbbt !
That is a great way to look at it, and one of the reasons I respect Senna so much is the fact that his foundation in Brasil, feeds and clothes 1.4 Million poor children a year. The measure of these guys in what they did in their private lives is no comparison on what they did on the race track. By the way, GV was my first racing hero when I saw him in Long Beach in 78 & 79. Best, Tony
I have yet to hear anyone say that MS would've walked all over Senna. Senna is one of the greatest of all time. His abilities are legendary, and his ferocity when qualifying is second to none. We will never know how well Senna may have done, but the likeliness of him winning four more drivers championships at his age with Schumacher on the track is not probable. Perhaps one could see AS=4 WDC's and MS=6 WDC's, but 7 for Senna and just 3 for MS is not likely. One thing for sure is that as long as the single "Balls Out" qualifying lap was the measure, Senna would've by far extended his record had he lived to race a few more seasons.
Senna was 34 at the time that he was killed at Imola and likely could have won the 94 title. Do you really think that's all he would have won thereafter in the Williams? Not likely either. IIRC Senna said he'd retire if he ever matched Fangio's record and I feel he would have won in 95 and/or 96 were he still with Williams which would put him at 5 at least. P.S. I don't know how this has turned into a Senna VS MS thread yet again. Ayrton is gone and Michael is retired. Neither is coming back. Time to move on guys, this could turn out to be another wonderful season. Like it or not, F1 has been tons more exciting since MS has been retied. I wouldn't trade this for the world.
Look what guys like Damon Hill and JV did in the Williams in 96 and 97. Not to mention that the 95 Williams was the top of the crop but they had two Journey Man drivers like Damon Hill and David Coulthard in the cars. Just to be fair to Michael, had he been in a Williams in 96 and 97 he probably would have won every single race that season as Williams was so superior in Chassis and Engine. The tragedy of 94 was we didn't get to see the battles between MS and Senna. Senna according to Patrick Head was at his peak and that is why he put a difficult car on the pole in 3 races. Unfortunately, he lost his lead in the pits and was making up time in Brasil when the car got away from him and he spun. In Aida, Japan at the next race he was on Pole and got crashed out at the first turn by Hakkinen. At Imola again he was on Pole and died on the 7th lap. He didn't do a lot of laps in that season, people forget that. A better gauge of an excellent season was 1993 when you had him in a McLaren Ford winning 5 races and finishing second in the championship to Alain Prost in a Williams Renault and Michael Schumacher who finished I believe fourth in a Factory Ford Benetton. Saying that, not taking away anything from MS, as he was and is a superb talent, and IMHO he probably would have won last years WDC in the F2007. Senna only had the dominant McLaren (with Prost in the next seat) in 1988, 89, 90. Even the 91 Williams was a better car than the 91 McLaren.
It is difficult to accurately determine what might have happended, I do think that it is fair to say that Senna probably would have won the title in 1994, being that Damon got so close (with some help of Schumacher not competing in Italy and Portugal). 1995 probably goes to Schumacher, 1996 and 1997 to Senna (defintely stronger than Damon Hill and Jaques Villeneuve). To be fair, Schumacher should have picked up 1999 but for the incident at the Britsh GP that took him out of all of the remaining races except for the last 2. By my reasoning (purely hypothetical) that would total 6 for Senna (1988, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996 and 1997) and 6 for Schumacher (1995, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004), thereby putting them equal. Both were considerably better than those they competed with, but I believe the caliber of drivers that Senna competed against that were in top teams (Lauda, Prost, Piquet, Mansell) was stronger than those Scumacher faced (Prost (beat Michael in 1993 with a superior car (the Williams) versus a good car (Benetton), Hill, Villeneueve, Hakkinen, Irvine, Barrichello, Montoya, Ralph Schumacher and Alonso). Overall I feel fortunate to have been able to watch both of these extremely talented drivers (both live and on television over the entire course of their careers) and that both of them have a continuing legacy off the track with their philanthropy that has benefitted so many. Make no mistake, I know that niether of my 2 favorite drivers were a saint on the track.
F355 said that earlier in the thread. I actually like MS, he was the best driver of his generation, he had the ability to put in many fast consistent laps and he had alot of conditions favoring him. For the pure ability of getting 100% out of a car (when the cars were alot more difficult to drive) Senna doesnt have an equal imo. Statistics never tell the true story, look at Gilles Villeneuve, I bet you could put Senna and Gilles in any sort of vehicle and they would dominate everyone. I dislike how people who became interested in F1 in the MS era do not understand how F1 was before him......
I know how you feel. I too dislike people who became interested in F1 in the during the 80's, who do not understand how F1 was before......... People become a F1 fan for whatever reason, and they usually feel more strongly toward the drivers of that specific period. Fact is, there will never be another Senna, just like there will never be another Fangio, Clark or Schumacher. No one of them is better or worse than the other 3 as they are all the greatest, the most dominating drivers of their era.
I think you and Tifoso are my new heros, you guys have a better understanding of F1 than so many others than I know.
